Home
Subscribe
JoelSkousen.com

Government Cover-ups: September 11th

From the April 1, 2004 World Affairs Brief:

GENERAL AREAS OF DISCREPANCY IN 9/11

WHAT THE 9/11 COMMISSION SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING, BUT ISNT

The controversial testimony of former counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke in juxtaposition with the constant drama surrounding whether or not President Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will testify before the commission (under oath and in public) is all just a scripted diversion to use up the Commission’s limited time and ensure that the real issues are never investigated or aired publicly.

 

First, Clarke’s testimony is only partially genuine.  He is playing a partisan role to help the Democrats undermine Bush by confirming that Bush and other Cabinet members had intentions to attack Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11 (which is true), but he continues to foster the false idea that he and others during the Clinton administration were highly focused on al Qaeda—a threat the Bush administration, he says, failed to take seriously.  In reality, the Clinton administration during Clarke’s tenure never tried to capture Osama bin Laden any more than the Bush administration, even when the Sudanese government had him in their custody and offered to turn him over to the US.  Clarke had to have known this.

 

CBS News and a Frontline Special reported that within hours of the 9/11 attack, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was instructing his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.  The invasion of Afghanistan was planned before 9/11, as evidenced by US diplomatic pronouncements to a closed meeting in Berlin in July 2001 where it was leaked that Bush would attack Afghanistan no later than October 2001.  The Indymedia documentation of that meeting has since been purged from all government internet sites.  The India Times also reported a secret military agreement between the US and Russia in the spring of 2001 to jointly invade Afghanistan.  Many suspect that the main reason VP Cheney is so adamant about refusing to disclose minutes of what went on during the secret meetings on energy is because oil giants openly discussed with Cheney the need to overthrow the Taliban in order to be able to build a major pipeline through Afghanistan.

 

Currently, the Bush administration has said they will allow Condoleezza Rice to testify in public and under oath.  Despite the months of wrangling over executive privilege and separation of powers, it’s a safe bet that Rice won’t be embarrassed by the pseudo-inquisitor, Chief Counsel Richard Ben Veniste.  I listened to Ben Veniste’s examination of numerous government officials on NPR radio.  By all the initial joking and comradery that was exchanged between him and CIA Director Tenet, and later with Asst. Sec. of State Richard Armitage (former chief drug importer for the CIA), it was clear no tough questions were going to be forthcoming.  He played softball with them both.  Instead of setting up legal traps in advance by asking questions Ben Veniste could later trip them up on, he wasted hours asking them questions these officials could easily evade by claiming ignorance or “national security,” and then failed to present any contradictory testimony.

 

It will be the same with Rice.  There are dozens of general explanations she can come up with to explain the contradictions between her former statements to the press and the testimony of Richard Clarke.  But even if Ben Veniste were able to make something of the differences, what would they show?  That the CIA was negligent, incompetent, and worked at cross purposes with other agencies?  Or, heaven forbid, that they failed to share information with other agencies?   If they are guilty, so what?  These are not faults meriting more than a slap on the hands.  No wonder no government official responsible for security and intelligence has been fired. By focusing on such innocuous drama, the public is denied the key issues that cry out for an explanation. 

 

HERE ARE THE KEY ISSUES THAT ARE BEING EVADED:  

 

Planted, too-good-to-be-true evidence:  

Hijackers are apparently too stupid to follow one of the cardinal rules of covering your trail: Don’t drive to the airport – have an accomplice or Arab taxi driver drop you off.  Instead, they drove themselves to Boston Logan Airport, and proceeded to leave flight manuals and Arabic messages in their van.   Mohammed Atta’s magic indestructible passport survived the inferno of Twin Towers and was found two or three blocks away.  (Two passports were foundin all, plus a pristine suicide letter in Arabic.)  Within two hours, FBI agents were at restaurants where the hijackers had been eating, and at nightclubs where they went carousing — so much for their religiosity.   How did they find this information so fast if they were too incompetent to track them beforehand? 

 

Refusal of the government to produce tape and video evidence that would corroborate the official version of events and the list of hijackers:

The surveillance video recorded at the gas station across from the Pentagon crash site was confiscated by the FBI and never released.  The parking lot video excerpt that was leaked doesn’t show thing but a tiny jet and a smoke trail. Crash proof black boxes from all aircraft except one were claimed to be destroyed or unreadable. 

 

The Commission claimed it would subpoena FAA recordings of conversations with pilots prior to the hijacking, but never has followed through or released them.  One tape recording from Cleveland Air Traffic Control that monitored the fate of Flight 93 over Pennsylvania was leaked, so we know these tapes exists.  Interestingly, this tape shows that three or four other commercial aircraft talking on the same ATC frequency heard the pilot of Flight 93 tell the passengers that the hijackers told them there was a bomb on board, and yet the government has never mentioned this. 

 

Here’s an abbreviated excerpt from the leaked private ATC transcript:

Executive 956 [private jet]: Just answering your call. We could year that, er, yelling too.

Cleveland Center: OK, thank you, were just trying to figure out what’s going on.

United 93: [unintelligible] this is captain, please sit down, remain sitting, we have a bomb on board. [Sometimes pilots key the wrong button.  In this case the Captain thinks he is broadcasting to the passengers on intercom but he is pressing the radio transmit button—shows he is under severe stress.]

Cleveland Center: Uh, calling Cleveland Center, you’re unreadable, say again slowly.

Executive 956: [unintelligible] was reasonable, sounded like someone said they had a bomb on board.

Cleveland: That’s what we thought, we just, er, we didn’t get it clear. …United ninety-three calling. United ninety-three, understand you have a bomb on board, go ahead. Executive nine fifty-six, did you understand that transmission?

Executive 956: Affirmative. He said there was a bomb on board.

[Later]Cleveland Center (2): [Voice changed to female, apparently second Cleveland controller.] Do you see any, ah, activity on your right side, smoke or anything like that?

American 1060: Negative. Were searching. Yeah, we do have a smoke puff now at about, er, oh probably two o’clock. There appears to be just a spire up like a puff of black smoke. [Indicates evidence of explosion in the air.]

[End of ATC excerpt.]

 

Lack of verifiable evidence of hijackers’ identities:

Security cameras at airport boarding gates would have clearly shown the Arab hijackers.  The government won’t release them or the actual passenger manifests, including Arabic named passengers.  The claimed DNA samples are a fraud unless the government can prove it has custody of original DNA from the hijackers, seven of whom (according to other evidence) are still alive and nine of whom were dead or missing before 9/11. 

 

Lack of evidence that al Qaeda is a world wide terrorist organization:

Al Qaeda had roots with the CIA, so it may still be controlled at the higher levels, for purposes of creating conflict and engendering in Americans a blind patriotism to support a phony war on terror.  The CIA and its cohorts in the Pakistani ISI and the Israeli Mossad are the only sources of information on al Qaeda, which is suspicious.  The organization was rarely considered a credible threat before 9/11.  Even now, the CIA consistently refuses to display captured al Qaeda leaders in public or put them on trial.  All leaks about supposed confessions mirror the government’s story and have no other corroborating evidence.  Of greatest significance is the fact that there have been virtually no normal terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, even though the US has almost open borders and no protection against car bombings, electrical tower sabotage, or suicide bombings: weekly occurrences wherever terrorism is a legitimate threat.

                 

Evidence of CIA involvement with the terrorists:

Ruddy Dekker, the owner of Huffman Aviation, and a fellow Dutchman who bought another aviation school next door, both had prior CIA dealings.  Dekker had no previous aviation experience prior to acquiring Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, and showed a broad ignorance of technical aviation regulations and affairs when dealing with other professionals in the field.  He sublet space in his hangar to Britannia Aviation, another government front company. 

 

Prior knowledge warnings:

High schools in some NY city districts told students not to go down to the WTC on 9/11.  SF Mayor Brown was told not to fly that day, as was Salmon Rusdy in the UK.  Putin warned Bush about 25 suicide pilots.  Germany and the Israeli Mossad said the US was warned not to fly that day.

 

Evidence of explosives in the World Trade Centers:

Investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn has written one of the best expositions on the ample evidence that there were explosives wired into the building prior to the attack.  He writes, “In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of ‘literally molten steel’ were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of ‘literally molten steel’ at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to remove the debris from the site. Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself ‘the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.’ Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean up plan for the entire operation. AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘hot spots of molten steel in the basements.’ These incredibly hot areas were found ‘at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,’ Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found ‘three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,’ Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, ‘Think of the jet fuel.’ Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by ‘paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they pancaked into the basement.’ However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions, told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be ‘a smoky smoldering pile.’ Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat. This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit. The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements.” [End of Bollyn quote.]

Canadian Investigator Will Thomas has written an excellent work entitled, All Fall Down.  In it he documents, “An eyewitness 6 blocks from the WTC heard explosions prior to each collapse. A fireman’s transcription of the New York Times 9/11 firefighters’ audio tape reveals an explosion prior to the collapse of WTC 2 was reported. A video shows an object falling from WTC 1 followed by a camera shake. 14 seconds later WTC 1 collapses.”

 

Thomas, Bollyn and others believe that the only explanation that explains the collapse of the Twin Towers without the use of complicated timed explosives placed throughout the building (requiring extensive pre-wiring) is the use of thermite charges in the basement, filling the cavity of the core section of 4 inch thick pillars holding up the towers.  Here’s Bollyn again: “Thermite is very exothermic. Temperatures above 4,500°F (2,500°C) are often reached. A byproduct of a thermite detonation in the WTC basements would be molten steel.  The service core [of central pillars] of WTC 2 initially survived the collapse, but after a few seconds it also came to ground. This is consistent with molten iron from a thermite reaction pooling around the core columns, thus causing the collapse.  ‘If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure,’ [says] Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.”

 

However, contrary to Bollyn, I disagree that the seismic evidence shows powerful explosives prior to the collapse.  I have looked at the charts and fail to see what he claims.  Yes, there were plenty of eye and ear witnesses to prior explosions, but they most likely were not large enough to register on the seismic charts as a significant quake.  This also points to the use of thermite.  Thermite doesn’t explode rapidly like C-4 or other demolition explosives.  The mixture of aluminum powder and iron oxide burns only moderately fast, giving off heat well in excess of that required to melt steel.  What’s more, it creates its own oxygen supply by consuming the iron oxide and thus is the only thing that can account for the huge heat being generated for days in the aftermath of the fall of both towers. 

 

Terrorists of the Arab variety could not have pulled off this operation, nor the earlier downing of WTC Building 7, which video evidence does show had been prewired with normal demolition explosives — lots of small charges on all critical steel columns which were timed to collapse the building vertically.  Building 7 was almost exclusively occupied by government, and could have been pre-wired by government agents without alerting civilians. 

 

Christopher Bollyn commented on the insider connections to the WTC complex: “For example, Peter G. Peterson, chairman of the CFR and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced that his Blackstone Group had purchased, in October 2000, the mortgage on 7 World Trade Center, the 47-story building built by Larry Silverstein in 1987. Silverstein is the person who obtained 99-year leases on the twin towers shortly before 9-11 and who insured the property and its future income against terrorism. He is seeking some $7.2 billion claiming the attacks were two separate events.”  Silverstein also made the indiscreet comment to reporters that he had given orders to “pull the building” just prior to its collapse.  This is demolition lingo for bringing down a building by controlled demolition.

 

According to Bollyn, others suspected controlled demolition too: “WTC 7 mysteriously collapsed at 5:25 p.m. on 9-11, in what appears to have been a controlled demolition. John Wholihan, a firefighter with Rescue 5 from Staten Island was near WTC 7 when it collapsed. Wholihan told American Free Press that he heard ‘many explosions’ just before the building collapsed neatly within the perimeter of its foundation. Silverstein received some $441 million in insurance money for WTC 7 although the cause of the collapse remains officially unexplained.” 

 

What is clear, in my analysis, is that the official explanation of it coming down vertically and instantly cannot meet the test of reality.  If it suffered damage from the collapse of the nearby WTC tower, it would have only been damaged on one side.  A collapse from damage to one side would only have occurred with a massive falling over movement.  There was no central system of support to fail in this building that could explain a vertical collapse even with fire (which was not uniform throughout the building).

 

Selective stand-down of military interceptors:

One of the most powerful evidences of government participation in the outcome of this attack by what I think were government controlled operatives, is the shooting down of Flight 93 over Pennsylvania by an F-16 aircraft, and the simultaneous but inexplicable holding of other fighters on the ground (orders to “stand down”).  One of my subscribers is friends with a tower operator at McGuire AFB in NJ.  He reports that his friend told him to not permit any fighters to take off.  They could have easily stopped Flight 175 heading for the second WTC strike.  (Flight 175 was the Boeing 757 airliner that several video tapes showed had a large bulging modification on its belly, as documented in a prior World Affairs Brief.)   Other fighters which were launched did so painfully late and were not told to “go buster” (supersonic speeds), to make sure they wouldn’t catch the Pentagon targeting aircraft on time.  All of this analysis is contained in Will Thomas’ publication, entitled Stand Down.

 

The strange case of the Pentagon attack:

The attack on the Pentagon was much more complex than the government’s version of events, and also filled with contradictory evidence: lack of external debris coupled with a damage area too small to match a 757 airliner.  The Pentagon parking lot video shows a huge, white explosion on the Pentagon wall, followed by a fuel-fed fire.  Ordinary people wouldn’t know that only high explosives can generate this white image—and that it never occurs with the crash of a fuel-laden aircraft.  The strangely edited video clip evens fails to show a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon, but rather the hazy image of a much smaller fighter-sized jet with a mysterious smoke or missile trail.  Witnesses did see a large airliner, but others also saw a smaller jet.  It is possible both were present, and that the smaller jet fired a missile into the Pentagon wall prior to the crash, which would explain how one object punched a 12-foot-diameter hole through three rings of the Pentagon.  This could not have been done by any part of the relatively soft airliner nor its turbo fan engines.  The video clip showing the smoke trail looks strangely unlike a real smoke trail from a missile (too white and too much soft curling smoke).  It is almost as if whoever leaked the edited clip doctored it to give a hint that there was another aircraft and a missile involved.  

 

Conclusions:  As you can see from my abbreviated listing, there is no shortage of legitimate and substantive matters to investigate.  No government commission with the kind of money and staff this commission has could possibly be unaware of these issues I have mentioned.  They are documented and discussed by tens of credible internet sites, complete with photos, videos, theories, and laborious investigations.  WhatReallyHappened.com is one of the most comprehensive, though I don’t buy into the total package of conclusions proffered by any one site.  One must look at a variety of theories and issues to come to a final conclusion.

 All these private investigations need some form of legal power of discovery in order to penetrate various veils of government secrecy surrounding key issues.  The 9/11 Commission has failed the public by refusing to provide that penetration into government secrets.  All of the roadblocks met by investigators have been put up by our own government—almost as if they really don’t want the public to find out exactly how these sophisticated attacks took place.

 I, for one, am convinced that Muslim terrorists were involved, but that they were directed and assisted by a huge network of secret operatives that only the US government could have produced.  No portion of the 9/11 Commission investigation was allowed to follow through with any evidence pointing to government collusion in this great tragedy.  That is why this investigation is an exercise in futility, if not a direct cover-up.