Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

Archive

Archive for January, 2011

Written by Bob Adelmann
Wednesday, 22 December 2010

Last July the Washington Post published a three-part story on “the huge security buildup in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.” This week, the Post published “Monitoring America,” the fourth installment of its “Top Secret America” series , describing security efforts at the local level.

After two years of research, hundreds of interviews, and thousands of hours poring over documents, the Washington Post investigation was unable to determine anything for sure — except, of course, that the security system is massive:

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work….

After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is [that] the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

The system now spreads over more than 10,000 locations, employs an estimated 1 million people, and involves 1,300 government organizations and almost 2,000 private companies. And yet, it was virtually helpless in the face of the Fort Hood shooter or the Christmas Day bomber, both of whom had left tracks that had gotten buried under volumes and reams of incoming and irrelevant data.

The study did reveal Top Secret America’s mind-numbingly complex operations. In a moment of candor, retired U. S. Army Lt. General John Vines, who was asked to review just part of the system, exclaimed:

I’m not aware of any agency with the authority, responsibility or a process in place to coordinate all these interagency and commercial activities. The complexity of this system defies description.

And the growth of the agencies tasked with keeping the country safe (the mission defined as “defeating transnational violent extremists”) is astonishing. The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency has more than doubled since 2002, the National Security Agency has doubled in size, and the number of FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces jumped from 35 to 106. The researchers could provide only rough estimates of the cost of the operation: $40 billion was committed by Congress nine days after the attacks, followed by an additional $36 billion in 2002, $44 billion in 2003 — “and that was only a beginning.” The number of agencies involved in “Top Secret America” (TSA) grew from 24 at the end of 2001, with 37 more being added in 2002, 36 new ones in 2003, and successively larger additions in the following years, for a total, so far, of 263 organizations created in the wake of the attacks. After reviewing the Washington Post’s findings last July, retired Admiral Dennis Blair succinctly summed up the effort: “After 9/11, when we decided to attack violent extremism, we did as we so often do in this country: the attitude was, if it’s worth doing, it’s probably worth overdoing.”


Click on the link for the rest of the article Top Secret America: Expensive, Chaotic and Dangerous.

David Chandler is interviewed regarding his journey on the campaign for 9/11 Truth and Justice. It was David who is credited with getting NIST to admit WTC Building 7 fell at a an acceleration consistent with free-fall due to gravity. David also talks about the highly political timing and nature of the NIST Building 7 report.

We then move on to talk about David’s his new DVD “9/11 Analysis” which is comprised of a compilation of his powerful work to date and some new material into one concise resource. This DVD is available for sale now and can be purchased at Chandler’s web site www.911speakout.org

Click to hear the interview of David Chandler

Guns and Butter interview of Kevin Ryan
January 12, 2011

WTC tenants, both companies and employees; security and design firms and their board members involved in redesigning and implementing the new security system after the 1993 basement bombing; companies and individuals involved in the clean-up of ground zero. Who had the means, access, motivation and who profited.

Click on link for interview Demolition Access To the World Trade Center Towers

On this week’s “9/11 In Context” show, which airs Thursday, January 13, at 3pm ET, I will interview pioneering researcher Steven Jones, who in 2005, while still a tenured professor of physics at Brigham Young University, began to report the results of his investigations of the physical evidence from the World Trade Center building disintegrations. His findings of suspicious evidence of demolitions, and his advocacy of continued research into the evidence wherever it might lead, resulted in his early termination at BYU. Steve has continued to carry out cutting-edge research with a growing international team of associates. He is Co-Editor of The Journal for 9/11 Studies, and a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Listen live at: Steven Jones interview

or listen to the mp3 which is available at the same link right after the broadcast.

Click “Play” or click on “Download” under the show title (“Steven Jones …”).

A page of links to key articles by Steven Jones is posted at the Resistance Radio forum show page, at Steven Jones 9/11 in context

Don’t miss the show! It is sure to be worthwhile.

Note: It was David Chandler’s analysis that forced NIST to admit that during part of Building Seven’s descent, it was falling at free fall speed which is impossible unless the structural support for the the building was being systemically destroyed by a controlled demolition. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Written by Michael Cook
January 7, 2011

There are several outstanding leaders in the 9/11 truth movement. High school and community college physics instructor David Chandler has found his place among them. With 30 years of experience teaching physics, math, and astronomy in a variety of schools in the US and India, Chandler easily guides the layperson through the basic physics of 9/11. His articulate, detailed website, co-produced with AE911Truth’s Jon Cole, another prominent contributor to our mission, provides valuable documentation of the controlled demolition of all three WTC skyscrapers. For instance, he has produced a premier article on Building 7 which he says presents physics at the level of “the first month of a high school physics course” in a Resistance Radio interview with Tod Fletcher. The NIST report on Building 7 is inconsistent with basic physics as we know it. Chandler notes “if the NIST report on Building 7 had been turned in by a first-year student in one of my classes, it would have received a D or an F.” Its 1,000 pages of error, negligence, and fraud are exposed by Chandler’s simple, historic papers and videos.

Chandler has just released a new DVD which is a well-edited compilation of his many videos that spells out in no uncertain terms some of the physically impossible and obviously false features of the official explanation for what transpired on 9/11, as they relate to the Twin Towers and WTC 7.

This DVD is now for sale in the AE911Truth online store.

NIST, when confronted publicly with evidence produced by Chandler, finally admitted in their November 2008 Final Report that WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds in free-fall, but they brushed off this newly acknowledged fact as being “consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis,” despite Sunder’s earlier statement. Thus, the NIST simulation and analysis represented a multi-million-dollar effort to avoid explaining what really happened.

Many other physics analyses are presented by Chandler on his website 911SpeakOut.org, applying the laws of physics to WTC 7 and the Twin Towers. For a more detailed account of the unexplained features of the destruction of WTC Building 7, see the article on page 1.

The North Tower’s Destruction: Race with Gravity

Using measurements from network television videos, Chandler was able to show that a series of what he describes as “demolition waves” travels down the side of the North Tower (WTC 1) even faster, at times, than the debris falling through air outside the Tower. This officially unexplained phenomenon can be seen in the video clips, Race with Gravity, and more recently Acceleration + Serendipity, at Chandler’s website. Either something is moving through the building as fast as the debris is falling through air, or what we are seeing is a wave of timed explosions. This wave of ejections is the fastest-moving feature of the collapse, racing far ahead of the overall building collapse.

For the rest of the article Physics Instructor David Chandler gives NIST another whack with the ruler

A special backup network that allows communications between government and military agencies to continue during emergencies was “miraculously” switched on the day before 9/11, and so was already operational when the terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon took place. The Special Routing Arrangement Service (SRAS) was, for reasons unknown, turned on for “exercise mode” on September 10, 2001, and was therefore ready to be utilized the following day, when there was a national emergency like that for which it was intended.

The SRAS is the responsibility of a little-known government agency called the National Communications System (NCS), which works to keep critical telecommunications functioning during emergencies and played a crucial role in the government’s response to the 9/11 attacks, helping to maintain and restore communications networks. Furthermore, the SRAS is related to “Continuity of Government”–a plan that was activated for the first time during the attacks.

SRAS TURNED ON FOR ‘EXERCISE MODE’ ON SEPTEMBER 10


Brenton Greene, the director of the NCS on September 11, told the 9/11 Commission that on September 10, 2001, “miraculously, the SRAS system was turned on for exercise mode and thus it was ready to function on September 11.” Therefore, when the NCS was required to assist the government’s response to the terrorist attacks, the “SRAS was already in exercise mode and operational.” [1]

The SRAS supports the highly secret Continuity of Government (COG) plan, which is intended to keep the government functioning in the event of an attack on the U.S. [2] The NCS’s involvement in COG was one of the agency’s three main programs. As Greene told the 9/11 Commission, “The main communications system of the country must be kept going or no one can communicate.” [3] The SRAS provides “a vehicle for continuity of operations by providing survivable communications linkages to federal and defense end users over the public network,” according to a Department of Homeland Security publication. [4]

Apparently describing the SRAS, Greene told the 9/11 Commission, “There is a separate network linking the National Coordinating Center and the major carriers and networks as a backup.” (The National Coordinating Center, in Arlington, Virginia, is the “operational arm” of the NCS.) This network “proved its value as a separate link on 9/11 because it coordinated network use between Network Operations Centers while the [telecommunications] network was saturated.” Furthermore, again apparently describing the SRAS, Greene said, “In the situation where Continuity of Government is put into play”–as was the case on September 11–“there is a communications system where no one can trace the site of the call on either end.” [5]

WAS THE NCS INVOLVED IN A TRAINING EXERCISE ON SEPTEMBER 11?


Greene apparently did not tell the 9/11 Commission why the SRAS was turned on for “exercise mode” on September 10. But a possible explanation that needs to be investigated is that the NCS was scheduled to participate in a training exercise on September 11. We know that the NCS was, in 2001, part of the Department of Defense. [6] And several U.S. military agencies are known to have been conducting exercises on the morning of September 11. For example, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) was running its annual exercise, “Vigilant Guardian,” [7] and the United States Strategic Command (Stratcom) was holding its annual exercise, “Global Guardian.” [8] Might the NCS have been participating in one of these, or another exercise?

Furthermore, it is worth noting that beginning at 8:00 a.m. on September 11, representatives from the CIA gave a briefing to the NCS at “a secure facility outside of Washington, DC,” where they discussed the threat that international terrorists posed to America’s telecommunications infrastructure. Along with Brenton Greene, the briefing was attended by representatives from seven other federal agencies and more than 40 technology and communications companies. The private sector representatives were all “senior executives from their respective companies, and all had government security clearances that granted them access to the most sensitive intelligence data” relating to threats to the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure, according to journalist and author Dan Verton. Topics discussed during the briefing included the growing terrorist threat to the telecommunications infrastructure, the information warfare capabilities of foreign nations, and the possibility of a strategic cyber-attack on critical U.S. infrastructures, committed by a foreign nation or a terrorist group. [9]

Considering that the NCS’s Special Routing Arrangement Service had been switched on for “exercise mode” the previous day, and considering the topics that were discussed, might this briefing have been an introduction for a training exercise, perhaps preparing participants for a scenario based around a simulated attack against the telecommunications network?

CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT WAS ACTIVATED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON SEPTEMBER 11

Continuity of Government is a program dating back to the cold war, which aims to ensure that the government will continue to function in the event of an attack on the United States. During the 1980s it prepared for a possible nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, but during the 1990s it focused instead on the possibility of a terrorist attack in the U.S.

Considering that the SRAS supports COG by “providing survivable communications linkages to federal and defense end users,” it is worth noting that sophisticated communications methods have played an important role in the COG program. In the 1980s, for example, much of its budget of hundreds of millions of dollars “was spent on advanced communications equipment that would enable the teams [involved in COG] to have secure conversations with U.S. military commanders,” according to journalist and author James Mann.

Furthermore, three of the program’s key players during the 1980s and 1990s held critical positions in the U.S. government on September 11. Those individuals–Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Clarke–were the vice president, secretary of defense, and White House counterterrorism adviser, respectively, when the attacks occurred. [10] David Addington, Cheney’s legal counsel in 2001, was also involved in the COG program. [11]

It is also notable that the COG plan was activated, apparently for the first time, during the 9/11 attacks. Richard Clarke has said that he gave the order to activate it, apparently at around 9:45 a.m. on September 11, or shortly after. [12] He told ABC News: “On the morning of 9/11, the entire Continuity of Government program was activated. Every federal agency was ordered … to activate an alternative command post, an alternative headquarters outside of Washington, DC, and to staff it as soon as possible.” [13]

Considering that the SRAS is intended to support the COG program, it was convenient, to say the least, that it was already operational on September 11 and therefore immediately ready to be utilized by those involved with COG when the plan was activated.

NCS’S CRITICAL RESPONSE TO THE 9/11 ATTACKS


The National Communications System, which is responsible for the Special Routing Arrangement Service, is a relatively small agency that was established in 1963, in order to provide better communications support to critical government functions during emergencies. [14] Around the time of the 9/11 attacks, it consisted of 22 federal agencies, 100 full-time civilian employees, and 10 military employees. [15]

The NCS played a critical role following the 9/11 attacks, when the destruction caused by those attacks became what Brenton Greene called “the most significant challenge that the National Communications System had ever seen.” [16] In partnership with private companies, it “quickly assembled an unprecedented level of resources at the national, state, and local levels to support the response and recovery efforts.”

Presumably, the NCS’s emergency efforts benefited from having the SRAS already operational when the attacks took place. As previously mentioned, the SRAS is related to the Continuity of Government plan. Notably, in response to the attacks, the NCS’s National Coordinating Center operated at four sites, which included a “remote continuity of operations location.” [17] And Greene has said he went to his “Continuity of Government site,” where personnel operated around the clock to monitor the status of the telecommunications network, and coordinate priorities and repairs. [18]

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES EXPERIENCED COMMUNICATIONS PROBLEMS ON SEPTEMBER 11


So little has been reported about the National Communications System and the Special Routing Arrangement Service, and the role played by each on September 11, that many crucial questions remain unanswered. For example, what capabilities did the SRAS enable? And what use was made of them on September 11, before, during, and after the attacks took place? Why was the SRAS turned on for exercise mode the day before 9/11?

The need for investigation of the roles of the NCS and the SRAS appears increasingly urgent in light of the fact that communication difficulties were a significant problem for government agencies responding to the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, one classified after-action report “does not paint a favorable picture of the government’s overall crisis management capabilities,” according to Dan Verton. One government official said “the nation was ‘deaf, dumb, and blind’ for much of that horrible day in September.” [19]

NOTES
[1] “Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Brenton C. Greene.” 9/11 Commission, March 16, 2004.
[2] House Select Committee on Homeland Security, The Department of Homeland Security’s Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2005: Prepared Opening Statement of General Frank Libutti, Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 108th Cong., 2nd sess., March 4, 2004.
[3] “Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Brenton C. Greene.”
[4] David M. Barron, J. M. Hickey, and Dan Bart, Communications: Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Sector-Specific Plan as Input to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, May 2007, p. 106.
[5] “Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Brenton C. Greene.”
[6] Ibid.
[7] “Conversation With Major General Larry Arnold, Commander, 1st Air Force, Tyndall AFB, Florida.” Code One, January 2002; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 458; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 545.
[8] Joe Dejka, “Inside Stratcom on Sept. 11 Offutt Exercise Took Real-Life Twist.” Omaha World-Herald, February 27, 2002; Joe Dejka, “When Bush Arrived, Offutt Sensed History in the Making.” Omaha World-Herald, September 8, 2002.
[9] Dan Verton, Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism. Emeryville, CA: McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2003, pp. 135-139.
[10] CBS News, September 11, 2001; James Mann, “The Armageddon Plan.” The Atlantic, March 2004; Howard Kurtz, “‘Armageddon’ Plan Was Put Into Action on 9/11, Clarke Says.” Washington Post, April 7, 2004; “Worst Case Scenario: Secret Plan to Control U.S. Government After an Attack Went Into Motion on 9/11.” ABC News, April 25, 2004; Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy. New York: Scribner, 2007, pp. 84-88.
[11] Jane Mayer, “The Hidden Power.” New Yorker, July 3, 2006; Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals. New York: Doubleday, 2008, p. 49.
[12] Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror. New York: Free Press, 2004, p. 8; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 38.
[13] “Worst Case Scenario: Secret Plan to Control U.S. Government After an Attack Went Into Motion on 9/11.”
[14] Dan Verton, Black Ice, p. 136; “Background and History of the NCS.” National Communications System, n.d.
[15] Dan Verton, “At NCS, the Focus is on Telecom Preparedness.” Computerworld, November 7, 2002.
[16] Dan Verton, Black Ice, p. 151.
[17] 40th Anniversary: Forty Years of Service to the Nation: 1963-2003. National Communications System, 2004, p. 56.
[18] “Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Brenton C. Greene.”
[19] Dan Verton, Black Ice, pp. 150-151; see also “‘Deaf, Dumb, and Blind’: Were Communications Sabotaged on 9/11?” Shoestring 9/11, October 19, 2007.

Source Backup Communications System Was ‘Miraculously’ Switched on for ‘Exercise Mode’ and Ready for Use on 9/11

Note: There are alternate theories about the attack on the Pentagon. This is the latest paper. We will see if Pilots for 9/11 Truth has a rebuttal to this paper or concurs with its findings. There is also the question of whether or not the additional flight data recording information is accurate or has been tampered with in the past nine years since the 9/11 attacks.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)
January 2011
Journal of 9/11 Studies

Introduction

The official narrative of the events which have become known as 9/11 includes descriptions of attacks on the World Trade Centre towers and the Pentagon by aircraft on 11 September, 2001. The towers were eventually destroyed and the Pentagon was severely damaged.

The account of the attack on the Pentagon includes the following: A Boeing 757, operated by American Airlines, took off from Washington Dulles International Airport at 8:20 a.m. At 8:54 it deviated from its assigned route and at 8:56 the transponder was switched off. The plane, under the control of hijackers, headed back toward Washington and descended. As it approached the Pentagon it performed a descending spiral to the right and finally dived toward the Pentagon while accelerating. It hit some light poles and other objects on the ground and then penetrated the west face of the building at 9:37:44,1 or 9:37:46,2 depending on source.

Various claims have been made about the attack on the Pentagon. Early claims included damage by a missile or a truck bomb.3 However, as so many witnesses had reported seeing a large commercial aircraft approaching the Pentagon, these claims received little attentionfrom the public. It was not until the data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was received from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that serious consideration was given to alternative explanations of the damage. The data was received in two forms, following a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. One form could not be understood by inspection and the other, a readable comma-separated values (CSV) file, had some columns of data missing, a critical omission being radio height.4

After considerable difficulty, assistance in interpreting the coded file was received and the result came into public hands.5 Like the CSV file, it appeared to indicate that the flight terminated at a position which was too high to have struck the Pentagon in the described manner. There has been much debate about the flight path of the plane. One group asserts that the plane approached from a direction which would not have permitted it to create the observed straight line of damage through the light poles and inside the Pentagon. This assertion is based on the group’s discovery of 13 eyewitnesses who allegedly place the course of the plane to the north of the former Citgo service station. It is argued from this that the plane must have passed over the Pentagon, despite the existence of a large number of eyewitness reports that the plane hit the building,6 including some of these 13 north-path witnesses,7 and despite the absence of the many reports of the plane flying over the building that would be expected, given the large number of vehicles in traffic jams nearby.8 This theory requires that the long, straight line of complex damage was done by some other means, and done in its entirety without any of the activity being reported.9

Another group which studied the FDR data claimed that it would have been impossible for the plane to pull out of the dive which was needed to arrive at the light poles and then level off to hit the Pentagon, as the g-force would produce a wing load greatly exceeding the structural strength of the plane. They assume the data finished close to the Pentagon and argue that the data file proves the official description of the flight false, apparently ignoring the alternative view that the many reports of the plane hitting the building might be indicating that there was a defect in the data.

For the rest of the article Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

Written by Jim Cirile
January 7, 2011
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

For 35 years, Skeptical Inquirer has fought the good fight. The bimonthly magazine publication of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry seeks to “criticize claims of the paranormal and pseudoscience,” promote “a balanced view of science in the mass media” and “teach critical thinking in schools,” according to CSI founder Paul Kurtz. Despite this noble mission, Skeptical Inquirer recently delivered what its author probably believed was a fiery smack-down to the 9/11 Truth movement.

Rutgers sociology professor Ted Goertzel’s double-length cover story in the January/February 2011 issue, “The Conspiracy Meme – Why Conspiracy Theories Appeal and Persist,” lumps the 9/11 Truth movement in with the “faked Moon landing,” and “AIDS was a government plot to kill gay people.” While Goertzel does some analysis and draws conclusions regarding the “conspiracy mindset,” when it comes to 9/11, he ignores the most important evidence. He indulges himself in ad hominems and other fallacies that, in particular he should know about, given how he and the periodical for which he is writing have positioned and marketed themselves. He’s dismissive and even derisive – in violation of the magazine’s stated policies. To his credit, it appears Goertzel did watch Loose Change: An American Coup, but that seems to be about the extent of his actual 9/11 research:

“Loose Change raises a long series of questions illustrated by tendentious information, such as the fact that the fires in the World Trade Center were not hot enough to melt steel. But no one claimed that the steel had melted, only that it had gotten hot enough to weaken and collapse, which it did.”

Perhaps Mr. Goertzel should have done some actual skeptical inquiry of his own. If he had, he surely would have found numerous quotes making precisely the false claim that office and jet fuel fires can melt structural steel:

Stanford University Professor Steven Block: “The intense heat could have melted the buildings’ cores, allowing for the collapses, he suggested.”

Structural engineer Chris Wise: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other.”

Engineer Hyman Brown: “Structural steel is fireproofed to last between one and two hours, which it did, and then steel melts.”

Structural engineer Richard Ebeltoft: “Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building’s [sic] steel supports.”

NewScientist.com: “Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape.”

For the rest of the article Skeptical Inquirer Attacks 9/11 Truth Movement, Avoids Vast Body of Scientific Evidence

Better Tag Cloud