9/11 - an inside job? another brick in the Wall

[Kulapavana 0]

Source: News

Published: August 17, 2005 Author:

 

Officer: Unit Stopped From Giving FBI Info

Aug 17, 2005

 

WASHINGTON - An Army intelligence officer says his unit was blocked in 2000 and 2001 from giving the FBI information about a U.S.-based terrorist cell that included Mohamed Atta, the future leader of the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said the small intelligence unit, called "Able Danger," had identified Atta and three of the other future Sept. 11 hijackers as al-Qaida members by mid-2000. He said military lawyers stopped the unit from sharing the information with the FBI.

 

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks left the Able Danger claims out of its official report.

 

In an interview with Fox News Channel and The New York Times, Shaffer said the panel was not given all the information his team had gathered.

 

"I'm told confidently by the person who did move the material over that the 9/11 commission received two briefcase-size containers of documents," Shaffer said in the interview, part of which was aired by Fox News Tuesday night. "I can tell you for a fact that would not be ... one-20th of the information that Able Danger consisted of during the time we spent."

 

Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and

Homeland Security committees, has said the Sept. 11 commission did not adequately investigate the claim that four of the hijackers had been identified more than a year before the attacks.

 

Former commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said last week that the military official who made the claim had no documentation to back it up.

 

Shaffer rejected that remark. "Leaving a project targeting al-Qaida as a global threat a year before we were attacked by al-Qaida is equivalent to having an investigation of Pearl Harbor and leaving somehow out the Japanese," he said.

 

[Kulapavana 0]

Delmart Edward Joseph Michael Vreeland II is a Lieutenant who worked for the United States Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). He has asked for political asylum in Canada. I had the opportunity to interview Lt. Vreeland in several phone conversations.

 

"Mike" Vreeland was born in Mason, Michigan in 1966. He liked to play ice hockey and do the things boys do, but he was not your average young man. Vreeland had an IQ of 171 and started college while he was finishing high school. He graduated from college and enlisted in the United States Navy in 1984.

 

Eventually Vreeland became a member of an Unofficial Intelligence Investigation Division (UID). In September of 2000 Vreeland was sent to Moscow to work with a Canadian systems analyst named Marc Bastien. They worked together closely for three months analyzing weapons systems. Vreeland came into possession of documents intercepted from a foreign agent that foretold of a September 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. He alerted his superiors and was ordered to return to North America with the papers. Bastien remained in Moscow. On December 4, 2000 Vreeland arrived in Toronto to meet his contact and forward the documentation. However, his contact's behavior spooked Vreeland and he substituted meaningless backup documents for the originals. Vreeland then made contact with his superiors who ordered him to set up a new meeting for December 6, 2000 to deliver the genuine information. Again sensing trouble Vreeland went to the second meeting without any documents. He was met by Canadian authorities who arrested and jailed him on charges of fraud, uttering threats, obstruction of justice, using false identification and interfering with an officer in the line of duty. Vreeland hid the documents intercepted in Moscow in a secure location where they remain today.

 

Canada has laws similar to those of the United States regarding how long someone may be kept prisoner without allowing him to exercise his rights to a hearing and/or other legal remedies. Vreeland was confined by a high level bureaucracy as well as his cell. His lawyers made numerous attempts to speak with the Solicitor General of Canada and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Canadian equivalent of the CIA. They contacted officials in the National Security Intelligence Service (NSIS) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, all to no avail. He was illegally imprisoned for 15 months.

 

In June and July of 2001 Vreeland wrote a 37 page document addressed and intended to be sent to Admiral Vernon Clark, Chief of Naval Operations. It recounted the information on the intercepted documents and was to serve as a warning of the coming attacks. In August of 2001 Vreeland wrote a note with specifics of the attacks and asked that it be sent to the CSIS. The existence of this note was not revealed publicly until September 14, 2001.

 

Vreeland's day in court came in early January of 2002 after an exhaustive Constitutional motion had been filed with the Canadian judicial system. The Navy denied Vreeland was an intelligence operative and said he was merely a run of the mill seaman who was discharged in 1986 for failure to do his job. They supplied 56 pages of documentation they said were Vreeland's complete Navy personnel file. However, the pages were carelessly selected from over 1200 pages that comprise Vreeland's actual military record. Each of them was numbered and it was clear that over a thousand were missing. Furthermore, sloppy editing revealed that Vreeland had been given medical exam by Navy doctors in 1990, four years after his supposed discharge. The Navy has refused to furnish the remaining paperwork.

 

In a court room proceeding on January 10, 2002 Vreeland's lawyer Paul Slansky had an opportunity to prove Vreeland's claim that he still worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence and was not let go for poor performance. The presiding judge agreed to let Slansky call the Pentagon from the filled courtroom. With at least six witnesses listening to a speaker phone, Slansky called information and asked for the main number at the Pentagon. He then called the Pentagon and asked the operator to see if Lt. Delmart Vreeland was employed there. All of Vreeland's information was supplied, his rank as a Lieutenant, his office number, and his direct phone number. These events and the Navy's problem with his personnel file are all a matter of court record.

 

Vreeland was finally released March 13, 2002 by a Toronto Superior Court. All the charges against him have been dropped. He has a May 6, 2002 court date to set his extradition hearing for sometime in September.

 

Vreeland is now, quite ironically, living in the World Trade Center in Toronto and is seeking permanent refugee status in Canada. He hopes to be in a witness protection program and wants the protection of the United Nations. The United States Navy wants him for credit card fraud and continues to try to extradite him.

 

Lieutenant Delmart "Mike" Vreeland fears for his life. He has good reason. Marc Bastien was murdered on December 12, 2000, eight days after Vreeland left Moscow.

 

I speculated that the Ocean of Naval Intelligence was waging awar with elements of the CIA within the DC power structures.

