September 11, 2001

From WhyNotWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] To do

[edit] Introduction / Misc

“ We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty ”

—George W. Bush: 2001-11-10: Remarks by the President to United Nations General Assembly

I agree with the first part of Mr. Bush's statement 100%: we must speak the truth about terror -- the key word here being truth.

The second part, however, I fail to understand or agree with. Why is it again that we should not "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories"? What have the innocent to fear from Americans considering theories? (Nothing) If these "outrageous conspiracy theories" are so outrageous, then it should be a simple matter to quiet them down, to show the outrageousness and untruth of these outrageous claims, should it not? Should the guiltless be afraid free inquiry? Should those who have nothing to hide be defensive?

What harm is there, then, in letting the "conspiracy theorists" freely investigate and speculate? Wouldn't the most sensible reaction to these untrue "alternative" (compared with the "official White House story") theories that have surfaced be to release the rock-solid, watertight evidence and reasoning that corroborates our own story? Wouldn't we want to fully cooperate with those seeking the truth to avoid giving the impression that we have something to hide? Shouldn't we be more than happy to set these alternative speculations (these untrue allegations) to rest by releasing the ample evidence (well, the evidence could have been ample, had it not been so quickly and tragically destroyed) that we have to support our own theory?

And yet, from the research I've done so far, I've gotten the impression that:

  • The U.S. government does have something they're trying to hide, and they get nervous and defensive whenever you try to bring it up. There seems to be evidence that they have actually withheld and/or destroyed evidence that would have proven very valuable in demonstrating what actually took place on 9/11 -- in some cases, evidence that would have / could have vindicated themselves if their story were in fact true (why would you destroy evidence that could be used in your defense??).
  • They did a bad job of covering up. If you're going to pull off a huge, elaborate lie, done in broad daylight with many eyewitnesses and photography, you could have at least done a better job of planning it, to make sure there were no loose ends or inconsistencies that might draw suspicion to your story. And yet there are many elements of the official story that are inconsistent with each other, that can be [proven] to be untrue, and which simply don't add up. (Of course, I don't think any amount of planning or hiding things would have kept it in the dark forever. It was only a matter of time until somebody found out. Remember, you're sins will find you out eventually.)

"Malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty." Wow, those are confident, bold accusations! Surely, then, the president's confidence must be resting firmly on a ream of evidence that caused him to reach those conclusions, evidence that shows beyond reasonable doubt that there were, in fact, terrorists involved, that it is the terrorists who are guilty, and that those would speak otherwise are spreading "malicious lies"! Surely and his advisors have thoroughly done their homework, done their research and eliminated all other possibilities, if he's able to speak so confidently. Surely he wouldn't fabricate an elaborate lie and coverup as a pretense for starting a war in Iraq. All right, then, I'd like to see your evidence, Mr. President.

[edit] Are all "conspiracy theories" untrue?

Just because someone calls something a "conspiracy theory", does that mean there's no truth to it? I don't want to be easily deluded by people's claims just because they sound believable, but I'd like to at least look at these bold claims made about the events of September 11.

I'd like to consider the facts on both sides and make a fair and accurate assessment. I have no bias. I will not presuppose one theory is true and only consider evidence in favor of that theory. Let's let the evidence speak for itself and then draw conclusions from it.

I don't want to be just like those whom I criticize for just retelling 2nd-hand facts without looking into them myself. As far as possible, I'd like to verify these facts myself. I will provide direct links / citations to 1st-hand / primary sources to corroborate these claims when I am able to find them.

9/11 Mysteries was my first exposure to these "conspiracy theories". Confession: I was all too eager to believe them, just like we were trusting and eager to believe the media when the story first broke.

Why do we believe what we're told without checking it out for ourselves?

See also: Conspiracy theories, and the section "Denial ("That's absurd", "Impossible", etc.) (How not to react to this...)"...

[edit] Neutral point of view

There is no "us against them". This isn't necessarily "the government vs. us", or "liberals vs. conservatives".

This is "the truth vs. misinformation", "the truth vs. lies", "the truth vs. those who are trying to cover up the truth".

There are, I suppose, two main theories for what happened on September 11. I suppose one could also say they are at odds with each other.

I will try not to pick a favorite side one way or another (not entirely possible, but I will try). Instead I will try to organize the best arguments for both sides and leave it to you to decide which one to believe. I will try to clearly label which arguments and evidence are for / support the one theory and which are for / support the other.

Here are the two theories, as I see them:

  • [Pro-conspiracy] -- rename to "Inside job"?
  • [Anti-conspiracy] -- rename to "Official story"?

I encourage you to be as open-minded about this as possible, to not dismiss a "theory" as unlikely until you've checked out the evidence for yourself.

Be objective. Be a reporter. Don't go into this with a bias. And I'll try to do the same here.

[edit] Confession

Confession: I'm half rooting for the "conspiracy theory" to win out and to have the most convincing evidence, and my organization/presentation of this material/evidence may appear one-sided. I apologize! (Maybe it's because the preponderance of evidence seems to be on that side?? Or maybe it's just that conspiracy theories are fun...)

If you have any evidence from a different viewpoint that you'd like to share with me and with the world, please post it here for all to see.

If you're so certain that the "official story" is correct, then why don't you present your evidence and reasoning, upon which you so confidently hang your beliefs, for all to see and scrutinize?

  • Who was your source of information regarding the 9/11 story? Was it perchance the major news networks (CBS, MSNBC, Fox News)? Are you willing to entertain the possibility -- even for a moment -- that they were lying to us?
  • Have you actually done some research on your own -- any at all? -- or are you in fact simply repeating the story and facts you gleaned 2nd-hand from the official news agencies?

[edit] Let's respect each other

Here are the rules if you want to contribute to this discussion...

  1. Show each other respect
    1. No name calling
    2. Don't attack the messenger
  2. Anyone is free to contribute to this discussion
  3. ...

[edit] Transparency, openness, honesty

The quest for truth is not secretive with its evidence. Those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to hide.

I aim to be as transparent and honest about my investigation methods, and to that aim:

  1. I will admit my leanings (bias) up front and do my best to investigate the facts objectively and fairly
  2. I will let you know / indicate as best I'm able, which theories/evidence I am sketpical of, no matter for which side the proported evidence proportedly supports.
  3. I will try to research each claim and confirm its validity and the [feasibility] of its logic, and where I haven't yet had time to do that, I will try to make a note of it. (How would you like to help fill in the gaps??)

[edit] Which side we should want to be correct...

Truthfully, what I want to discover, in the end, is that my government was telling the truth all along, and that they really were dealing honestly and in the best interest of the residents of the United States of America. I hope that's what we will find out is the case...

I find it interesting that in both of the (pro-conspiracy) films 9/11 Mysteries and In Plane Site, the [creators] of the film tell us in their introduction that they were actually quite skeptical when they first heard the conspiracy theories... In fact, in both of these cases the whole reason they started their independent investigation/fact-finding mission was so that they could prove that these conspiracy theories were all wrong. They set out to "prove them wrong".

Ironically, however, after they'd had a chance to do their own research and check the evidence, fully intending to discredit this "alternative explanation", they actually has a complete change of opinion and became convinced that the so-called "alternative" explanation had more truth to it than the "official" explanation... I find that pretty impressive, that these two skeptics would change their tune from thinking these "conspiracy theories" were completely ludicrous and unbelievable to becoming so convinced about their findings that they actually become two of the most outspoken and convincing proponents of the very theories they set out to prove wrong!

This is their claim anyway. It's hard to know for sure if they (or anyone else) are telling the truth, however. [Need to find evidence (category)] of their claims that they were previously skeptics of these theories.




[edit] Questions and Facts

I want to start getting these facts and questions nice and organized and sortable. These are some of the categories I'm thinking of using to classify the bits of information, so that we can group related things together and you the information in a variety of useful ways...

When considering what happened at the Pentagon, for example, it isn't helpful to be looking at facts about the World Trade Center! So breaking the overall story of September 11 into smaller, more specific events/topics, we can allow you to filter out anything that's not on the specific topic that you're currently considering.




[edit] [Structures (category)] Would a crash by an airliner cause a building to collapse?

  • The (structural engineer?) designer of the WTC designed it to be able to withstand the impact of a 707. He likened it to poking a pencil through a screen door. It's not going to hurt it very much!!

[edit] [Structures (category)] Weren't the Twin Towers poorly constructed?

http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=9

No one has had the ability to prove that the towers were poorly constructed. Yet our major media has suggested, in TV programs and printed articles, that (1) the buildings were poorly constructed; (2) the structural steel used in their frames was defective; (3) the fireproofing of this steel was inadequate.

In fact, the buildings were "over-engineered." This means that each floor could bear many times its weight, and the endo- (inside) and exo- (outside) steel skeletons actually constituted two frames, not just one. The core (inside frame) was composed of 47 steel columns made of 4-inch-thick steel at the base (go to a construction site and ask to see an I-beam for an example of what structural steel is like). The exterior frame was made of 236 columns, plus four corner columns.

Kevin Ryan (Google his articles) of Underwriters' Laboratories, the global testing giant that certified the WTC steel decades ago, has exposed UL's strange acceptance of the decree that the structural steel failed, even though not a single one of the test models failed. Ryan drew attention to this while at UL, wondering why his company was willing to put its reputation in question. He was fired immediately.

The New York Times reported that when the planes hit the towers, the impact knocked the asbestos fireproofing off the structural steel, and the fires that ensued attacked unprotected steel. This caused certain floors to fail, and the falling floors brought down the floors beneath them, resulting in a pancaking of the entire tower. Twice!

In fact, the towers' tremendous strength explains how they continued to stand after the airplanes plowed into them. They would have stood for many more years, with their gaping holes, if no repairs were conducted. Instead, they came down in approximately 10 seconds, which suggests that something other than the plane impacts was involved. (See "Jet Fuel" FAQ for more info on the fires.)

[edit] [Fire (category)] Doesn't jet fuel burn very hot?

http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8&Itemid=9

Answer: Jet fuel is refined kerosene. Airliners use "Jet A" kerosene and the military uses "JP 4" kerosene. Regardless, neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet engine.

Jet A is the same stuff burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC (called a "dirty burn") kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700 degrees Fahrenheit. The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560 degrees. The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.

In a "controlled burn" (where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix), jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building plummeted to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful "fuel" was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the building, not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military operations, would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500 dF in 2 seconds, and steel begins to melt at 2750 dF.

Professor Steven Jones (Google him), a physicist at Brigham Young University, came forward in November 2004 with a published paper on the possibility of thermite having been used at the WTC on 9/11. His research continues, and he has now found not only solidified drops of molten metal in a dust sample from the WTC, but evidence of sulfuric granulation (a "eutectic reaction") on the structural steel, which suggests that thermate, an enhanced form of thermite, was involved in the destruction of the towers.

[edit] [Pro-conspiracy] Miscellaneous (non-comprehensive) list of arguments

  1. Fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. Engineers and scientist are baffled as to how it could have happened in this case.
  2. Jet fuel is refined kerosene. Airliners use "Jet A" kerosene and the military uses "JP 4" kerosene. Regardless, neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet engine. Jet A is the same stuff burned in conventional steel wall heaters.
  3. Jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees max in a controlled fire (i.e., blue-white flames, a blast furnace). This building fire was not a controlled fire, but a dirty fire, as evidenced by the yellow-orange flame. Even if it were 1800 degrees, that's not enough to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building plummeted to the ground.
  4. What jet fuel? No plane even crashed into WTC building 7?!, a fact that the media somehow glossed over. Even if one had, like the other tower, the building in question was engineered to withstand the impact of a 707. It would have been like a pencil through a screen door. In fact, it was standing just fine until the explosions. It didn't fall until like 7 hours after the other one, I think it was (?)....
  5. Molten steel was found under the building, WEEKS after the collapse.
  6. A pancake collapse wouldn't have happened at freefall speeds. One floor would hit the other, which would cause it to *slow down*. It should have taken at least a minute if it had been a pancake collapse. It looked VERY much like a controlled demolition to me.


[edit] [Flights (category)][Hijackers (category)] What's this Saudi connection thing?

Source: BBC News: 2007-02-14: 9/11 questions At 09:20 PM on 14 Feb 2007, John wrote:

They don't know that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis yet you don't hear about any investigations into that connection, because the Saudis and the Bush's go way back. Not to mention the relationship between the Bin Ladens and the Bush's. Sure Osama is one of like 53 kids, but I thought family was so important to them. You really think that the bin laden family would approve of us killing their son, unless it was all just a setup and he was suppose to be the fall guy?


[edit] [Flights (category)][Logistics (category)] Who were the hijackers? Who flew the planes?

http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=9

The hijackers were said to be 19 Arabs from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. Yet none of the passenger lists revealed Arab names. Somehow these hijackers boarded the planes at Logan, Newark and Dulles airports, took them over, and directed them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, PA. The passenger lists came to us not from official agencies, but from news outlets. No official agency (neither the FAA, the FBI, or the airlines) has ever released a passenger manifest or list.) Still, the FBI provided a list of the hijackers, complete with photos, within 48 hours of the 9/11 event.

In addition, the FBI claimed to be aware of Arabs training at flight schools throughout the country. Although several FBI agents had attempted to warn their superiors of suspicious activities well before 9/11, these warnings were ignored. (Google Sibel Edmonds, Colleen Rowley, "Able Danger.") The question is: If federal entities were involved in the 9/11 plan, why WOULD they investigate themselves?

Who were the "Arabs" in training at the flight schools? Google Daniel Hopsicker's work and Webster Tarpley's book "Synthetic Terror." It is possible these men were double agents, not even Arabs, "patsies" or assets of inside intelligence organizations. At any rate, they were enrolled in flight schools in order to validate the story that would come out when the towers were struck. Flight-school instructors reported that the "Arabs" were extremely incompetent, both as students and as pilots. They had trouble operating the smallest and simplest of planes. Question: So how could they re-program huge Boeings and fly them to New York and elsewhere? (Plane paths are now controlled by computers. You cannot just look out of the window and take the plane to New York.)

Also, the captains of all four planes failed to send out any distress signals (there are codes pertaining to hijackings). Why did they give up their aircraft so easily?

Another question to ponder: Were there any hijackers at all? We have one security camera image of "Mohammed Atta" supposedly at Portland, ME airport, but there are two time stamps on the single image. Also, Boston Logan did not have security cameras in operation on 9/11. WHY?

[edit] [Flights (category)][Logistics (category)] What happened to the passengers?

http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=9

A: The simple answer: Nobody knows. There are anomalies in the passenger lists themselves, and many who supposedly died on the flights are not listed in the United States Death Registry.

Frankly, this particular question can't be answered without a valid determination of what hit the towers, the Pentagon and the field in Shanksville. Were these passenger planes, military substitutes, or something else? The question then devolves into whether you believe the government's story. If you do, then you must ask yourself: (1) why they lied and said they didn't know it could happen despite their surveillance of the alleged hijackers for months before; (2) how they could produce names so soon after the event; and (3) why did they work so hard to prevent even a basic investigation into the purported crashes of four airliners -- the only airline crashes in American history that have never been investigated?

The people who made these decisions know who flew the planes (if anybody actually did), but you and I may never. The suppression of evidence by the government is central to our unwillingness to believe what we have been told. Under traditional rules of American jurisprudence, neither Osama bin Laden nor any Arab could ever be convicted of the 9/11 crimes, because no convincing proof that they did it has ever been presented.

As the planes wandered in the sky for over an hour, they passed over several airports and military bases. Did they come down at any of these and were they swapped for other craft? What did happen to the passengers? No matter where they went, they are assumed to be dead. If indeed they died, the issue of "wrongful death" (especially as our air-defense fighter jets seem NOT to have been deployed when necessary that day) becomes something Americans can pursue with their state legal representatives (District Attorneys, US Attorneys, State Attorney Generals). Missing persons from the 9/11 planes were residents of many different states. Your legal representatives have subpoena power in this kind of matter, and can charge individuals in the federal government with responsibility.

[edit] What are the key open questions?

(separate these out)

http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=9

1. If the fires in the towers were out in 10 minutes (as FDNY firemen reported), why did the buildings fall? And how were the cores obliterated?

2. How did jet fuel (kerosene) achieve burning temperatures of 5000dF, enough to cause pools of molten steel at the base of the buildings weeks later?

3. How did incompetent, failing flight-school students maneuver Boeings at high speeds through difficult turns?

4. Why were the hijackers not on the passenger lists? Where did their names and pictures come from a day later?

5. If Mohammed Atta and his pals were Islamic fundamentalists, why did they frequent strip bars, drink hard liquor and leave deliberate "clues" (flight-school manuals and Korans) in obvious places?

6. Why was the hole in the Pentagon so small? What happened to the wings of the Boeing, the heavy engines, the bodies of the passengers?

7. Why were news reporters mystified at the lack of plane debris at Shanksville? Why did Donald Rumsfeld "mis-speak" about the plane being shot down?

8. Why did Larry Silverstein, new landlord of the WTC complex, announce that Building 7 had to be "pulled" when such an operation takes weeks of planning?

9. Why did President Bush fail to react in the Florida schoolroom and then say he had watched the first crash on live TV?

10. Why did US air defense do absolutely nothing to intercept planes that were off course for as much as 1-2 hours?

[edit] [Money (category)][Motivation (category)] Why did [Larry Silverstein (category)] take out a $3.5 billion insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism, 6 weeks before 9/11?

...

[edit] Why didn't the insurance companies make a big deal about the acts of terrorism insurance claim?

If anyone would have seen the "too coincidental" nature of Silverstein taking out that insurance (as if predicting the attacks) and then profiting from it after the attack 6 weeks later when he filed his claim, you'd think it would have been the insurance company, since they had to supply the (huge) payout. Were they not a little bit suspicious??

Has anyone asked them about it? Have they released any statement about it?


[edit] [Foreknowledge (category)] Did government officials have foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks?

There is evidence that they did, although not hard proof (since much of the evidence was destroyed)...

[edit] [Investigation process (category)] Why was so much evidence destroyed?

Over the protest of engineers and scientists, who would have liked to study to try to better understand how the structure could have collapsed, etc.

[edit] [Investigation process (category)] What other suspects were considered besides Bin Laden?

...


[edit] Was Bin Laden responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

It's hard to prove one way or another, because it's hard to know which video tapes are really of him and which have been falsified... but I believe he was not.

