9/11: The War on Truth
[Disclaimer: All material presented within this research is given verifiable citations to its original source, thus allowing one to check its validity. In addition to the material given in this article it must be emphasized that all claims made herein should only be challenged with a counter argument that provides factual evidence to each of the points in the research. For an opportunity to argue points made in this research please email email@example.com]
It was an average September day in Plymouth, Wisconsin. The brisk winds chased me down the street as I pedaled my bicycle from my home, yoked with the mission to deliver the most deafening news story ever printed in the 21st century. The Sheboygan Press cover story read in extra-large, extra-bold print: “America Attacked!” With each paper situated in my carrier pack, I sped down my route and tossed them onto porches, many of which had restless residents eagerly waiting to receive their copy. Their faces were clouded with confusion but one thing was certain, they were bound to find the answers.
Eleven years have passed since this defining moment in my life, and the lives of millions of other people, yet this mission still rings clear to me. I must find the answers. I must know the truth. In an age of uncertainty, postmodernism and ambiguity, this is not only a matter of extreme difficulty but also a task that appears to be hastily dismantled by the gatekeepers of our age: the government, media and worst of all, those determined to uphold the duty to end terrorism at all costs.
The problem with the attacks on 9/11 is that they are a series of events many are very certain went one way while an increasing amount of other citizens argue it was the other way around. How could such alternate theories on how it happened exist when the news, our leaders and so many in the intelligence community gave their explanatory reasons for this nightmarish day in history, that others would stand and contradict it? Before I go any further into the evidence-based theory which led me to publish this article, I must define what prompted me to take what at first could only be opinion and ideas thrown at the fan.
Personally I like to go to go to my friends and family for advice before anyone else. In doing so, I prepared a Facebook Question poll and asked people to vote on which of the three options best represented their view on whether or not the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job.
I have seen other statistics before on where the people stood and this one was not much different from those. What strikes me is just how many people align their views with the official account (that which is the government and media’s stance on what happened) but even more shocking is the intensity at which people voted yes or maybe, which when added together nearly ties with those that said no.
Before I go any further, I would like to make it clear just how much pressure there has been in deciding whether or not I would want to go public with my viewpoints on this subject. It almost seems as though there is a psychological tension present when one leaves mainstream thought to a road less travelled and then, as a consequence, they are chastised for this repositioning. It is a tough place to be but I will say that it is not so much that I want to stir up the mud as much as it is how I have come across things that do not add up with the official account of 9/11 and want the truth to be heard for the sake of the victims. There may be a great deal of suppression of this theory by those who would categorize one as being unpatriotic or un-American for believing that the attacks are in any way tied to our government or others from within our country.
Another interesting question I have been asked when venturing into this risky territory is what the bigger picture is, if it is true that 9/11 was an inside job? What would we gain? Many have speculated the multiple wars in the Middle East as a reason. Others say it is for oil. There are so many questions that will distract one from leaving the facts and figures he knows and speculate in an area that is full of question marks and I will not let this article derail into a conspiracy theory hay ride through uncharted wilderness, but I will ask questions. Not that such questions should not be put into scientific analysis, and any logical thinking individual would want to put two and two together, but what must be looked at first and foremost are the facts that we have readily available to us. These are carefully documented materials from scientists, architects, FBI agents and many others whose discoveries are begging to be broadcasted.
Yes, there have been many books published on 9/11 truth and there are many more coming forward almost every day. As the years have gone by, many are becoming more daring with their public inquiries. I write this article to personalize my alignment with the truth theory of 9/11 and because I strongly believe social media and word of mouth is one of the strongest media outlets to date, it is then imperative that many who question the events and sense a failure by our government to carry out the constitution, to stand up and get involved on a local level.
In the following discourse, I will attempt to look into just a few of the many plaguing, unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 and how the 9/11 Commission Report did what it did to omit and distort what we now know as the official story.
On September 11, 2001, a most unfortunate series of attacks on American soil occurred leaving many in despair and utterly confused. Millions flocked to the live television coverage of the events to figure out what had happened and to their horror, found that thousands of people were trapped in a burning tower that had just been hit by an airplane, and then another, and then…a series of unexplainable events and deaths.
Time has passed since this terrible day but despite the explanations by the government through the 9/11 Commissioner’s Report released in 2004, which claims but does not prove these events were orchestrated by Bin Laden, we are left with no real official explanation other than that provided by the scientific and intelligence community, along with the many independent journalists that have brought to light this terrible tragedy. According to David A. Wallace:
“The attacks left a powerful imprint on the psychology of the American public, which remains deeply divided over government actions taken prior to and after the attacks. A May 2006 Zogby poll concluded that over half of the 1,200 Americans sampled believe President Bush ‘‘exploited’’ the 9/11 attacks (44%) or were not sure (11%). Over half also believe the government and the 9/11 Commission ‘‘concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks’’ (42%) or were unsure about a cover-up (10%). The demographic breakdown of these figures well reflect polarizations in US society based on political party affiliation, ethnicity, race, economic status, geographic location, and age (Zogby International, May 24, 2006). These lingering doubts have, in part, fed into the ‘‘Truth Movement’’, which directly challenges the official version proffered by the 9/11 Commission, claiming instead that it was an inside job engineered by elements within the US government.” 
The Truth Movement, which strives to be an open door for true scientific explanation of the events of 9/11, is anything but a gang of conspiracy theorists. It is a driving force in thoroughly answering the tough questions about how 9/11 happened.
Indeed we were told a great deal of information on what happened during 9/11. In fact, the event becomes so complex that it would take volumes of literature to really amply get to the bottom of everything, which is in no way the mission of this article. I will go into detail about just a few hot button issues that will take one into the heart of the problem of the 9/11 accounts. One of the first national headlines that really brought attention to the mysterious perpetrators of the event was the sudden announcement of the 19 hijackers. The problem with this FBI news bulletin is that six of the nineteen hijackers are still alive.
“Waleed al-Shehri—said to have been on American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center—was interviewed after 9/11 by a London-based newspaper. He also, the Associated Press reported, spoke on September 22 to the US embassy in Morocco, explaining that the lives in Casablanca, working as a pilot for Royal Air Maroc.”  
Along with this Ahmed al-Nami, Saeed al-Ghamdi, allegedly on Flight 93, told Telegraph reporter David Harris how shocked they were to hear that they were apparently dead in the crash. One was working as an administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines at the time and the other had been in Tunis learning to fly an Airbus according to the BBC. Three others reported to the Saudi embassy in Washington, Mohand al-Shehri, Slaem al-Hazmi, and Abdulaziz al-Omari—all who were alive and well in Saudi Arabia. “[al-Hazmi] had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck.” If there are holes in the official story of 9/11 that have been broadcasted to the world for eleven years, then those with a mind for scholarly information and facts have a right to find whatever it is they need to find to fill in those holes. In this case, the lack of solidarity in reporting who it was accused of hijacking those planes is extremely disconcerting and therefore unreliable. For our FBI to shove the blame into what could very well be innocent men, six of whom are still alive, is completely idiotic.
The biggest question that 9/11 truth-seekers will ask, in regards to 9/11, and stands as the most used tagline for explaining away, in short, what happened on 9/11: 19 men, armed with box cutters, hijacked four planes and took them into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA and wreaked havoc on all inhabiting these areas as well as taking down two 110-story World Trade Centers all the way to the ground—and World Trade Center Building 7? Many who breeze through the known information about 9/11 seem caught off guard when World Trade Center Building 7 is brought up. It was hardly ever broadcasted but it was the third building to collapse and the only one of the three not hit by a jetliner. The Two World Trade Centers collapses are explained as having occurred due to the heat upon the steel beams caused by both plane crashes fires in both buildings. In this case it can be said that they came down due to fire, regardless of the small fires that were in the enormous buildings. World Trade Center Building 7 is said to have fallen due to small office fires that were created from the nearby falling debris, which struck the building from the twin towers’ collapse. Nevertheless, all three of these buildings not only collapsed into a perfect thumbprint of each building but also were entirely pulverized into a fine powder. The following points from Dr. David Ray Griffin’s book highlight the impossibilities of the building collapses fitting the official explanation and draws the evidence of their collapse to be most certainly identical with that of explosive demolition:
“The collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC-7 had ten characteristics that are standard features of “controlled demolition” collapses, which are produced by explosives placed throughout a building and start to go off in a particular order. Namely:
1. Each Collapse occurred at Virtually free-fall speed.
2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into very fine dust.
4. In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more.
5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves,” meaning “confluent rows of small explosions.
7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long.
8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions).
10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months.
Although authors of The 9/11 commission Report reportedly aspired to make it “the fullest possible account of the vents surrounding 9/11,” it does not explicitly acknowledge, let alone solve, any of these problems.”
With so thorough an analysis on the characteristics of the destruction of both twin towers and WTC-7 matching up identically with that of a controlled demolition, it is impossible in any honest sense, to pass this up as unimportant information or conspiracy theory nonsense.
Certainly much more could be expounded on, concerning the three World Trade Center collapses, such as how a multi-billion dollar insurance policy was taken out for them just weeks prior to 9/11 or Building 7’s owner, Larry Silverstien’s, admission to having “pulled it”, a demolition term for bringing down a building. These facts make it certain that there are more questions that need to be asked when one considers the ill effects of the media and government’s explanations of 9/11.
Soon after 9/11 took place, not only were nineteen unverifiable men accused of hijacking planes but it was also evident how our own national defense and intelligence networks were the subject of great criticism for having seemingly allowed these attacks to occur by either not responding soon enough to the immediate attacks or from having not picked up on advanced warnings of the attacks (or both). While it is observed and emphatically questioned as to why all four planes were not brought down by our advanced, state-of-the art defense system it is also questioned as to why certain people in the intelligence community knew what was going to happen, thus making these officials prime suspects when the facts of 9/11 are considered.
It is important to note that Attorney David Schippers made it clear, just days after 9/11, that FBI agents gave him highly specific information about future attacks for lower Manhattan. “He even tried to warn Attorney General Ashcroft about the attacks, but that Ashcroft would not return his calls.” Griffin goes on in his book to further describe how these impending and possibility created attacks, or false flag operations, were something the FBI was very well familiar with.
““One of them reportedly said that some of the FBI field agents—who were some of the “most experienced guys”—“predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th.” This agent also reportedly said that it was widely known “all over the Bureau, how these [warnings] were ignored by Washington.””
When destructive events of this magnitude occur, it is only natural for people to turn to something like the government or the media to make sense of the tragedy. Oftentimes people even rely entirely on the government to take care of these problems so that they will not have to deal with them. The problem with this thinking and the results of an incomplete investigation on 9/11 in Washington, not to mention the vast amount of holes in the official story, is that it invites manipulative control and an injected, false narrative to be the one with the last word—an archaic and unreliable sort of forensics science more appropriate for the middle ages than the 21st century.
As a result of 9/11, America has embarked on a campaign known as The War on Terror which has taken us to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and now what looks like Iran. Liberties have been taken away with the Patriot Act and it is now legal, due to the new NDAA law, to detain American citizens indefinitely and without trial if suspected of terrorism. Since no one has actually paid the price for 9/11 as of yet, it seems we are in an imperative position to fulfill our original obligation, which was stated by George W. Bush on September 11, 2001: that we find whoever is responsible and see to it that justice is served.
The tragic events of 9/11 cannot be swept under the rug, lest we be entirely satisfied with the genocidal killing of innocent lives and unsatisfactory, unscientific explanations of the events from government officials who met behind closed doors to “decipher” the meaning behind the largest crime scene in American history. This day must be questioned and the truth must come out. And the questions amass: Why is it that almost anyone asking these questions is immediately labeled a “conspiracy theorist,” for inquiring about the events? If our government, news media and the average person really felt comfortable with the official stance on 9/11, why is it they feel so compelled to react harshly from those who do not? Why is it that in many countries around the world, a large amount of people side with the truth theory of 9/11? Why is it that over a thousand emergency response team and clean up employees have lost their lives due to rare cancers from radioactive fall out in the trade center dust? Why was there radioactivity in the World Trade Center dust at all if the buildings fell due to fire? Why are billions of iron microspheres and nano-thermite found in the dust of ground zero if there is no way the three tower’s collapse was due to controlled demolition? Why did the Pentagon lose over 2 trillion dollars just weeks before 9/11 occurred and where did these funds go? Why was there no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon site? How was it people aboard Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, PA, were able to use their cell phones when they were at an altitude where cellular communication is cut off? Why did President Bush remain and not get whisked off by Secret Service in the Florida elementary classroom an hour past when America was placed under a state of emergency? Why did President Bush insist on being questioned on oath by the media behind closed doors?
Eleven years and counting and yet it still remains a mystery as to what really happened on 9/11.
 The ‘truth’ version being the alternate 9/11 stance that indicts responsibility on those within our country and/or government for inciting the attacks)
 INSERT 9/11 Report
 Wallace , D. A., & Stuchell, L. (2011). Understanding the 9/11 commission archive: control, access, and the politics of manipulation. Springer Science & Business Media B.V. , doi: 10.1007/s10708-008-9252-7
 Griffin, D. R. (2005). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. North Hampton, MA: Olive Branch Press.
See Thierry Meyssan, 9/11: The Big Lie (London, Carnot, 2002), 54
 Associated Press, September 22, 2001, cited in Meyssan, 9/11: The Big Lie, 54
 BBC News, September 23, 2001
 Meyssan, 9/11: The Big Lie, 54
 Harrison, “Revealed: The Men with Stolen Identities, Telegraph`, September 22, 2001
 The point is more true of Building 7, because of the fact mentioned in the fourth point.
 On points 3 and 4, see Jim Hoffman, “The North Tower’s Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements of the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of World Trade Center,” Version 3.1, January 5, 2004
(http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html), discussed in NPH, 2nd ed., 177-79.
 For Visual evidence of these first six characteristics, see Eric Hufschmid’s Painful Questions, his video “Painful Deceptions” (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net) and several presentations on websites, such as Jeff King, “The World Trade Center Collapse: How Strong is the Evidence for a Controlled Demolition?” Plaguepuppy
(http://st12.startlogic.come/~xenonpup/collapse%20update). The quoted phrase in point 6 is taken from King’s article.
 Therefore they, in the words of Jim Hoffman, “could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.” See Jim Hoffman, “Your Eyes Don’t Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses,” originally an interview on KPFA, January 21, 2004 (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html), quoted in NPH, 2nd ed., 177. Coincidentally, the company given the job of cleaning up the rubble at the WTC—Controlled demolition, Inc.—says in its publicity that its systems “segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment” (quoted in Eric Hufschmid’s video, “Painful Deceptions” and in NPH, 2nd ed., 178).
 See NPH 179n74
 For points 9 and 10, se NPH 19-20
 Griffin, D. R. (2005). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. North Hampton, MA: Olive Branch Press.
 Alex Jones show, October 10; World Net Daily, October 21; “David Schippers Goes Public: The FBI Was Warned,” Indianapolis Star, October 13; and “Active FBI Special Agent Files Complaint Concerning Obstructed FBI Anti-Terrorist Investigations,” Judicial Watch, November 14, 2001. This story was reported in NPH 84.
 William Norman Grigg, “Did We Know What Was coming?”, The New American 18/5: March 11, 2002 (www.thenewamerican.com), quoted in NPH 85.