 

Speculation - did Able Danger try and warn us pre 9/11 via this ONI agent in Canadian jail?:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/politics/17intel.html?oref=login

 

The account from Colonel Shaffer, a reservist who is also working part time for the Pentagon, corroborates much of the information that the Sept. 11 commission has acknowledged it received about Able Danger last July from a Navy captain who was also involved with the program but whose name has not been made public. In a statement issued last week, the leaders of the commission said the panel had concluded that the intelligence program "did not turn out to be historically significant."

 

[Guest guest]

little evidence re: Vreeland's statements being true, according to this webiste: http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/vreeland.html

 

So Kulpayana, you interviewed him, right? Why do you believe him? What have you done to check whether he was telling the truth or not?

[Guest guest]

but, it makes the story seem rather suspect, don't you think?

[Guest guest]

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_vree_intervw.html

 

However, if the U.S. government can alter documents and get rid of evidence, it becomes awfully difficult to prove you are who you say you are, correct? Then basically you become almost as mysterious as God.

[Kulapavana 0]

"So Kulpayana, you interviewed him, right? Why do you believe him? What have you done to check whether he was telling the truth or not?"

 

his story is just one of many pieces of information that makes me believe 9/11 was either orchestrated by elements within US govt. or was allowed to happen by the said elements because it suited their purpose.

[Kulapavana 0]

Source: The Washington Times

Published: August 22, 2005 Author: Shaun Waterman

 

House Republican leaders approved in advance plans by a military intelligence official to go public with details of a top-secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger.

 

Army Reserve Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer says the data-mining project identified Mohamed Atta and three of the other September 11 hijackers as members of an al Qaeda cell more than a year before the attacks.

 

"I spoke personally to Denny Hastert and to Pete Hoekstra," Col. Shaffer said. Mr. Hastert, Illinois Republican, is speaker of the House, and Mr. Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

 

"I was given assurances by [them] that this was the right thing to do. ... I was given assurances we would not suffer any adverse consequences for bringing this to the attention of the public," Col. Shaffer said.

 

Col. Shaffer said his conversations with Mr. Hastert and Mr. Hoekstra took place before he and members of the Able Danger team spoke as anonymous sources to reporters in the offices of Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican, on Aug. 8.

 

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said yesterday that he had no information about whether the meeting took place and had no comment to make. Mr. Hoekstra was said by staff to be out of the country.

 

Col. Shaffer also said he was given what he interpreted as tacit approval from senior Pentagon officials before going on the record to Fox News and the New York Times last week.

 

Col. Shaffer he said he had met with Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone and Lt. Gen. Norton Schwartz, the staff director for outgoing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers.

 

"They knew that this would be the next logical step," Col. Shaffer said, and the officials did not ask him to refrain from going public.

 

A Pentagon spokesman said he could not confirm whether those meetings had taken place.

 

Able Danger was a yearlong, highly classified project carried out for the Joint Chiefs of Staff by U.S. Special Operations Command, the existence of which was first revealed by Mr. Weldon in a recent book.

 

In a floor speech and at least one congressional hearing in June, Mr. Weldon said the project had identified September 11 hijackers Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi as members of an al Qaeda cell more than a year before the attacks.

 

On Aug. 8, Col. Shaffer -- joined on at least one occasion by members of the Able Danger team -- began giving interviews as an anonymous source to reporters in Mr. Weldon's office.

 

Col. Shaffer told reporters that the September 11 commission had been told about the project. Commission members and staff have said that they asked the Pentagon for documents on the project. The Pentagon has said it is investigating Col. Shaffer's account.

 

[theist 1]

 

"So Kulpayana, you interviewed him, right? Why do you believe him? What have you done to check whether he was telling the truth or not?"

 

his story is just one of many pieces of information that makes me believe 9/11 was either orchestrated by elements within US govt. or was allowed to happen by the said elements because it suited their purpose.

 

 

orchestrated? -Nah

 

allowed? -Nah not in the way you are suggesting.

 

taken advantage of after the fact to forward people's personal schemes - you betcha and I suspect from all sides.

 

What is coming to light is the absolute failure of our major intelligence units and the criminal neglect to deal with Bin Laden by the Clinton Administration namely Clintn himself,Deputy Attorny General Jamie Gorelic(sp?) and in the above sighted case the Pentagon Lawyers who insisted this info not be give to the FBI.

 

They should all be publicly hung.

 

[Kulapavana 0]

"What is coming to light is the absolute failure of our major intelligence units and the criminal neglect to deal with Bin Laden..."

 

these people were not criminally negligent. they were just criminals working for other criminals. this stuff goes very, very deep. much deeper than Clinton/Bush differences or administrations. actually, they are all the same - as they work for the same interest groups.

 

do you think the industrial-military complex was happy when the cold war ended? they just created another demon - terrorism - to suck billions of dollars PER MONTH! from US Treasury. remember who trained, equipped and promoted Binladen - our own CIA. and it happened long before Clinton was sworn in.

[theist 1]

Yes only the white men of America can hatch a plot and make mischief in the world. Everyone else is too stupid and are relgated to the eternal state of victimhood.

 

Sarcasm of course.

 

This is what underlies liberal thought in America.

[Guest guest]

what about the Amistad ?

[Kulapavana 0]

August 31, 2005

Israel and 9/11: New Report Connects the Dots

What the 9/11 Commission didn't tell us

by Justin Raimondo

 

This news report in the Philadelphia Times Herald might shock the average reader, but its subject is surely familiar to longtime readers of Antiwar.com:

 

"A memorandum sent to the 9/11 Commission, and Senate and House intelligence committees in September 2004, suggests that young Israelis who canvassed dozens of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) offices in 2000 and 2001 trying to sell paintings to federal workers, may have been spying not only on the DEA, but also on Arab extremists in the United States – including the Sept. 11 hijackers who were living in Florida and New Jersey."

 

The author of this memorandum [.pdf] is Gerald Shea, a retired corporate lawyer. Shea – an alumnus of Phillips Academy (1960), Yale (1964), and Columbia Law School (1967) – was associated for many years with one of New York's most prominent law firms, in New York and Paris, and his memo reads like a lawyer's brief: it is written with the same meticulous attention to details of time and place, and with a lawyerly regard for maintaining a high standard of evidence.

 

Shea comes to substantially the same conclusion that I did in a series of columns I started writing in late December 2001, the substance of which is contained in a short book, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection: that the Israelis were engaged in spying on U.S. soil in the months leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that these agents were concentrated in the two areas where the 9/11 hijackers lived and planned their atrocities – Hollywood, Fla., and two counties in New Jersey, Bergen and Hudson – and that they did not share all they knew about preparations for the attack with U.S. authorities. Shea writes:

 

"Why the Israeli government decided not to share with us all the critical information they had, and the extent of that information, is a subject for the public inquiry. They may have thought some sort of warning prudent in the event their surveillance activities later became a matter of public knowledge. But any energetic Israeli effort to assist the United States in preventing the attacks would not have served their strategic interest, in view of the disastrous effect those attacks were likely to have on the relationships between the United States and the Arab world. As a leader of the Israeli New Jersey Group said when he was arrested on the afternoon of September 11, 'We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems.'"

 

Students of this subject will not be surprised by much of what is contained in the Shea memorandum, but there are significant new details unearthed by Shea's research and his thoroughness, particularly in tracing the parallel movements of the 9/11 hijackers (and their known associates) and the Israelis. Shea shows the Israelis had the means, the motive, and the physical proximity to track the hijackers' movements and intercept the details of their plans. Of particular interest is how some of the hijackers came to be put on the FBI's watch list – too late to do any good, but in time to provide the Israelis with a cover story if their shadowing activities came to light – which suggests a cover-up of major proportions.

 

The "Able Danger" data-mining operation that supposedly uncovered the New Jersey cell of the 9/11 plotters was – for some reason yet to be determined – blocked and prevented from apprehending key figures in the plot, according to the testimony of at least three people who have direct knowledge of this matter. Shea's memo opens up a possibility that may relate to (and explain) the "Able Danger" blockage: was surveillance of Arab terrorist groups in the U.S. subcontracted out to the Israelis, with the knowledge and complicity of the CIA, so that "Able Danger" was considered poaching on the Israelis' preserve? Shea cites a piece in The Forward that describes Israeli covert activities in the U.S. as a violation of "a secret gentleman's agreement between the two countries," and avers:

 

"The real question today, however, appears to be whether the 'gentlemen's agreement' did indeed prevail here and, because we lacked adequate warning from our surrogates who were keeping the Arabs under surveillance, helped bring us to disaster."

 

[Kulapavana 0]

LA Times | 29 Aug 2005 | Getting Agnostic About 9/11

# A society of nonbelievers questions the official version

 

MARK EHRMAN

Anyone who types the words "9/11" and "conspiracy" into an online search engine soon learns that not everybody buys the official narrative of what took place on Sept. 11, 2001. As a professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, 66-year-old David Ray Griffin would seem to have more affinity for leather elbow patches than tin hats, yet after friends and colleagues prodded him into sifting through the evidence, he experienced a conversion. Now he's spreading the bad news. Griffin compiled a summary of material arguing against the accepted story that 19 hijackers sent by Osama bin Laden took the aviation system and the U.S. military by surprise that awful day in his 2004 book "The New Pearl Harbor" (published by Interlink, a Massachusetts-based independent publisher covering areas including travel, cooking, world fiction, current events, politics, children's literature and other subjects). He recently followed up with the book "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" (Interlink), a critique of the Kean commission document in which he suggests that a chunk of the blame for the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil lies closer to home than the caves of Afghanistan. We contacted him at his Santa Barbara-area home for a report on his journey from mild-mannered scholar to doubting Thomas.

 

How did you join the ranks of those questioning the official account of the 9/11 events?

I was rather slow getting on board. For the first year and a half I just accepted the conventional view, really the blowback thesis, that this was blowback for our foreign policy. When a colleague suggested to me about a year after 9/11 that he was convinced our own government or forces within our own government had arranged it, I didn't accept that. Then several months later another colleague sent me [a link to] a website that had a timeline. Once I started reading that and saw all those stories drawn from mainstream sources that contradicted the official account, I decided I needed to look into it more carefully, and the more I looked, the worse it got. I considered it an obligation to kind of organize, compile the evidence and put it out there for the public.

 

The Internet is full of 9/11 conspiracy theories. What have you contributed to the discussion?

 

My main contribution has been the second book, [showing] that the 9/11 commission report is not worthy of belief, and the implication of that is that they were covering up the government's own guilt.

 

What would constitute a "smoking gun" against the official 9/11 account?

 

There are many. By just ignoring them, the 9/11 commission implicitly admitted they couldn't answer them. The towers coming down into a pile only a few stories high is a smoking gun. Many laws of physics had to be violated if the official story about the collapses is true. [The collapses] had all the earmarks of a controlled demolition by explosives. One of those is total collapse into a small pile of rubble. The fact that Building 7 [a skyscraper near the towers] collapsed when it had not been hit by an airplane, and collapsed in seven or eight seconds, that's a smoking gun. The fact that standard operating procedures were not followed that morning, and we've gotten three different stories now by the U.S. military as to why they did not intercept the planes, that's a smoking gun. The Secret Service leaving the president and themselves wide open to being attacked by [not responding immediately], that's a smoking gun. I can't say one is bigger than the other. You've got six or seven that are equally big.

 

Critics of the official 9/11 account seem to draw sinister inferences from instances where people, buildings or physical objects didn't react or behave as one might expect in theory. For example, if the hijackers were devout Muslims, why were some drinking, eating pork chops and cavorting with lap dancers? Doesn't real life unfold inconsistently, even bizarrely?

 

That's true, but the 9/11 commission simply ignored those questions. They're creating this image of fanatics who were so devout and convinced of the truth of their religion that they were ready to meet their maker, yet here's all this evidence that suggests they were not devout at all. [The commission] simply ignored evidence.

 

 

[Kulapavana 0]

Source: http://pullit.info

Was WTC 7 a Dud?

 

Facts support the theory that World Trade Center Building 7

was originally meant to implode seconds after the North Tower’s collapse

Jeremy Baker

 

[The following is a condensed version of the main premise presented in the original article “Silverstein, Giuliani, WTC 7 and 20-20 Hindsight.”]

 

The strange circumstances surrounding the suspicious collapse of World Trade Center

Building 7 have become a focal point for the researchers, writers and activists who have committed

themselves to reopening the books on 9/11. Many of these people believe that the anomalous collapse

of Building 7 is a 9/11 smoking gun, the Achilles’ heel in the official version of what occurred on

that day. The obvious controlled demolition of the building, proven so conclusively in several

videos we have of its collapse, has been supported by other key pieces of evidence as well. These

points taken together have proven to the satisfaction of most 9/11 researchers that WTC 7 was

brought down not by fires weakening its superstructure, as claimed by the authorities, but was

instead destroyed by an explosive system that could only have been installed in the building prior

to 9/11.

After allegedly being struck by the North Tower’s plummeting debris, fires were said to

have been ignited in WTC 7 that grew throughout the day and finally compromised the building’s

steel structure, causing it to suddenly drop like a stone late in the afternoon. But gaping holes

in this scenario have done nothing but arouse suspicion and disbelief in those who’ve carefully

examined the evidence. Rather than presenting a viable scenario for Building 7's destruction, the

inexplicable features of its collapse have instead helped to fuel broader speculation that 9/11 was

essentially an inside job, an attempt by traitors within our own ranks to generate support for

imperialist agendas that could otherwise never withstand the light of day.

So, for those who agree that WTC 7 was indeed brought down with a preplanted explosives

system — the last act in a “psy- op” that included the destruction of the entire World

Trade Center complex on 9/11 — then the next question becomes: Why did the conspirators wait

until the end of the day to do it? What possible reason would they have to keep WTC 7 up all day

long? In the four years or so since the unofficial citizens investigation into 9/11 began, no one

has offered any sensible answers to this question. But the list of compelling reasons why waiting

seven hours after the attacks to bring Building 7 down was not a good idea is long and hard to

ignore.

If keeping WTC 7 up for so long after the attacks has proven so threatening to the plot’s

success and its subsequent coverup, why would the plotters have done it? Only two possibilities

logically present themselves; 1) there was some absolutely critical but, as yet, undetermined

reason to keep the building intact for so long, or 2) it wasn’t originally meant to come down when

it did. Since absolutely no compelling case has been made for the former possibility, circumstances

appear to support the latter. Is it possible that WTC 7's explosive system didn’t operate as

planned, a disastrous glitch in an otherwise well conceived plan? The following is a presentation

of points that appear to support this theory, one that paints a dramatically different picture of

what theorists previously thought had occurred throughout the day on 9/11.

Piecing together a factual account of what happened that afternoon is certainly difficult

without confirmation from inside sources, but surely the known facts support a scenario similar to

this one: The conspirators, possibly operating out of the mayor’s Office of Emergency Management

(OEM) on the 23 floor of WTC 7, first, orchestrated the collision of the planes into their targets,

igniting fires that spread throughout the upper floors of both towers and allegedly causing

structural damage to the building’s steel superstructure. They then armed and programmed the

explosive system in the safely distant South Tower and, at the optimum moment, pushed the button

and brought the building crashing to the ground. The debris cloud kicked up by its collapse

lingered for hours, significantly reducing visibility in the surrounding area.

Next, they programmed the explosives in the North Tower and, if the conspirators were

indeed situated in the mayor’s emergency bunker, chose this moment to exit WTC 7 and move to a

secure location before taking the next steps in their plan. This scenario is supported by comments

Rudy Giuliani made to ABC News and Peter Jennings; “We were operating out of there [the OEM]

when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we

could get out of the building.” This confirms that Giuliani was indeed manning his OEM bunker

and that Tower Two (the first building to fall) collapsed before the mayor and his people were able

to (or chose to) exit WTC 7.

The perpetrators, now relocated to a backup position, then prepared for the demolition of

the North Tower and WTC 7. This secondary control center may also have been referred to in another

report that the mayor was operating out of “a makeshift command post at 75 Barkley Street,”

just north of and adjacent to WTC 7. There, the conspirators waited for the appropriate moment and

then remotely detonated the explosives in the North Tower and brought it down as well, the building

shredding itself in a way oddly identical to the South Tower’s collapse.

As the North Tower fell, a massive cloud of debris shot into the sky and enshrouded most

of lower Manhattan. This dense cloud of powdered debris quckly rose and obscured the surrounding

buildings adding significantly to the thick haze still hanging in the air from the first

collapse. Then, when most of WTC 7 was hidden from view, the conspirators pushed the button on the

explosive system in this building as well, the thick cloud of debris obscuring any signs that WTC 7

was being intentionally demolished.

After the smoke had cleared and the events of the day were relegated to history, any

lingering questions as to why WTC 7 came down seconds after Tower One’s collapse would be easily

fielded with a list of invented but plausible excuses that, in the absence of visual evidence to

the contrary, would be quite believable. In the wake of the attacks, the stories about debris from

Tower One impacting the electrical substation and 40,000 gallon deisel tank located on Building 7's

ground floors — causing massive internal explosions that kicked the building’s feet out from

under it — would’ve made good sense, providing a satisfactory if implausible excuse for those

who had doubts about Building 7’s demise. The 32 story Marriott Vista hotel, located between the

Twin Towers, was completely leveled by the collapse of these buildings and has been all but

forgotten in a world that barely recalls the life and times of WTC 7.

But, as fate would have it, things didn’t go according to plan. Incredibly, when the

conspirators pushed the button on WTC 7, nothing happened. For whatever reason, the explosive

system in WTC 7 had failed and the building stubbornly remained intact. In an instant, the success

of an elaborate plot to entirely destroy a New York City landmark (one that, according to many

people who lived and worked in the area, had been obsolete for years and become a blight on lower

Manhattan) had fallen into confusion.

Faced with a plan that had gone terribly awry, the conspirators then scrambled to bring

the demolition system in WTC 7 back online, a task that may have taken hours, well past the time

when the handy cloud of debris had dissipated. In the meantime, a new scenario had to be concocted

to “cover” what would otherwise be the forthcoming but completely unexplained collapse of WTC

7. In their desperation and haste, the perps finally made the decision to reenter Building 7 and

set fires that they hoped would spread and eventually serve as a pretext for the building’s

collapse. The fire-caused-the-collapse scenario would likely serve them well considering the fact

that they’d used the same scheme in the towers earlier that day.

Though its difficult to pin down exactly what happened next, some facts support the

following scenario, or variations thereof: The perpetrators reentered WTC 7 and climbed to the 7th

floor, the location of the OEM’s emergency generators (this floor would become the scene of the

lower of the two fires that were soon to be burning in the building). If, as many theorists

suggest, the conspirators were indeed OEM men, they would not only have had access to this floor

(in a building that had been evacuated and presumably secured), they would also have had deisel

fuel in abundance to use as an accelerant to spark their dummy fire.

Next, they ascended to floor 12, one of three floors occupied by the SEC, and sparked

blazes in this location as well (floor 12 was the location of the upper of the two fires that were

photographed burning in the building). Besides creating another flash point for fire, this may have

been done to assure that, in case the explosive system failed again, incriminating evidence in this

location was certain to be destroyed no matter what might occur. The conspirators then exited the

building and watched the fires grow, hopefully to a crescendo that would serve as a plausible

pretext for the building’s collapse.

Eventually the explosive system was brought back online and the only thing left to do was

wait for the fires to build. But, as we saw, the fires never grew to convincing

proportions. Despite their best efforts and training, the conspirators were completely unprepared

for this contingency, and it showed. Even as late as 3 PM, the fires in WTC 7 were still marginal

and struggling. Unlike the towers, these fires were oxygen starved by windows that hadn’t been

shattered and couldn’t be opened. In fact, the fires remained so small they were barely visible

from outside the building until quite late in the day and never approached the size necessary to

pass them off as the catalyst for the building’s collapse.

The insignificant fires burning in WTC 7 have always been a sticking point for 9/11

researchers who rightfully doubt that fires so small could ever have brought the building

down. Indeed, in all the history of firefighting, no steel framed high-rise has ever collapsed due

to fire. Even in the case of major infernos that entirely engulfed such buildings in the past, no

office fire had ever burnt hot enough to compromise the strength of the massive steel beams that

support these structures. The physics simply do not support this phenomenon — that is, of

course, with one exception. On 9/11, the laws of physics were apparently suspended and three such

anomalies occurred. Those who argue that the towers fell because the planes caused structural

damage in addition to fire damage cannot, however, apply this theory to the anomalous collapse of

WTC 7.

But, despite the difficulties confronting the perpetrators, the bottom line was that

Building 7 had to go. If WTC 7 was indeed an operations and control center for this sprawling

conspiracy, it was, essentially, a crime scene that needed to be destroyed. It was also the only

WTC building left standing, making the plan to level the entire complex incomplete. This theory is

supported by the fact that, throughout the day, absolutely no effort was made to save this

extremely sensitive and valuable building (one that housed several key governmental and

intelligence agencies in addition to millions of files relating to possibly devastating open

investigations into money laundering, terrorism, organized crime, etc.) that was being threatened

by only modest fires. This is all the more baffling when you consider that WTC 7 must have had a

built in fire suppression system of some kind as well, one that presumably would have made short

work of such a marginal threat.

So, despite the fact that, even towards the end of the day, the fires in WTC 7 remained

barely significant (from a fire engineering standpoint), the culprits finally made the decision to

pull the plug on WTC 7 and rely on their formidable propaganda machinery to bulldoze any doubts

that might arise. The conspirators couldn’t logically wait any longer because a burgeoning army of

firefighters and rescue workers had recovered from their shock and were descending on Ground Zero

to begin the lengthy search and rescue effort that began that evening. For those who desperately

needed the building destroyed, it was then or never and, in an effort to finally wrap things up,

they put the demolition process in motion by clearing personnel from around the base of Building

7. Then, when they could wait no longer, they put an end to the spectacle at 5:25 PM, dropping

Building 7 neatly within it’s footprint, an obvious controlled implosion so perfect it would have

earned any demolition company a bonus.

Needless to say, the theory outlined above is a significant departure from beliefs

previously held by the broad community of 9/11 conspiracy advocates concerning what happened to WTC

7 that afternoon. Any paradigm shift of this magnitude relating to an event as grave as 9/11 will

likely undergo intense scrutiny, as it should. But we needn’t go far to find precedent for the

scenario outlined above. All we need do is go back in time six years, to 1995.

There are many intriguing correlations between the September 11th attacks on the WTC and

the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Both events enabled draconian domestic

security provisions to be signed into law shortly thereafter. Both sites were quickly and

discretely cleaned up by the same company, Controlled Demolition, Inc., whose conduct, in both

cases, sparked criticism from fire investigators who felt that not enough had been done to examine

the evidence. In addition, both attacks employed much the same scheme: a primary event

“covered” the real cause of the destruction — explosive systems preplanted in the

buildings. In OK City, a rental truck packed with crude explosives “covered” the simultaneous

detonation of bombs planted in the Murrah Building. In Manhattan, two passenger jets caused

destruction that “covered” the tower’s eventual demolition — again, the result of bombs

previously planted throughout the Twin Towers.

But there’s another parallel that bears examination, one that does much to support the

theory at hand. After the smoke had cleared in downtown OK City, it was discovered that two of the

bombs planted in the Murrah Building had failed to explode, a fact that was reported nightly on

local TV news programs for a week or two after the bombing. And these reports were more than just

rumors. Sources included FBI agents, police and firefighters. The OK City bomb squad was called out

as well and got to work disarming these charges before they could do any more damage. Even

Oklahoma governor Frank Keating confirmed the story to the media before it disappeared from the

airwaves forever (Alex Jones presents an excellent montage of these reports in his video 9/11 The

Road to Tyranny).

Consider how this astonishing fact conflicts with what are by now historical accounts

that the building was destroyed only by the crude fertilizer bomb constructed and detonated by lone

wolf Timothy McVeigh. And any allusions we may have had that the guys who orchestrated the attacks

of 9/11 were criminal masterminds who had covered every angle is neatly dispelled when we consider

this previously botched job. Certainly this kind of breakdown on the part of shady, covert

operatives is not unprecedented.

Imagine the state of mind of the conspirators as they watched their plan to destroy one

of the world’s most recognizable landmarks (and, of course, violently murder thousands of innocent

people) unfold before their eyes. Even the most jaded covert operative wouldn’t likely remain

unrattled after having perpetrated such an outrage. Again, the idea that these guys were able to

calmly meet every contingency or work magic under that kind of pressure certainly shouldn’t be

taken for granted. And let’s not forget what Deepthroat said to Bob Woodward during his

investigation into yet another botched “op”: “Truth is, these aren’t very bright guys and

things got out of hand.”

And well they may have. Reentering Building 7 in a spur of the moment attempt to ignite

crude fires is a potentially dangerous enterprise. Whatever accelerants the conspirators may have

used to spark their blazes, the potential for trouble with an impulsive plan for arson is

high. Reports that a body was found in the remains of Building 7 are intriguing for a number of

reasons, not the least of which is that other reports claim that there were no casualties in WTC 7

whatsoever. Nonetheless, the US House of Representatives website posts a tribute to Secret Service

Special Officer Craig Miller whose body was found in the rubble of Building 7 after he’d apparently

perished during the “rescue effort” that day. But what really happened to Officer Miller —

Secret Service Special Officer Miller? Not a firefighter. Not a rescue worker or cop — a secret

service special agent.

Who on earth were you rescuing, Officer Miller? WTC 7 had been evacuated. Could this man

have been an amateur arsonist who got too close to his fire? Could he have sabotaged the explosive

system in WTC 7 because he got cold feet about his role in one of the cruelest deceptions in

history and paid for it with his life? This man’s autopsy records might shed some light on the

matter. The story of WTC lessee Larry Silverstein claiming to have ‘pulled’ WTC 7 is well known

among 9/11 researchers. The only explanation that’s ever been offered in his defense was that he

meant ‘pull’ the firefighters out of the “dangerously burning” building. But if that were

true, why didn’t Officer Miller get the message?

Not only were the suspicious facts of his death ignored by the media but Officer Miller

was then posthumously granted hero status as someone who had allegedly died during the phantom

“rescue effort” in this empty building. We saw this phenomenon applied to many key

governmental figures in the wake of 9/11 — officials who, instead of being held accountable for

their criminal proximity to the attacks, were afterwards sold as “American heroes” and

sometimes even promoted. And, as you’ll see, nowhere was this ploy more at work than in the case of

“Man of the Year” and “America’s Mayor,” Rudy Giuliani.

WTC 7, or the Solomon Brothers Building, had been owned by Manhattan real estate mogul

Larry Silverstein since the ’80s and was the HQ for his development company, Westfield America, for

years. Building 7 was also the NYC home of the Secret Service, SEC, DoD, IRS, CIA and a handful of

private financial institutions. But WTC 7 also housed Rudy Giuliani’s Office of Emergency

Management (OEM), long considered by theorists as a possible operations center for the

attacks. This $13 million doomsday bunker, meant to be used in the event of a catastrophe like a

terrorist attack or natural disaster, was oddly located in the midst of the number one terrorist

target in the western hemisphere. Isn’t one ill-advised to locate their emergency command facility

where it will likely be destroyed in the event of an actual attack? This incomprehensible decision

is even more troubling when you consider the fact that the WTC had already been attacked once in

1993. This extremely unheroic plan to locate the OEM at the WTC then went on to prove its absurdity

on 9/11 when, according to the official account, the occupants of the OEM were forced to abandon it

after the first tower collapsed. This and other compelling points support the hypothesis mentioned

above, that the OEM was just a front for the conspirators attack operations center. Now that would

explain the poor choice of locations.

Many researchers believe that shadowy elements within the agencies housed in WTC 7 are

prime suspects in this sprawling conspiracy. To these theorists, Building 7 is a kind of nexus for

the planning and execution of what may well have been the most audacious “black-op” or, more

accurately, “false flag” operation in the history of covert actions. If they are correct,

Building 7 was literally a nest of suspicious activity and its remaining intact may well have been

a catastrophe for those who were counting on its destruction.

As 9/11 researchers are well aware, Larry Silverstein took over control of the entire

World Trade Center just a few weeks before the attacks of 9/11, the first time the WTC had changed

hands in thirty years and the first time it had come under private control. In an interview in a

2002 PBS documentary called America Rebuilds, he described being on the phone with the FDNY

commander on the afternoon of 9/11 and suggesting that there had “been such terrible loss of

life maybe the smartest thing to do is, is ‘pull’ it,” (referring to WTC 7). Then, according

to Silverstein, “they made that decision to ‘pull’ and we watched the building collapse”

(the same documentary quotes a demo worker, “well, we’re getting ready to ‘pull’ building 6,"

moments before its burnt out carcass was demolished — a comment that appears to connect the word

“pull” even more closely to the actual act of demolition).

Many have asked how he could possibly have been so careless as to make such an admission

publicly. But what if circumstances compelled him to do so? What if his comments were a discrete

response to growing suspicions surrounding the botched attempt to destroy WTC 7 earlier in the day?

The powers-that-be have brazenly used PBS programming to spin other aspects of 9/11. The NOVA

program that espoused the theory of the “pancaking” of the Twin Tower’s floors is infamous in

the 9/11 skeptics community. PBS programs relating to 9/11 typically feature “experts” who

unanimously support the party line.

With WTC 7's obvious demolition caught on film from at least three excellent

perspectives, it’s an understatement to say that the conspirators had a big problem on their

hands. Could it be that Silverstein’s comments about ‘pulling’ WTC 7 were a carefully

choreographed “hang out” of the issue? Using Karl Rove-like sleight of hand, he offers a

vague accounting of the anomaly delivered to us on an almost subconscious level. Paradoxically,

his comments may have been intended to steer us in the exact opposite direction — that, despite

how it may have appeared, heroes in high places stepped up and made the tough choices.

Silverstein’s simple and concise phraseology — that “...they made that decision to

‘pull’ and we watched the building collapse” — has impressed many of the finest 9/11

researchers as being clear and unambiguous, and for good reason. But, as mentioned above, some

dissenters insist that he used the word ‘pull’ to indicate instead the cautious evacuation of

the area immediately surrounding WTC 7 late that afternoon. I spoke to one of the producers of

America Rebuilds on the phone and he predictably supported this interpretation of Silverstein’s

cryptic comments. But I believe that this usage of the word ‘pull’ is just as damning as if he

had in fact used it as a synonym for demolition, and this is why.

If Silverstein did use the word ‘pull’ to mean evacuation, the best we can say in his

defense is that he was referring to the suspicious order to withdraw personnel from around the base

of WTC 7 shortly before its bizarre suicide, a precaution more likely taken in the case of a

building soon to be demolished, not a building whose superstructure couldn’t possibly have been

compromised by fire alone. A photographer on the scene described the evacuation of firefighters as

they “...prepared for the collapse of Building 7...[my emphasis] I was 150 yards away when I saw

the firefighters raising the flag.” What? It’s perhaps understandable that, given the events of

the day, the authorities might consider preparing for the extremely remote possibility that

Building 7 might collapse, just to be safe. But for these guys to ‘pull’ Building 7 and then

have it fall right on cue when physics doesn’t support the phenomenon, there’s absolutely no

precedent for such an occurrence and the building was, at best, only marginally involved is simply

too much of an implausibility to take seriously — yet another outrageous “coincidence”

defenders of the official account ask us to stomach.

This alternate take on Silverstein’s use of the word ‘pull’ — the only explanation

that has ever been offered by anyone in his defense — is not only just as damning as if he did

intend the word to mean demolition, it also wholly ties Silverstein into the suspicious events of

the day at the highest levels, yet another direct and convincing connection to be made between this

inscrutable Manhattan real estate developer and insider complicity in the attacks of September 11.

There are other factors to be considered as well. The alleged damage to Building 7’s

south face, caused by debris from the collapse of Tower One, was the official cause of the fires

that the authorities then sanctioned as being the “likely” cause of WTC 7’s collapse.

Hundreds of photos of Ground Zero taken throughout the day show every detail of the devastation,

yet pictures of Building 7's damaged south face, “raging” fires and billowing smoke are

conspicuously absent. Certainly this spectacle would have caught the eye of any photographer

recording the aftermath of the attacks. Doesn’t this lack of photographic evidence support the idea

that, after things went wrong that morning, photographers on the scene would have their materials

confiscated and vetted by the authorities, much as they had been at the Pentagon (and Oklahoma City

for that matter)? Any photographs of the suspicious lack of damage to Building 7 (evidence that

would prove the official account untenable) would disappear forever. Isn’t it extremely suspicious

that absolutely no pictures of WTC 7’s south face have ever been released to the public, an

astounding revelation when you consider the key role this alleged debris damage played in the days

events.

In addition, aerial photos of Ground Zero appear to confirm that the debris raining down

from Tower One’s collapse fell well short of WTC 7. These photos show a huge crater in the roof of

WTC 6 (the low- rise building standing between Tower One and Building 7), the result of damage

caused by this debris. This crater provides a clear imprint of the limits of the destruction and,

despite some bits and pieces of rubble that made their way across a full city block to WTC 7’s

location, the bulk of the truly destructive wreckage clearly fell safely short of Building 7.

Another even more stunning fact is that pictures of the two buildings flanking WTC 7

clearly show that they were barely scratched by the debris that had somehow, according to Popular

Mechanics magazine, “scooped out” 25% of Building 7's depth. In fact, both of these

structures still stand in near pristine condition, shoulder to shoulder with WTC 7, despite their

being well within the same radius of destruction. And what about the debris from the identical

South Tower (or Tower Two)? Did it cause similar damage to its neighbors? Apparently not. The

photos in question also show that the Banker’s Trust Building, a building similar in size to WTC 7

(but not a WTC building), standing just across the street from the South Tower, suffered no such

catastrophic damage and it certainly didn’t catch on fire and collapse.

And another thing. We all remember 9/11. The eyes of the world were focused on lower

Manhattan. Helicopters were circling the area all day long, the television coverage never let up,

not even for commercials. Are we really to believe that no aerial video exists of WTC 7 going down,

especially when the FDNY was apparently preparing for its collapse — film clips that would

surely tell the story of what happened to Building 7 and clearly show the damage (or lack thereof)

on the south face of WTC 7? As mentioned before, Building 7’s fires (meager though they were) and

its billowing cloud of black smoke would surely have attracted the attention of videographers

recording the aftermath of the attacks from above — dramatic images reminiscent of the smoking

towers aired earlier that day. It’s always been a keen frustration to 9/11 researchers (and a

chilling example of media suppression) that the only videos we do have of Building 7 falling to the

ground were all distant shots taken from the north, precisely the wrong angle to shed light on the

matter.

If dropping Building 7 late in the day on 9/11 was really part of the conspirator’s

plan, wouldn’t they have concocted a far more believable and well-constructed scenario to

“cover” its collapse (much as they had for the Twin Towers and the Murrah Building),

especially when they knew that Ground Zero would be center stage on every TV and computer screen on

the planet that night? Instead we got tiny, insignificant fires, and a long list of nagging

questions that have only served to arouse widespread suspicion.

What does the body of a Secret Service Special Agent in the rubble of WTC 7 most likely

indicate; 1) that a well-planned scheme had just gone off without a hitch, or 2) that some kind of

major breakdown had occurred that day? How could Officer Miller have died except by malfeasance?

WTC 7 had been evacuated before it was hit by falling debris and the lazy fires building in its

belly couldn’t possibly have caught a healthy Secret Service agent off-guard. Under the

circumstances, isn’t the absurd claim that this man died during the “rescue effort” that day

clearly a cover story for something that’s carefully being kept under wraps?

Isn’t it odd that the FDNY seemingly just gave up on such an exceedingly important and

valuable building as WTC 7, one that had only marginal fires burning on two floors? Wouldn’t the

conspirators have preferred wrapping things up in one fell swoop that morning rather than

prolonging the spectacle any longer than necessary? Why wasn’t Rudy Giuliani kept well away from

what was obviously an attack on lower Manhattan? And the bewildering notion that the conspirators

originally planned to spend the day in the OEM orchestrating the aftermath of the attacks in the

upper floors of a burning building is really stretching credulity to the breaking point.

All of the anomalies listed above and the many disturbing questions following in the

wake of WTC 7’s suspicious collapse would have been neatly and easily dispensed with had the

building been demolished while hidden beneath the dust cloud kicked up by Tower One’s collapse.

But with clear video footage of Building 7’s belated and obvious demolition, the talk of the

electrical substation and deisel tank exploding and causing the collapse has always rung hollow and

has generated rather than mollified suspicion.

Nothing about WTC 7 remaining intact throughout the day before finally and obviously

being demolished has ever made any sense at all. But if WTC 7 was brought down as it was hidden by

the debris cloud rising from the rubble of Tower One, no one would have asked another question

about it and what many theorists consider to be a 9/11 smoking gun would have vanished into

obscurity. Certainly this theory is supported by the evidence and deserves consideration by the

broad community of 9/11 skeptics.

[Guest guest]

If ya aint figured it out yet that they do this to them selves then the oil aint a issue..... is it now ?

 

nether are the lives wasted in such capital adventures , all in the name of freedom justice and the american way,

 

How come we just ask God to bless america and no where else ????? Is our democracy the only way , even for the muslims etc.

[AncientMariner 0]

Do you think Bill Clinton was in on it? I read an article by a Clinton aide that detailed how Clinton let Bin Laden metastasize and Clinton was offered Bin Laden 3 times by the Sudanese government but each time Bill Clinton let Bin Laden walk.

[Kulapavana 0]

It is possible that BinLaden still works for the CIA. At the very least, his exploits are seen as VERY USEFUL by some power circles in Washington.

 

The scarecrow of "terrorism" allowed unprecedented amounts of money to be diverted to companies like Haliburton as well as produced enormous political advantage to certain power circles. Of course Clinton was in on it.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Is it possible that the sun will still rise in the east tomorrow?

[Guest guest]

does the bear sht in the woods !

[Kulapavana 0]

Source: Awoken Research Group

Published: September 27, 2005

 

Insider Trading Immediately Prior to 9-11

The following is a collection of articles about insider trading immediately prior to the September 11th attacks.

 

 

German Firm Probes Final World Trade Center Deals

PIRMASENS, Germany (Reuters) - German computer experts are working round the clock to unlock the truth behind an unexplained surge in financial transactions made just before two hijacked planes crashed into New York's World Trade Center on September 11.

 

Were criminals responsible for the sharp rise in credit card transactions that moved through some computer systems at the WTC shortly before the planes hit the twin towers?

Whatever happened to the WTC HARD-DRIVE recoveries?

LibertyForum's "Aeryn_Sun" investigates the whereabouts of the reconstructed data given by CONVAR to the FBI that contained information related to the unexplained surge in financial transactions before 9-11 .

Mystery of terror 'insider dealers'

Share speculators have failed to collect $2.5m (£1.7m) in profits made from the fall in the share price of United Airlines after the 11 September World Trade Centre attacks.

 

The fact that the money is unclaimed more than a month later has re-awakened investigators' interest in a story dismissed as coincidence.

Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Leads Directly Into The CIA's Highest Ranks

In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency.

PROFITS OF DEATH - INSIDER TRADING AND 9-11

 

 

PROFITS OF DEATH - PART 2 - TRADING WITH THE ENEMY

 

 

PROFITS OF DEATH - PART 3 - ALL ROADS LEAD TO DEUSTCHEBANK AND HARKEN ENERGY

 

 

SHADY TRADER EYED FOR 9/11 TIP

Notorious short trader Amr Ibrahim Elgindy - also known as "Tony" and "Anthony Pacific" - allegedly ordered his kids' $300,000 trust fund liquidated the day before terrorists slammed planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Lawyer: Accused Man Knew of Attacks

SAN DIEGO (AP) -- An Egyptian-born financial analyst charged in a nationwide stock swindle may have known about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and tried to profit from them, a federal prosecutor said Friday.

What did 'Tony' know on September 10?

Elgindy allegedly used the FBI information to short-sell stock in companies — this means borrowing stock and then selling it, in the hope of buying it back at a lower price and pocketing the difference.

Feds: Ex-Agent Had Key Data - Stock scam charges have eerie link

In a criminal case with a specter of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, prosecutors disclosed yesterday that classified information had been found during a search of possessions of a former FBI agent allegedly part of an insider trading conspiracy.

Still Silence From 9-11 Stock Speculation Probe

Within a month of 9-11, the SEC, acting in concert with the Department of Justice, distributed a target list of 38 stocks to securities firms around the world looking for information about who might have profited by at least apparent pre-knowledge of the aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. To date there has not been a public word from any agency as to whether they have snagged anyone.

Stock trader targeted in Sept. 11 probe agrees to return to New York

He is accused of bribing an FBI agent to give him secrets from federal criminal databases and then using the information to make money in the stock market. A current and a former FBI agent were among four others charged in the conspiracy.

From the ARG 9-11 Archive