Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
LCfor911.org
9/11 TAP (Truth Action Project)
911TAP.org
IAmTheFaceOfTruth.com
#OperationNorthwoods
#FalseFlag
#NeverForget
On the morning of the eleventh day of September in 2001, the people of the United States experienced a surprise attack by terrorists using jets as weapons. The story that began to develop that same day was a fictional narrative to divert the attention away from the actual conspirators within the state and complicit corporate interests. The remainder of this presentation will consist of evidence supporting this hypothesis, relevant background information concerning the Middle East and radicalization in that area, and the resulting implications on domestic and foreign policy of the United States.
9/11 QUESTIONS
According to http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-timeline, the initial impact was of what was supposedly American Airlines Flight 11 into floors 93-99 of the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m. The only decent film coverage of the impact that I know about is from the Naudet brothers. It shows an anomalous flash immediately prior to the impact. The second impact had much better coverage as cameras that were focused on the spectacle already playing out were prepositioned to capture the impact. In some of these videos, an anomalous flash is also seen immediately prior to the impact of the second plane. In the documentary Why the Towers Fell, you can actually see the reflection of the anomalous flash on the fuselage of the supposed United Airlines Flight 175. This shows us something other than the impact itself caused the flashes to occur.
What could have caused these anomalies to take place so consistently in the videos from witnesses?
According to http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html, there is a pod on the underbelly of the fuselage that can be seen in photographs of the second plane to impact, and the Spanish University that published this paper included an analysis of the dimensional nature of the pod to determine if it was a lighting anomaly. It wasn't. They also stated that it wasn't part of the landing gear.
Could it have something to do with the flashes of light seen right before the impacts? Was it firing a small missle to ignite the fuel for a more spectacular effect? Was it doing so to knock fireproofing off of the steel on floors of the impact zones to compromise the structural integrity of the buildings, hoping to ensure that the collapse would begin where the planes would collide?
This scenario would require agents planting homing devices and bombs in the buildings to ensure the planes collided in specific spots and to actually destroy the structures with a simulated collapse, and it would require the removal of fireproofing on the respective floors which could be done by civilian laborers as opposed to conciously acting conspirators.
According to http://www.newsday.com/911-anniversary/9-11-01-heightened-security-alert-had-just-been-lifted-1.790662, "The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday." They go on to discuss personnel describing the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs. "Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed."
Why were the dogs removed the day before Scott Forbes claimed men in overalls were carrying toolboxes and cable into the elevator shafts of the buildings during a planned power outage?
According to Scott who worked in the WTC, "...there were several guys in overalls, carrying building gear, toolboxes, etc inside the building. Remember there were no security locks on doors or security cameras, so access was free unless a door was locked by a manual key. Seeing so many 'strangers' who didn't work at the WTC was unusual." http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html?m=1
Were they planting bombs in the buildings?
According to NIST, there was extensive work done concerning fireproofing immediately preceding the attacks.
"Status of fireproofing upgrade on the FLOORS OF THE IMPACT ZONE in 2000:
• Fireproofing upgraded in about 30 floors of aircraft impacted region
• WTC 1: Floors 92-100
• WTC 2: Floors 77-78, 88-89, 92, 96-97"
(PDF of the document can be downloaded here: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/SunderWTCMediaHandout050703.pdf)
Were bombs or incendiary devices being planted on the floors where the impacts would occur? What was done with the fireproofing? Were there homing devices planted when this was happening? Is there even any evidence of explosives, or is this all just speculation?
According to https://mobile.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html?referer=http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
What would have enough energy to evaporate steel? Office fires couldn't possibly do this. What on God's green earth would cause the destruction of three 767 engines, seeing as only ONE WAS RECOVERED!? One WAS recovered, right?
On the corner of Murray Street and Church Street a jet engine was recovered and removed from the scene of the crime, WHICH IS A FELONY and for painfully obvious reasons in light of our subject matter. It was most likely the flaming piece of debris flying away from the building in this video , as that line of trajectory lead to the area where the engine was discovered. It was also photographed from different angles at the scene where it landed. These photos clearly show that the engine does not belong to N612UA, which is the particular plane that supposedly impacted the South Tower. https://m.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/767/21873/N612UA-United-Airlines According to http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king/2009/12/lets-cover-that-murray-street-engine-one-more-time.html, upon showing a picture of the piece of equipment that belonged to the engines of Flight 175 (N612UA), he refers to the photographs from the scene, and shows us that the same piece of equipment (an engine-cooling "TOBI") from the scene is NOT what belongs to the jet that supposedly impacted the South Tower.
"Is it possible that the image we see above is just turned over and we can't see those protruding fingers, those TOBI tubes? I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it. The protruding TOBI tubes would lift the assembly off the surface on which it was photographed. No: The Murray Street TOBI is, most definitely, not the one shown directly above.
"Therefore, the recovered TOBI was not part of a JT9D-7R4D compressor.
"Therefore, the recovered compressor did not come from a JT9D-7R4D engine.
"Therefore, the engine on the vehicle which struck the South Tower was not a JT9D-7R4D.
"Since Flight 175 was a 767 with JT9D-7R4D engines, the vehicle which struck the South Tower was not Flight 175.
"Stop. Do not pass Go."
9/11 TRUTH
It wasn't Flight 175 that hit the South Tower, and it wasn't Flight 11 to impact the North Tower. The engine that was discovered, the anomalous flashes of light, the pod on the underbelly of the photographed plane, the maneuverability of Flights 11 and 175, and the actual aerodynamic maneuvering done by the jets at the specific heights and speeds attained that day, all say that flights 175 & 11 were NOT the planes that impacted the towers.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth do an excellent job explaining the aerodynamics involved and an equally impressive analysis on the flight paths recorded from radar screens that day. [Pertinent clip, ( film MUST WATCH (
] Flights 11 and 175 we're switched out in midair with some sort of military cargo jets specifically designed to attain those heights and speeds and equipped with a kind of rocket propelled missile most likely containing white phosphorus to ignite the fuel.
This explains the anomalous flashes of light.
There was even explosive/incendiary material found in the dust of the WTC rubble. https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf And, there were many explosions taking place. Some were strong enough to eject people from one of the towers. The amount of witnesses that reported explosions is staggering. According to http://www.ae911truth.org/news/247-news-media-events-wtc-explosions-described-by-the-people-who-were-there.html, "The Canadian academic [Graeme MacQueen] got the idea for this project (an accumulation of witness testimonies to explosions at the WTC) from an article written in early 2006 by David Ray Griffin, titled 'Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories.' In it, 31 witnesses to the explosions were identified. While fascinated by the selection of first-hand accounts Griffin presented, MacQueen reasoned that a more detailed analysis of all 503 oral chronicles could reveal even more. Those accounts — from firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and paramedics — had been recorded between early October 2001 and late January 2002." MacQueen was actually able to compile even more accounts than Griffin that indicated explosions at the site of the attack on the WTC. The article goes on to add, "...[A]s he read one story after another, he saw many vivid descriptions of explosions. Meticulously studying each, MacQueen arrived at a 'cautious' total of 118 eyewitnesses who had specifically reported explosions." All 118 accounts can be downloaded here, http://www.ae911truth.org/images//PDFs/090116-118Witnesses.pdf.
I hope this is at least enough to get some dialogue going. There's an incredible amount of fishyness goings on surrounding these attacks, but it won't be stinking up this post. I believe that this information I've been trying to convey is an excellent STARTING POINT for those that are new to it and welcome any questions and comments. The other two subjects I'll discuss will be less intricate and more summarily laid out.
THE RADICAL MIDDLE EAST
The Middle East is essentially a tool for power brokers. It's one of the most resource intensive areas on the globe, and it has disproportionately large numbers of radical Muslims.
Islam is historically a violent religion. There have been numerous reformations, and many Islamic adherents interpret the religious texts as more hyperbolic and not a literal call to violence, but there is still an undeniable radical wing that promotes violence as a means to achieving its ends.
Radical Islam was used as the scapegoat for the 9/11 conspirators. Whether it had anything to do with anyone actually involved in the attacks themselves is irrelevant, because the EXISTENCE of a radical ideology opposed to the west is all that's required to frame people who may share similar ideas or who may otherwise resemble folks that do. As long as radical Islam EXISTS, it can be used to brew up conflict. Islam is an especially potent tool, because of its violent propensities. The drive to violence is historically ubiquitous and fundamental to many people who interpret Islamic religious texts more literally than some of the relatively peaceful followers. Islam has been used in this manner for sometime. As with Christianity and many other religions and ideologies, the followers of Islam are manipulated into laying the groundwork for the agenda of their rulers.
From Great Britain's takeover of Turkey's Ottoman empire to American meddling in the affairs of the Soviet empire, influence from foreign powers has been helping to shape that area. During the Cold War, former National Security advisor, Zbignew Brzezinski even spoke to some "freedom fighters" in the Middle East in an attempt to get them to fight against the Soviets in order to foment insurrectionary revolution. He told them, "God is on your side."
U.S. POLICY AFTER THE ATTACKS
Some have compared 9/11 to the "Reichstag Fire". For those ignorant of the reference, the Reichstag Fire was a false flag attack by the Nazis to frame a communist in order to justify new state authority that was coveted by the party. Both were attacks on important and symbolic structures, both were blamed on scapegoats with oppositional ideological backgrounds, both were used to curtail civil Liberties of the respective domestic populations, and both were used as excuses for imperialist agendas. Regarding 9/11, we'll look at the last two implications mentioned.
Foreign Policy
After the alleged attacks on the United States by a group of 19 supposed hijackers, most of whom were Saudis, the U.S. attacked Afghanistan. The excuse was that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in Tora Bora and was allegedly behind the attacks. The truth is that the rulers of Afghanistan, the Taliban, were interfering in various business dealings of people controlling the U.S. government. I'll take this time to highlight the indicative rates of heroin production in that country before, during, and after the Taliban was in power. When they came to power, production almost halted; when the U.S. ousted those guys, production started breaking records annually. Yes, the guhbmint sells dope.
The people who are actually in control of the oil-hungry U.S. constantly look for excuses to gain control of the Middle East as well. Take for example the comments made by General Wesley Clark concerning the infamous "seven nations in five years" memo. He was told by a person that used to work for him that according to that memo, the U.S. would attack "Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” Please notice the relevance of American foreign policy regarding those nations since the inception of the "War on Terror". When Clark asked why the U.S. was invading, the informant responded by saying that he didn't know. If they can't find convincing evidence to justify desired military action, they invent it.
Domestic Policy
There have been various policies adopted in the United States as part of the supposed war on terrorism. The Military Tribunals Act, the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, and subsequent additions to the National Defense Authorization Act are some of the most influential responses. These are all antithetical to the Bill of Rights which is a collection of declared protections for the people from the government. Those acts are nothing more than power grabs. The Patriot Act was even authored prior to the Spetember Eleventh attacks, but this is normal. Even Clinton oversaw the administration of snooping activity on the part of U.S. intelligence codenamed Echelon; 9/11 was just an excuse for drastic expansion. The state isn't necessarily concerned with the safety of its citizens but more with what their population will tolerate. Everyone should definitely educate themselves on these state powers and their implications.
In conclusion, 9/11 was an inside job. It was an attack designed to frame radical Islam and compliment a desired policy to control the Middle East, and it was to radically alter the state's approach to management of the domestic population in the name of security. It was NOT an attack by 19 Muslims under the direction of Osama bin Laden. This state behavior isn't new. It's completely par for the course.