Source: BBC News: 2007-02-14: 9/11 questions, At 08:35 PM on 14 Feb 2007, colonel kurtz wrote:

Somebody mentioned earlier how Osama Bin Laden gloated on video tape on how he masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Are you talking about the same Bin Laden that was about 5 stone over weight, wearing a gold ring (which is forbidden in Islamic law) and using his right hand (Bin Laden is left handed). If you believe that was Bin Laden well then you're an idiot, oh and don’t forget that Al Jazeera received conformation six days after the attack from Bin Laden him self that he had nothing to do with the attacks.

Kevin Barrett (2006-02-14). Bin Laden tapes are phony [http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=72574&ntpid=1] (http://www.unknownnews.org/060214a-Barrett.html). Retrieved on 2007-04-16 00:25.

Bin Laden tapes are as phony as Sept. 11's connection to Islam

As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I'll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape.

It's a tough thing to admit because I know on which side my bread is buttered and dropping Islam from the 9/11 equation is dropping my slice of bread butter-side-down. The myth that 9/11 had something to do with Muslims has poured millions, if not billions, into Arabic and Islamic studies. I finished my Ph.D. last year, so all I have to do is keep my eyes in my pocket and my nose on the ground, parrot the party line, and I'll be on the fast track to tenure track.

The trouble is, it's all based on a Big Lie. Take the recent "bin Laden" tape, please! That voice was no more bin Laden than it was Rodney Dangerfield channeling my late Aunt Corinne from Peoria. I recently helped translate a previously unknown bin Laden tape, a real one from the early '90s, back when he was still alive. I know the guy's flowery religious rhetoric. The recent tape wasn't him.

The top American bin Laden expert agrees. Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's religious studies department, has just published a book of translations of bin Laden's speeches. He says that the recent tape is a fake and that it is possible bin Laden is not even alive.

Fake bin Laden tapes, "verified" by the CIA, are nothing new. Every supposed bin Laden statement since 2001 has been blatantly bogus. The last we heard from the real bin Laden came in his post-9/11 statements to Pakistani journalists:

"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation. ... I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. ... I had no knowledge of these attacks."

Then on Dec. 13, 2001, as George Bush was whining about the "outrageous conspiracy theories" that were spreading like wildfire, the first and shoddiest of the "bin Laden speaks from beyond the grave" tapes appeared. The video's sound and picture quality were horrible. It showed a big guy with a black beard, doing a passable imitation of bin Laden's voice, claiming foreknowledge, if not responsibility, for the 9/11 attacks, and chortling over their success. The trouble was, the big guy clearly was not bin Laden. He was at least 40 or 50 pounds heavier, and his facial features were obviously different.

The "Fatty bin Laden" tape was widely ridiculed, and I have yet to meet an informed observer who considers it authentic. (If you haven't figured this out yet, go back and look at the images from the tape and compare them to other images of bin Laden.) But the media let the fraud pass without asking the hard questions: Why was the U.S. government waving this blatantly fake "confession" video in our faces?

Perhaps due to the widespread hilarity evoked by "Fatty bin Laden," the next Osama from beyond the grave message had no images it was an audiotape delivered to al-Jazeera in fall 2002. The CIA verified it as authentic and then got a rotten egg in the face when the world's foremost voice identification experts in Switzerland reported that "the message was recorded by an impostor."

Every bin Laden message since then has been equally phony. They are released at moments when the Bush regime needs a boost and the American media go along with the fraud. Remember the bogus bin Laden tape that made headlines right before the 2004 presidential election? If you didn't figure out that it was a CIA-produced commercial for George Bush, I have some great bridges to sell you. Walter Cronkite, bless his heart, opined that Karl Rove was behind that tape. But the rest of the media just kept pretending that the emperor was clothed.

And the fraud continues. The most recent alleged bin Laden tape has been ridiculed by America's top bin Laden expert, yet the U.S. media keep right on holding a transparent fig leaf in front of the emperor! Professor Lawrence believes that this phony tape was designed to distract world opinion from the horrific massacre of Pakistani civilians by an errant CIA drone. But it may have another, more sinister purpose: to prepare public opinion for another false 9/11-style attack designed to trigger a U.S.-Israeli nuclear attack on Iran.

The real bin Laden, who insisted that he had nothing to do with 9/11, has been dead since late 2001 or early 2002. The fake messages have been fabricated by "al-CIA-duh" to support the Bush regime and its phony "war on terror." It is time for Americans to rise up in revolt against the fake terror masters who are looting U.S. taxpayers, torching our Constitution, destroying our economy, and threatening nuclear Armageddon.

Kevin Barrett holds a Ph.D. in Arabic, with a focus on Islamic studies, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is a co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth.

Osama bin Laden denies involvement in 9/11 attacks (http://www.unknownnews.org/OsamaInterview.html) (2001-09-28). Retrieved on 2007-04-16 00:25.

Interview published September 28, 2001 in Ummat, an Urdu-language daily newspaper in Karachi, Pakistan

Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

Osama bin Laden: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the Earth as an abode for peace, for the whole humankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and momin [true Muslim] people of Pakistan who refused to believe the lies of the demon [presumably a reference to Pakistani military dictator General Pervez Musharraf].

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of Allah upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.

The U.S. has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates. However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to Allah Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of the United States, or the U.S. itself considers them as its enemies.

The countries which do not agree to become the U.S. slaves are China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Russia. Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people.

I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed. According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the U.S. Government has stated. But the Bush Administration does not want the panic to spread.

The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the U.S. itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American-Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.

Then there are intelligence agencies in the U.S., which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem [for American intelligence] during the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Osama and Taliban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance.

I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the U.S. secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat.

In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other U.S. President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.

Ummat: A number of world countries have joined the call of the United States for launching attacks on Afghanistan. These also include a number of Muslim countries. Will al Qaeda declare a jihad against these Islamic countries as well?

Osama bin Laden: I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them as to what is good for them and what is not. What does Islam say and what do the enemies of Islam want. Al Qaeda was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to counter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared pillar of Islam. Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of jihad. Al Qaeda wants to keep jihad alive and active and make it a part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship.

We are not against any Islamic country. We do not consider a war against an Islamic country as jihad. We are in favour of armed jihad only against those infidel governments, which are killing innocent Muslim men, women and children just because they are Muslims. Supporting the U.S. act is the need of some Muslim countries and the compulsion of others. However, they should think as to what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and the Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan. The orders of Islamic Shariah [jurisprudence] for such individuals, organizations and countries are clear and all the scholars of the Muslim brotherhood are unanimous on them. We will do the same, which is being ordered by the Ameer-ul-Momeneen [the commander of the faithful] Muhammad Omar [leader of the Taliban] and the Islamic scholars. The hearts of the people of Muslim countries are beating with the call of jihad. We are grateful to them.

Ummat: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the U.S. is not too difficult. U.S. experts admit that a few more such attacks can bring down the American economy. Why is al Qaeda not targeting their economic pillars?

Osama bin Laden: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in the control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid down by them. So the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word.

Ummat: Why is harm not caused to the enemies of Islam through other means, apart from the armed struggle? For instance, urging the Muslims to boycott Western products, banks, shipping lines and TV channels.

Osama bin Laden: The first thing is that Western products could only be boycotted when the Muslim fraternity is fully awakened and organized. Secondly, the Muslim companies should become self-sufficient in producing goods equal to the products of Western companies. Economic boycott of the West is not possible unless economic self-sufficiency is attained and substitute products are brought out. You see that wealth is scattered all across the Muslim World but not a single TV channel has been acquired which can preach Islamic injunctions according to modern requirements and attain an international influence. Muslim traders and philanthropists should make it a point that if the weapon of public opinion is to be used, it is to be kept in the hand. Today's world is of public opinion and the fates of nations are determined through its pressure. Once the tools for building public opinion are obtained, everything that you asked for can be done.

Ummat: The entire propaganda about your struggle has so far been made by the Western media. But no information is being received from your sources about the network of al Qaeda and its jihadi successes. Would you comment?

Osama bin Laden: In fact, the Western media is left with nothing else. It has no other theme to survive for a long time. Then we have many other things to do. The struggle for jihad and the successes are for the sake of Allah and not to annoy His bondsmen. Our silence is our real propaganda. Rejections, explanations, or corrigendum only waste your time and through them, the enemy wants you to engage in things which are not of use to you. These things are pulling you away from your cause.

The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which makes us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.

Ummat: What will be the impact of the freeze of al Qaeda accounts by the U.S.?

Osama bin Laden: Allah opens up ways for those who work for Him. Freezing of accounts will not make any difference for al Qaeda or other jihad groups. With the grace of Allah, al Qaeda has more than three alternative financial systems, which are all separate and totally independent from each other. This system is operating under the patronage of those who love jihad. What to say of the United States, even the combined world cannot budge these people from their path. These people are not in hundreds but in thousands and millions. Al Qaeda comprises of such modern educated youths who are aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands. These are the very flaws of the Western fiscal system, which are becoming a noose for it and this system could not recuperate in spite of the passage of so many days.

Ummat: Are there other safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad?

Osama bin Laden: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir. Then it is not the problem of my person. I am a helpless fellowman of Allah, constantly in the fear of my accountability before Allah. It is not the question of Osama but of Islam and, in Islam too, of jihad.

Thanks to Allah, those waging a jihad can walk today with their heads raised. Jihad was still present when there was no Osama and it will remain as such even when Osama is no longer there. Allah opens up ways and creates loves in the hearts of people for those who walk on the path of Allah with their lives, property and children. Believe it, through jihad, a man gets everything he desires. And the biggest desire of a Muslim is the life after death. Martyrdom is the shortest way of attaining an eternal life.

Ummat: What do you say about the Pakistan Government policy on Afghanistan attack?

Osama bin Laden: We are thankful to the Momin and valiant people of Pakistan who erected a blockade in front of the evil forces and stood in the first file of battle. Pakistan is a great hope for the Islamic brotherhood. Its people are awakened, organized and rich in the spirit of faith. They backed Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union and extended every help to the mojahedeen (freedom fighters) and the Afghan people. Then these are very Pakistanis who are standing shoulder by shoulder with the Taliban. If such people emerge in just two countries, the domination of the West will diminish in a matter of days.

Our hearts beat with Pakistan and, Allah forbid, if a difficult time comes we will protect it with our blood. Pakistan is sacred for us like a place of worship. We are the people of jihad and fighting for the defense of Pakistan is the best of all jihads to us. It does not matter for us as to who reforms Pakistan. The important thing is that the spirit of jihad is alive and stronger in the hearts of the Pakistani people.

Conclusion: I believe he was not responsible.


[edit] Was the Bin Laden family that was living in America at the time flown out of America on September 11?

[Need to find evidence (category)]Source: BBC News: 2007-02-14: 9/11 questions, At 08:35 PM on 14 Feb 2007, colonel kurtz wrote:

July 4th 2001 Osama Bin Laden wanted by the United States since 1998 received medical attention in hospital in Dubai where he was visited by the local chief of the CIA as reported on by the guardian. Not to mention that Osama was a CIA asset during the cold war, the Bush family had dealings with the Bin Ladens and on September the 11th the entire remainder of the Bin Laden family in America were flown out of the country even though flights were suspended.


[edit] [Media coverage (category)] Were the news networks able to give us live TV coverage of both WTC plane crashes? If so, how?

Wouldn't that mean they were anticipating the attacks?

Source: BBC News: 2007-02-14: 9/11 questions, At 02:50 PM on 14 Feb 2007, Chad H wrote:

How could you watch the September 11 attacks on live TV? That would involve a TV network a) knowing it was going to happen, b) having a camera ready on the scene, and 3) cutting in with a live feed before the attack took place.

Actually, In Plane Site seems to indicate that the first crash actually wasn't aired on live TV. In fact, it sounded like there was only one video available of the first attacks, and it was done by an amateur and was from some distance away. (But at least we do have that one video.)

[edit] If the first plane crash wasn't on live TV, why did President Bush claim that it was?

When he was at the school in Florida and was asked what he thought of the attacks, he mentioned that he'd watched the first one on (live) TV. [Check facts.]

It's almost as if he had planned this all along, knew it was going to happen, and new it was going to be on the news. Except that he slipped and forgot that the first crash wouldn't be on live TV, because that would have required the news networks to know about the attack in advance and have cameras ready. Just because he knew about it in advance doesn't mean the TV stations did...

[edit] Is there evidence that the planes that hit the twin towers were actually airliners, as claimed in the official story?

Not that I've seen...

[edit] How about evidence that they weren't airliners?

Yep, it seems that there is...

  • In Plane Site: there was something attached to the belly of the plane (which would not have been on an ordinary airliner), which exploded when it went into the building (different from the fuselage). If you look at military planes, you see that they often have such a protrusion on their belly...
  • One eyewitness said that's not an American Airlines
  • Another said it had no windows
  • Another said the [logo] didn't look like it was from airline



[edit] [Media coverage (category)] Why did the media keep pretty quiet about the collapse of WTC7, after the other 2 towers had fallen?

...

[edit] [Media coverage (category)] Who is "the media" and was what they reported on somehow controlled/censored by someone else, like the government?

What evidence do we have that this was the case?

Why would they comply?

Did no journalist have enough of a conscience to speak up or protest? Did they just not take the time to research the facts for themselves (were they negligent journalists?)?

Was it convenience/expedience that made them simply report/repeat what they were told 2nd-hand rather than verifying the story and the plausibility of the "official story"? They were just in too much of a hurry? (Negligence, again.)

Were they bribed? Threatened? Deceived? Misled? Manipulated?


[edit] [Media coverage (category)] Why didn't all these anomalies come to light and get reported on much, much sooner?

Molten steel weeks after the collapse?? Nobody thought that was a bit suspicious?

Or the explosions and squibs? Nobody noticed that in the videos years ago?? Nobody noticed the similarity of how the whole building fell neatly down into its basement in a matter of seconds with that of a controlled demolition?


[edit] [Demolition (category)] Were there squibs?

Several sources say there were.

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm says there weren't. They point to some pictures that don't show the squibs.

But I think they were shown pretty clearly in the video(s) I saw. [need to check]


[edit] [Steel (category)] How could the steel have melted?

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

"Here PM's counter claim implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF."

That seemed strange to me. They made a point of how steel temperatures are different from the atmospheric temperatures surrounding it, then went on to cite a study and only mentioned the steel temperatures, not the atmospheric. So I went to the website of Corus Construction Co, and found a section in their Research area that said this about the difference in temperatures between steel and atmosphere:

"With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100°C to 200°C."

So the tests that the conspiracy theorist cited only had atmospheric temperatures ranging around 800-900 degrees, while the Popular Mechanics article (and NIST report) mentions that pockets of the World Trade Center reached 1800 degrees [really?? that's a big difference to be reporting]. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1600-1700 degrees, which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity.

I just thought it was a pretty striking example of dishonesty. The conspiracy theorist site could not have found that Corus study without finding the question on the atmospheric temperature, but left that part out.


[edit] [Steel (category)] Okay, it didn't melt, it just softened. Could that explain what happened to cause the collapse?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6368341.stm, Edward, Sheffield

As a metallurgist I can tell you that the current evidence is not for any melting of steel in the WTC, rather a softening, as starts to occur at 425C. A quite normal event in any large fire.

Okay... but how much does it soften? Enough to cause a huge, very well-engineered skyscraper to collapse? How come that's never happened before with a steel-[frame] skycraper?


[edit] [World Trade Center (category)] How could the buildings have collapsed at freefall speed?

Could the traditional "pancake collapse" caused by a floor giving away and collapsing have caused the building to collapse at such a high speed? I don't believe it could have, personally...

I think the only reasonable explanation for that was that it was a controlled demolition.


[edit] [World Trade Center (category)] How could the buildings have collapsed directly onto there own foundations?

How would it have collapsed if it had been from a pancake collapse or from fire damage or whatever? (I think 9/11 Mysteries showed a couple examples of such collapses, and they did not look the same as the WTC collapses...)

I think the only reasonable explanation for that was that it was a controlled demolition.


[edit] [World Trade Center (category)] Were there explosions?

Source: BBC News: 2007-02-14: 9/11 questions, At 08:35 PM on 14 Feb 2007, colonel kurtz wrote:

What about the firemen on the day of the attacks hearing multiple explosions coming from all around the twin towers. News channel reporters claiming that they heard explosions and footage featuring blatant evidence of explosions coming from within a building.

[edit] If so, what were they from?

From a controlled demolition perhaps?

[edit] [World Trade Center (category)][Demolition (category)] Was thermite used?

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this.

...

Let's also pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column.

...

The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized.

...

[edit] [Demolition (category)] Does thermite actually make any (loud) sound?

Some have suggested that it does not...

[edit] [Steel (category)] Was there molten steel found at ground level weeks after the collapse?

...

[edit] If so, what can we conclude from that?

...

[edit] [Steel (category)][Structures (category)][Collapse (category)] Is it possible that [the building] collapsed because the floor/steel deformed and gave way and led to a pancake collapse?

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

The mechanics of the collapse are really much more simple than conspiracy theorists would like you to believe. The heat expanded the steel in the truss in all directions. As a result they also expanded into the columns. The trusses/floor system, sagged in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction. That led to the bowing of the exterior columns.

In terms of mass, the floors were comparable to tree trunks and the columns were like branches. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state.

...

[lots of nice images]

[edit] [World Trade Center (category)] Were several of the "hijackers" later found to be alive?

[Need to find evidence (category)]Source: BBC News: 2007-02-14: 9/11 questions, At 08:35 PM on 14 Feb 2007, colonel kurtz wrote:

...the fact that at least 9 of the 19 hijackers turned up alive.

How is it that jet fuel was able to bring down iron and steal but a passport owned by one of the "Hijackers" made of paper was found unscathed on ground zero.

[edit] If so, wouldn't that mean that they didn't actually crash into the building and die?

[edit] [WTC7 (category)] What happened to WTC7?

Why did a building called World Trade Centre Building 7 collapse even though it was never hit by an aircraft?

[Pro-conspiracy]

Source: BBC News: 2007-02-14: 9/11 questions, At 08:32 PM on 14 Feb 2007, Bill wrote:

1 - WTC 7, a massive skyscraper, completely disintegrated, on the afternoon of 9/11, at near freefall speed, even though it was hit by no plane and sustained relatively little damage.

2 – There has been no government account for WTC 7. The commission omitted it entirely, NIST passed the buck on it, and FEMA could only speculate and admits that it's best hypothesis "has little probability of occurrence."

3 – There is only two opinions about WTC 7: on one side you have those that think it was blown up, on the other side you have those that don’t want you to even look at it.

[Anti-conspiracy] http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.


[edit] What did [Larry Silverstein (category)] mean when he said 'pull'?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

So we know