Major UK Paper Story On How 911 Was Staged

[Guest guest]

S

Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:07:04 -0700 (PDT)

9/11 ON TRIAL,-NOTE: SO FAR THIS IS THE LARGEST ARTICLE EVER

PRINTED BY THE UK MAINSTREAM MEDIA RAISING MANY OF THE SERIOUS

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 9/11 COVER UP

 

 

 

 

 

THE STAGING OF 911

 

Major UK Paper Story On

How 911 Was Staged

 

 

 

 

NOTE: SO FAR THIS IS THE LARGEST ARTICLE EVER PRINTED BY THE UK

MAINSTREAM MEDIA RAISING MANY OF THE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 9/11

COVER UP

 

 

By Tony Rennell ¨C Daily Mail, Saturday 6th August, 2005

 

 

Full Pages 36, 37 & 38, although NOT included on the Daily Mail web site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE ACTUAL PICTURES ON THE DAILY MAIL ARTICLE ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

 

 

 

Daily Mail 1.JPG (372517 bytes)

 

 

Daily Mail 3.JPG (121419 bytes)

 

 

Daily Mail 2.JPG (113142 bytes)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The plot by America¡¯s military bosses was devilish in both design and

intent ¨C to fabricate an outrage against innocent civilians, fool the

world and provide a pretext for war. In the pentagon, a top secret

team drew up a plan to simultaneously send up two airliners painted

and numbered exactly the same, one from a civil airport in America,

the other from a secret military airbase nearby.

 

The one from the airport would have military personnel on board who

had checked in as ordinary passengers under false names. The one from

the airbase would be an empty drone, a remote-controlled unmanned

aircraft.

 

 

 

Somewhere along their joint flight paths, the passenger-carrying plane

would drop below radar height, and disappear, landing back at the

airbase and unloading its occupants in secret.

 

Meanwhile, the drone would have taken up the other plane¡¯s designated

course. High over the island of Cuba, it would be exploded in mid-air

after broadcasting an international distress call that it was under

attack from enemy fighters.

 

 

 

The world would be told that a plane load of blameless American

holidaymakers had been deliberately shot down by Fidel Castro¡¯s

Communists ¨C and that the US had no choice but to declare war and

topple his regime.

 

This ¡®agent provocateur¡¯ plan ¨C code named OPERATION NORTHWOODS and

revealed in official archives ¨C dates from 1962 when the Cold War was

at its height.

 

 

 

Four decades later, there are a growing number of people who look back

at this proto-conspiracy and then to the events of 9/11 and see

uncanny and frightening modern parallels.

 

For Cuba, read Iraq, say these skeptics. For the dummy airliner, read

the Twin Towers in New York.

 

 

 

The Northwoods plan is crucial to the argument presented in a hugely

provocative ¨C many would say fantastical ¨C yet, at times, genuinely

disturbing new analysis of 9/11 by two radical British based

journalists, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan.

 

 

 

Did the CIA actively help the hijackers?

 

In it, they examine various conspiracy theories that suggest the Bush

administration connived in the devastating aerial attacks on New York

and Washington four years ago.

 

The reason? To give Bush the excuse he wanted to push ahead with his

secret, long-held plane to invade Iraq and capture its oilfields.

 

 

 

As we shall see. Many of the theories they raise are outlandish in the

extreme. It would be easy to dismiss them as hokum, the invention of

over-active imaginations among those whose instinct is always to find

some way to blame America for the world¡¯s ills.

 

Are we really supposed to believe that the CIA actively helped the

hijackers succeed ¨C or even that the US government staged the whole

attack and itself murdered thousands of its own citizens?

 

 

 

Some would say that even in discussing suck notions, we are lending

comfort to terrorists and doing a disservice to the dead.

 

However, much of evidence the authors present is undeniably compelling

¨C and their arguments sound rather less preposterous in the light of

OPERATION NORTHWOODS all those years ago. That plan was proposed in

all seriousness by America¡¯s Joint Chiefs of Staff in a memo to the

Secretary of Defence. It got as far as the Attorney General ¨C Robert

Kennedy, brother of the president, John Kennedy, before being vetoed.

 

 

 

It is proof, says Henshall and Morgan, that forces at the top of the

US Government are capable of conceiving a deadly, devious and

fraudulent plan to further their own secret ends ¨C even under such a

supposedly ¡®nice guy¡¯ president as JFK.

 

In which case, can the idea of a 9/11 plot by those who serve the

deeply mistrusted Bush really be ruled out with total certainty,

without at least considering the arguments?

 

 

 

Of course, the official explanation for 9/11 is that Al Qaeda just got

lucky that sunny morning in September 2001.

 

The terrorists conducted their attacks without outside help, by this

account, and intelligence and other blunders by the US authorities

that contributed to their terrible success ¨C for example, ignored

warnings that an attack involving aeroplanes was likely, or issuing US

entry visas to 19 Islamic fanatics set on murder ¨C were just that:

blunders.

 

 

 

This is the White House¡¯s version and it was endorsed by a Washington

commission of inquiry under Thomas Kean published last year.

 

But, according to Henshall and Morgan, the story is full of gaping

holes and unanswered questions. And the most startling question,

which remains unresolved, they say, is why the hijackers¡¯ principal

target, the two 110-storey towers at the World Trade Centre in New

York crumbled so easily.

 

 

 

No-one who watched each building suddenly cascade into dust and debris

in just 20 seconds will ever forget the slow-motion horror. But now

the question is asked: was it all too pat, too neat?

 

Though 30 years old, the towers had expressly been built to survive

the impact of a Boeing 707, a plane the same size and carrying as much

fuel as the ones that struck. That they collapsed after being hit and

fell at such speed was unprecedented in the history of architecture.

It astonished many engineers.

 

 

 

The official explanation is known as the Pancake Effect ¨C steel

supports melting in the intense fireball, causing the floors to tumble

down on each other.

 

The problem here is that the heat from the explosions was probably not

nearly as great as people tend to assume.

 

 

 

There was indeed a lot of kerosene from the aircraft fuel tanks when

flight 11 from Boston hit the North Tower between the 94th and the

98th floors but pictures show that most of this fireballed outwards.

Experts have questioned whether the fire ever got hot enough to melt

the buildings¡¯ steel frames.

 

Oddly, too, original estimates by firefighters after the second plane,

Flight 175, hit the South Tower, were that the blaze was containable.

 

 

 

Two firefighters actually reached the crash zone on the 78th floor and

a tape exists of them radioing down that just two hoses would be

enough to get the fire under control ¨C in which ca\se the situation

should have been little different from a ¡®normal¡¯ office fire, and

no steel tower ever collapsed as the result of such a blaze.

 

 

¡®The fire wasn¡¯t hot enough to cause a collapse¡¯

 

Kevin R Ryan, laboratory director at a US underwriting firm

specializing in product safety, was sacked from his job last year

after questioning the official explanation.

 

¡°The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused

by the burning jet fuel¡±, he said. ¡°If steel did soften or melt,

this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone

the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of

great concern to all Americans.¡±

 

 

 

Intriguingly, Ryan claimed that his firm had checked and approved the

steel used in the towers when they were built. This was later

vehemently denied by the bosses who sacked him.

 

To add to the mystery, the tape of the two firemen was kept secret and

when relatives were finally allowed to listen to it, they had to sign

strict confidentiality agreements.

 

 

 

If the Pancake Effect theory is wrong, there¡¯s one obvious

alternative: that the towers were brought down by the sheer impact of

the planes hitting them. But this, according to the skeptics, ignores

basic physics.

 

The initial hit on the North Tower, for example, destroyed 33 of the

59 columns in its north face. This meant the damage was asymmetrical,

so any resulting collapse would surely have been lopsided.

 

 

 

In fact, the building fell evenly. The TV aerial on the summit sank

vertically, in a straight line.

 

There were other strange anomalies. According to the Kean Commission,

when the first plane struck: ¡®A jet fuel fireball erupted and shot

down a bank of elevators, bursting into numerous lower floors,

including the lobby level, and the basement four storeys below ground.¡¯

 

 

 

Unlikely, say Henshall and Morgan. A firm by a French documentary

crew, who by chance were following a New York firefighting team that

day, shows the first men arriving. The lobby was covered in fine

debris and the windows were shattered but there was none of the soot

or oily residue that burning jet fuel would have left behind.

 

Meanwhile down in the basement, a 50-ton hydraulic press was reduced

to rubble and a steel and concrete fire door demolished. Witnesses

there said the destruction was less like that from a fireball flash

and more like that from a bomb.

 

 

 

Some firefighters told reporters that day that they thought there had

been bombs in the building ¨C before apparently being silenced by

their chiefs. So had Al Qaeda cleverly placed explosives inside the

rowers as well as attacking them from the air?

 

Or, as conspiracy theorists would have it, had some homegrown agency

mined the towers to make sure they fell ¨C but neatly without

collapsing over the rest of Manhattan, America¡¯s financial and

business heartland?

 

 

 

The authors quote an expert demolition contractor from Pennsylvania,

Michael Taylor, who said the fall of the buildings ¡®looked like a

controlled demolition¡¯.

 

Another expert, Van Romero, vice-president for research at the New

Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, reached the same opinion

after studying videos of the disaster, and concluded that ¡®explosive

devices inside the buildings¡¯ caused them to collapse.

 

 

 

Strangely and without explanation, he recanted that view just ten days

after going public with it. Might he possibly have been leaned on?

 

Even stranger, say Henshall and Morgan, was the collapse of a third

building on the World Trade Centre site, a smaller 47-storey block

known as WTC7, which was largely ignored by the world¡¯s media.

 

 

 

It had not been hit by a plane yet it, too, mysteriously fell many

hours after the Towers had gone.

 

The official explanation for this was that fuel stores caught fire as

a result of debris from the burning towers, the building began to

bulge in one corner, and after that it was unsalvageable.

 

 

 

But remember that, according to Henshall and Morgan, a steel-framed

building had never collapsed as a result of a fire before this day.

And, again according to the authors, WTC7 appears almost untouched by

fire in photographs taken at the time.

 

The landlord of the World Trade Centre site, Larry Silverstein,

explicitly suggested at one point that WTC7 was deliberately

demolished. He told a US TV documentary that a decision was taken to

¡®pull¡¯ the building rather than risk loss of life, though this was

later denied.

 

 

 

Certainly, according to Henshall and Morgan, the building¡¯s fall in

seven seconds was just as textbook-tidy and suspicious as the collapse

of the Twin Towers. Given that it also housed offices of the US

Secret Service, the CIA and the Defence Department, this has led

conspiracy theorists to give it a key role in the supposed 9/11 plot

¨C as we will see shortly.

 

Part of the whole problem, according to Henshall and Morgan, is that

vital evidence about what happened was destroyed or muddied in the

wake of the atrocity.

 

 

One expert said there were bombs inside the towers

 

Ground Zero, the base of the towers, was fiercely protected by the

authorities ¨C understandably so because it not only contained human

remains but a cache of seized drugs held in an FBI office and more

than $1 billion of gold from bank vaults in the Buildings.

 

Yet what went on behind all the heavy security?

 

 

 

After most air disasters, the wreckage of the planes is meticulously

gathered up and pieced together in search of clues.

 

Extraordinarily, in the course of removing the rubble from the Twin

Towers to a nearby landfill site, the 9/11 salvage operation seems to

have ¡®lost¡¯ four six-ton aircraft engines, besides failing to find

the ¡®black box¡¯ flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders

from either of the planes.

 

 

 

These data boxes ¨C which could have revealed exactly what happened in

the doomed jets ¨C are deliberately designed to withstand heavy

impacts and exceptionally high temperatures. It is, according to

experts, very rare for them not to be recovered after an accident.

 

Unfortunately, according Henshall and Morgan, there was a singular

lack of official zeal even to establish the very basic fact that the

aircraft that hit the Twin Towers were the same as those that took off

from Boston.

 

 

 

Perhaps, with almost the entire world watching the attacks on TV, it

hardly seemed necessary to prove the glaringly obvious. But this

failure to follow standard procedures for accident investigation once

again gave encouragement to the conspiracy theorists.

 

And then there was the oddity of the single passport. The black boxes

may have been destroyed and steel girders melted ¨C yet somehow one of

the hijackers¡¯ passports avoided this inferno and was found intact in

a nearby street by ¡®a passer-by¡¯.

 

 

 

To Henshall and Morgan, that seems absurd, as does the almost instant

identification of this person as a hijacker rather than a passenger or

a Twin Towers office worker. Conspiracy theorists suspect the

passport was planted to help establish the official story in the

first, critical hours after the disaster.

 

 

Why didn't fighter planes intercept the hijackers?

 

 

 

Still more unanswered questions surround what happened at the Pentagon

in Washington, in the third successful terrorist attack that day.

 

More- http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm