9/11 : A Limited Theory
A Limited Theory
Publication date: 2021-08-31
Update 2022-05-10: Added Paul Jay’s comments on 9/11 as a new source.
The events in the USA on 2001-09-11 have been used for almost two decades to erode the civil liberties of their own citizens and destabilized countries, kill a million people and displace or wound many millions more. It is, thus, a very important event to understand. It is so important that many, many people have put cumulatively millions of hours into trying to understand it. In parallel, others have attempted to misdirect or obfuscate those efforts.
Everyone is allowed their own theory; here follows mine. It is based on months of time researching the topic over a decade.
Was there a plan to use aeroplanes as weapons to attack buildings in the USA on that day by a network of religious extremists? Yes. We have principled intelligence analysts almost in tears for their warnings being ignored, or their efforts being stifled.
People that I respect hold this view. Where I differ is the relation between these plans of attack and what actually happened.
The official explanation is that Hanni Hanjour, who could barely fly a Cessna according to his flight instructors, was supposed to have performed an 8000 ft descending corkscrew turn in a commercial airliner to line up at ground level, flying through 5 light posts at ridiculous speeds, to impact the building and at the singular location which had been reinforced to withstand such an event. The simpler strategy is to fly the plane into the roof at the other end of the Pentagon where the military brass reside, or anywhere for that matter. Why the insanely difficult ground level approach?
The Pentagon has to be one of the most surveilled buildings on the planet, but the only "footage" released are 5 grainy frames from some gas station across the way.
The "investigation" did not find what would be expected minimally, two very large titanium steel alloy Rolls Royce turbines which cannot be destroyed by flying them into a building; any building.
Some parts of a plane are found on the lawn. I don't think this is planted, thus some sort of aeroplane was involved. I believe it had very little to do with the damage caused.
Alternatively, Barbara Honegger has taken an affidavit from April Gallop of bombs going off in the building before the alleged plane impact.
The official story at the Pentagon is "problematic" but also essential for the "declaration of war" to justify the USA's military rather than judicial response.
The World Trade Center, Towers 1 and 2
In these cases we do have footage of planes of the size and geometry of commercial airliners flying into the buildings. While the number of videos for the first impact are few, the USA media (and citizenry) were out in force for the second. While it may be possible to claim "fakes" for the first impact, it is impossible for the second. I sit squarely with the official story on single planes of the size and geometry of commercial airliners hitting the towers at the times claimed. Whether they were commercial planes or not remains unclear.
My claim is that the planes, commercial or not, did not destroy the towers.
It is worth understanding the architecture and engineering of the buildings. They were amazing and innovative. Each has a very strong core which contain the lift shafts and stairwells, a common design. The amazing element was that from there clear floor plans extend to the walls providing open space on each floor for the occupants to segment or not as they wish. But, to do this you need a very strong external wall to be connected to the central core, and this they had. Look at a brick wall. It is not one brick on top of the next. They are stepped which gives far greater strength so that loads (wind, building weight, whatever) are spread across the interlocking bricks. The same with the walls of the towers, but the "bricks" are multi-column with horizontal connecting steel between frames. Look at the windows in historical pictures (or get the architectural/engineering drawings). They are numerous but small. All of the "not window" is steel. It is a wall of steel with little holes.
The buildings were designed to withstand the high wind speeds at the upper floors. They had to be able to "sway" and transfer those loads through the building. The construction steel reduces in thickness as one moves up the building to reduce the bearing load.
The buildings were also designed to withstand the impact of the largest commercial airliner at the time of construction. The exterior is like a steel fly screen door, a mesh. Sticking a pen through a fly screen door creates a hole, but does not destroy the mesh. The same principle is employed for the Twin Towers' exterior walls.
Note that aeroplanes have essentially three fuel tanks, one in each wing and one central . If you fly one of these aluminium fuselage planes into that massive steel mesh it, the plane, would instantly be shredded, apart from the engines. The fuel would be released, the heat generated by the impact would ignite it and that is exactly what we see; a big fireball. This will start office fires, which we also see.
The footage of the towers before their destruction is most educational. We can see the "hole in the mesh" from the impact and the black smoke of oxygen starved fires. The buildings still stand. To this point, everything looks as a structural engineer who knew about the buildings would expect.
It is what was going on below that is not. Willy Rodriguez (see sources) reported numerous huge explosions in the basement. There is no way that a plane impact in the upper floors can trigger multiple huge explosions in the basement. There are many other eye witnesses corroborating explosions, including police and fire deparment personnel.
If the official "fires" plus "progressive (pancake) destruction" is to be believed then one would expect evidence. A stack of floors at the bottom is absent. More importantly very strong, still standing, spires of the two building cores reaching into the sky are also absent. Recall, it gets stronger as you go down. How can the lighter destroy the heavier? In any case, the question is moot. Look at the videos of huge wall sections flying sideways at many miles per hour. One can also see progressive explosions running down the walls under the canopy of debris. The Twin Towers were exploded (see sources).
Above, I paid tribute to the Twin Tower architects. Here is one for the NYC Fire Department. They took testimony from firefighters very soon after the day, recorded and transcribed diligently, and published them. I cannot praise enough whoever in the NYC-FD chose to do this. This is historical treasure; extended, authoritative, first hand source testimony on a significant event. Whoever authorized this deserves a medal. In these transcripts can be found every corroboration for Mr Rodriguez' testimony one wishes. Graeme McQueen's work on analysing those transcripts have been invaluable to the "9/11 Truth" movement.
The work of Niels Harrit and others (see the author list in the academic article linked below) have been seminal in uncovering a nasty problem for the official account.
They obtained four samples from different locations of the dust of the destroyed buildings with a very careful chain of custody. They examined these samples to find a most unexpected substance, the "red-gray chips". These are nano-scale materials which use a variant of the thermite reaction. The thermite reaction produces sufficient heat to melt steel which an "office fire" or kerosene (aeroplane fuel) never can. However, these "chips" have in their matrix other materials to produce rapid expanding gases, which is what an explosive reaction is based upon.
The "red-grey chips" give a clue as to some of the types of explosives or incendiaries used to destroy the buildings. The problem with these nano-material red-grey chips is that, at the time in 2001, they would only have been able to be produced in very few, highly controlled, laboratories, world wide. This creates a problem. The tiny number of laboratories eases identifying them.
World Trade Center 7 (WTC7)
WTC7 was stuck by falling debris from the closest exploding tower. This set off a few scattered office fires, which did what they do, meandering around looking for new fuel sources where oxygen is available. Then at 17:20 local time the building symmetrically collapses into its own footprint. It is a classic controlled demolition, in contrast to the Twin Towers which were a media spectacle of uncontrolled demolition. All doubt of what happened to WTC7 is removed by the authoritative study by Hulsey et al..
This study leaves the official NIST report without supporting infrastructure and sitting in a neat rubble pile ready for disposal.
One of the often unknown and interesting aspects to 9/11 is that on the day the USA Air Force was running a "war game" in which they were simulating hijacked airliners. The military was injecting "phantom jets" into air traffic controllers' radar to facilitate the gaming.
This is completely backwards. One takes the live radar footage and inject that into a parallel system into which one injects phantoms. Thus, civilian air traffic control is not confused by silly stuff that the military are doing.
Early in the day, after the first Tower impact, there are frantic calls from air traffic controllers to the military to "get these [expletive] phantoms out of the system".
The other "exercise" on the day was that most of the fighter jets for NORAD (North American Air Defence) were off in Canada or some area in north western USA thousands of kilometres away from their usual stations. This minimizes the ability to respond to air threats.
Like many, I have great respect for the emergency workers on that day, but I also extend that to the air traffic controllers who were left in the most horrid of circumstances. It is they who are meant to inform NORAD of hijacks so that fighter jets can be sent aloft. I have some equivalent sympathy for the jet fighter pilots. For not one of them was able to get close to any of the planes which the official story identifies. Hours of “hijacked airliners” and not one intercepting jet.
It looks like planned unavailability, rather than incompetence.
Swiss historian Daniele Ganser got involved in the effort to plumb the depths of 9/11 back in 2008. Using the official 9/11 report from the 9/11 Commission he asked his students to assess the material (see sources). The first official report didn't even mention the complete destruction of a 57 story building, WTC7 . Eventually his question becomes a choice between two options, which I think is about as close as we can get to the "truth" at the moment. Was is LIHOP or MIHOP? LIHOP is "let it happen on purpose". MIHOP is "make it happen on purpose". There is a scale in between the two with a large "extremely compartmentalized information" "I didn't know the plan" escape hatch.
The "grandfather" of 9/11 truth was theologian David Ray Griffin (see sources). He has now published 10 or more books on the topic. Indeed, it was listening to Griffin on Bonnie Faulkner's "Guns and Butter" radio program that Richard Gage, a USA architect was inspired to look into the 9/11 story. He later founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth who to this day continue to petition for a formal inquiry with subpoena power. Crimes of property destruction and murder were committed on the day but the government's response to the events did not follow standard procedure for a crime scene. Evidence was destroyed (shipped to China) witnesses were not interviewed (except the NYC FD) etc..
I closely align with AE911Truth's motives. It is important for the USA citizenry to have a clearer understanding of what happened on the day. and that does not necessarily need to go as far as finding the perpetrators. Just start with the facts. But, we know where that leads, which is why cover ups are employed. “Truth needs to be guarded by a phalanx of lies”.
9/11 is a complex event with many moving parts and takes quite some time to research. Paid shills spout rubbish, ill informed persons come to rash conclusions and deliberately misleading information is injected. Honest efforts do continue to uncover that which the Philip Zelikow directed 9/11 Commission tried to suppress.
A Limited Theory
Loading the Twin Towers with nano-themite and other explosives would have taken many months, close to a year even. Covertly rigging two very large buildings is time consuming. The WTC7 rigging is less problematic in scale, but the tenancy is a challenge; the Securities and Exchange Commission, the CIA, the NYC Emergency Management, etc.. It would take a detailed knowledge of both the building and the tenancy to achieve. The planning for the destruction of the buildings has to be at least 6 months prior to the event, and I expect a year or more.
It is obvious that the plan by whichever terrorist group it was to potentially hijack airliners was allowed to proceed, or at least not be significantly impeded. Intelligence analysts who don’t understand the actual events feel guilty for not having been able to stop the plot. It was and is a cover story.
Whether any airliners were actually hijacked by terrorists or not, I remain unconvinced. Recall that in 1961 the Joint Chiefs of Staff were proposing Operation Northwoods which involved hijacking planes and then using remote controlled planes to overfly and take their place as the actual planes are landed and the replacement planes are blown up by remote control up over Cuban airspace to give a casus belli. The technology to do this existed over 40 years before 9/11.
The airliners are not the method of damage, they are the spectacle. Its pre-planted explosives that destroy the buildings (WTC 1,2 and 7).
Who planned it? If by “it” we mean the destruction, that was certainly by people who could rig explosives in buildings tenanted by the CIA and the Securities and Exchange Commission. This rules out the perpetrators pointed to in the official story.
The who dunnit is intriguing, but better handled by a court of law than a commission of inquiry or a “blogger”. That is the work of the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry who have received support from such a “cause lawyer” luminary as Daniel Sheehan. (If you don’t know who Sheehan is, fascinating research awaits you).
While blame is meaninglessly flung left and right for the current Afghan withdrawal debacle, the topic of what actually happened on the 9/11 antecedent, sadly, remains taboo.
The So-Called War on Terror Has Killed Over 801,000 People and Cost $6.4 Trillion: New Analysis, Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams, 2019-11-13
The Illegal CIA Operation That Brought Us 9/11, Robert Scheer and Guests, TruthDig, 2019-01-25
How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77, Mark Gaffney, 911Truth.org, 2009-07-08
Barbara Honegger’s “Eyewitnesses for and Evidence of Explosives at the Pentagon”, Kevin Barrett, (his website), 2019-03-10
Twin Towers' Construction Photos, (no author), 9-11 Research, 2006-10-16
FAQ #2: Were the Twin Towers designed to withstand the impact of the airplanes?, (no author), AE911Truth, (no date)
William Rodriguez Hero of 9_11, Luke Rudkowski and William Rodriguez, We Are Change, 2017-09-11
WTC NORTH TOWER EXPLODING, David Chandler, AE911Truth, (no date)
118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers, Prof Greame McQueen, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 2006-08-11
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Harrit et al., The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, J. Leroy Hulsey et al., University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2020-03
'Let's Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim': How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks, Shoestring 9/11, (blogger.com), 2010-08-12
9_11 Investigation - Daniele Ganser -10 Years after the Terror Attacks of 9_11_2001, Daniele Ganser, 911THEFILES (youtube channel), republished 2013
The 9_11 Commission Report Cannot Be Trusted - Explosive Revelations (2005), David Ray Griffin (intro by Kevin Barrett), The Film Archives, republished 2017
Guns and Butter archive, Bonnie Falkner and Guests.
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory, James Corbett, corbettreport.com, 2011-09-11
Mr. Jay follows the aeroplane highjacking, and details Bob Graham’s testimony on the Saudi and USA government leadership conspiracy. Dick Cheney’s role in the supression of intelligence warnings is covered as he describes Thomas Drake’s revelations. The video production shows the excellence one expects from Mr. Jay.
Cream - Strange Brew
Do Not Subscribe: This blog does not and will not ever issue "notifications". Do not "subscribe", it wont help. Use RSS. The URL is the obvious: https://yesxorno.substack.com/feed .
If you like what you read here then thank the author by sharing it.
Copyright and Licensing
This work is copyright to the blog's author with CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing. Have fun, reuse, remix etc. but give credit and place no further restrictions. Lets build culture. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode