Sourcebook on 9/11 and its Aftermath
11 September 2007
Table of Contents
Mark: There was definitely a blue logo on the front of the plane. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I didn’t see any windows on the sides.
Anchor: Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes and you say you didn’t see any windows in the side?
Mark: I didn’t see any windows in the side. It was not a normal flight that I’ve ever seen at an airport. It was a plane that had a blue logo on the front and it did not look like it belonged in this area. (Fox News employee describes airplane that hit the
This intense grid and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that
screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting. (Frank A. DeMartini, WTC victim, Architect and WTC Construction Manager,
I’ve heard various hypotheses about what might have happened with the plane hits on the
Looking for more video evidence right at ground zero [Doug?] Simon and I went down to
All the recorded sources, all the different photographic evidence, that was produced by CNN and ABC, they all show this pod. It is there. You can see it with your own eyes and in my professional opinion … there was a pod attached to the bottom of the aircraft and therefore it was not United Airlines F light 175. (Glen Stanish, 20-year Professional Airline Pilot, founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth in 9/11: The Ripple Effect.)
Boooom!!! (1) (
(1) Evidence of explosions in the
The place went BOOM! An explosion so hard that it pushed us upwards. (William Rodriguez,
It sounded like gunfire – bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. And all of a sudden three big explosions. (America Responds telecast in 9/11 Ultimate Con.)
My testimony was very upsetting to the Commission for the simple reason that, number one, I talk about explosions in the building, initial explosions before the plane hit the building…. (William Rodriguez in 9/11: The Ripple Effect.)
Reporter: We’re being pushed back as well because there was some concern that there might be additional explosions – possibly other bombs.
Reporter: The entire top of the building just blew up.
Reporter: There’s a second explosion.
Reporter: …and another explosion.
Reporter: We have a report now of a fourth explosion at the
Reporter: There has just been a huge explosion.
Reporter: It almost looks like one of those implosions of buildings that you see.
Reporter: We heard a very loud blast – an explosion. Not clear now is why this explosion took place.
Reporter: Do you know if it was an explosion or a building collapse?
Policeman: To me… it sounded like an explosion.
Reporter: …but it was a huge explosion.
Eyewitness: I saw the two buildings, I think it was a bomb because there was two of them.
Reporter: This is actually, we believe, debris from one of the planes that hit one of the towers of the
We’ve just heard a virtual barrage of reports of bombs and explosions going off in and around the World Trade Center, but is there any reason to believe that some of these explosions might have been caused by something other than the planes hitting the towers? Rick Sanchez from MSNBC had this to report.
News Anchor’s Voice: Rick Sanchez has been there throughout this morning for us. Rick, tell us where you are and what the latest is.
Rick Sanchez: Well, I’m in that area if you are familiar with this area of, uh where West Broadway and Hudson come together, uh, right at Chambers. That would put us about a block and a half away from the site of where the explosion was. That area has just been evacuated because police have found what they describe as a suspicious device and they fear that it might be something that could lead to another explosion. Obviously there’s a real sense of caution here on the part of police. I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center, aside from the ones that may have been caused by the impact of the plane with the building, may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it… so their fear is that there may have been an explosive device planted either in the building or in the adjacent area and that’s why they’re being so cautious.
vonKleist: In the September 24th 2001 edition of People magazine, on page 34, an interview with Louie Catcchioli, a 51 year old firefighter, assigned with engine 47 of Harlem
We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there [were] bombs set in the building.
vonKliest: Well, Louie Catcchioli isn’t the only firefighter that claims that there were explosives or demolition charges going off in and around the
Firefighters: We made it at least two blocks and we started running - floor by floor they kept popping out, it was as if they had detonated, as if they had planned to take out the building...boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom....
vonKleist: We’ve heard eyewitness accounts and testimony from fire officials that indicate that there were bombs, explosives, possibly detonating charges that were utilized in the collapse of the
Right after the first World Trade Center tower collapsed, at 9:59 a.m. on September 11, 2001, Father John Delendick--one of New York Fire Department's chaplains--ran down a ramp to below the nearby World Financial Center, so as to escape the dust cloud. There he met with Deputy Chief Ray Downey, the head of the FDNY's Special Operations Command. Delendick asked
The bombs that exploded in the
There has never been a modern concrete and steel building that has ever collapsed [due] to fire, not before and not after. (Unidentified interviewer in 9/11: The Ripple Effect.)
This afternoon I’ll present to you the very clear evidence that all three
The five years since 2001 has given us enough time to actually become objective. We have to step out from underneath the hypnotic trance that we were put in and gather the evidence that exposes the need to re-evaluate these three
Buildings are destroyed by a number of different forces, each having very different identifiable characteristics. For instance, fires affect buildings differently than controlled demolition and explosions.
Fires by their nature tend to creep from place to place as they run out of fuel and find fresh fuel sources, leaving behind the burned-out area to cool. Now, when collapses do occur, and they have never in a high-rise office building, but for instance in wood buildings, they begin gradually and asymmetrically, with large, visible, slow deformations. So remember this.
A controlled demolition we’ll be taking a very close look at. When buildings topple, as in earthquakes like this, their mass tends to hold together. They don’t pulverize the concrete.
When buildings pancake, like this concrete building in an earthquake in
And when buildings explode we see flashes of light, visible streamers, lots and lots of explosive smoke, and dust from pulverized concrete.
These buildings [looking at overhead graphic of toppled buildings] fell over or collapsed. They tend to hang together. They don’t pulverize to dust. They follow the path of least resistance. They don’t fall straight down through themselves and turn to dust.
Note the thick, dense, billowing clouds with explosions. The shooting streamers and flashes of light. We’ll be looking for these elements in all three World Trade Centre high-rise collapses. This one on the lower right [on overhead graphic] looks just like the
Let’s focus on controlled demolitions first. We have hundreds of examples of controlled demolitions from all across the country from which to make our comparison to Building 7 because it’s the most commonly-used method to bring high-rise buildings down or demolish them.
[Overhead graphic of high-rise building being demolished.]
This is what a high-rise building looks like when it is being demolished. Controlled demolitions can be engineered in many different ways. Normally the purpose of the controlled demolition is to remove the structure while avoiding damage to adjacent structures and to do so economically.
Typically a tall building is demolished by placing thousands of cutter charges adjacent to columns and beams throughout the building and then detonating them in precise order, starting with the interior structure and then progressing outward and upward, synchronistically timed, floor by floor.
Destroying the interior columns allows the unsupported weight to pull the exterior inward.
This is a feat which only a handful of companies in the world can accomplish [bringing a building down in a controlled explosion] and we’re told that fire accomplished exactly this for the first time ever on 9/11. (Richard Gage, “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” http://www.9/11blogger.com/node/10025, downloaded 28 July 2007.)
Ironically, Torin [Wolf] signed his papers to join the army on September 11th, 2000. He knew something was wrong with the official 9/11 story when his army handlers took his squad into a room just in time to watch the buildings collapse. With his demolitions experience, he immediately knew those towers could not have fallen like that without explosives. …
With Torin’s impressive list of qualifications, his unwavering voice holds a power that shatters the lies of 9/11 sold to us by the government and mainstream media, “The official story we've been told about 9/11 is absolutely, physically impossible.” …
“… the craziest, most truly unhinged conspiracy theory for the towers falling on 9/11?” Torin asks rhetorically. “Fire.” The official story cannot be recreated by any experiment. NIST is the government agency involved in attempting to model what happened to the
A few slides are shown of progressive collapses throughout the world. None of them are anything like what happened to the
Several slides are then presented that show the hard physics and observed time of WTC 2 falling. Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse. “The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds.” How long did it take for the building to fall in reality? About 8.6 Seconds.
“For the Towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. 'Pancake theory' does NOT explain the failure of the cores.” Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time." …
Next, we are shown an incredible bit of detective work on Torin’s part. He shows a sequence of 12 different pictures of the collapse initiation of the North Tower, WTC 1. Torin explains that the antenna on the top of the
So what does Torin think took down the WTC buildings? Different forms of thermite, such as thermate and one called super thermite. “If I was demolishing a building as high as the WTC, I would use thermite. It does what I want, when I want.” Torin then gets into the science of thermite, and what its actual chemical composition is. The same chemical composition found in the previously molten metal microspheres found in the WTC dust, discovered by professor Steven Jones. “The WTC 'microsphere' samples showed the presence of aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), potassium (K), copper (Cu), and sulphur (S).” Torins explanation continues, “The presence of sulphur in steel makes it brittle and lowers its melting point.
Torin then explains super thermite, “Add potassium permanganate (KMnO4) and cupric sulphide (CuSO4) to thermate and you have something called 'Super Thermite' which is explosive and used in mega-demolition, such as WTC 1 & 2.” For obviously criminal reasons, “NIST refuses to comment on the presence of Al, Mg, S, K, or Cu in the samples.” Torin finalizes the evidence of explosives with statements made from numerous firefighters and reporters at ground zero such as Capt. Karin DeShore of the New York Fire Department, “Somewhere around the middle of the
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."
Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings." (“Former Bush Admin Economist Says Official Story of WTC Collapse 'Bogus,'” UPI, 14 June 2005.)
Another problem, which I mentioned earlier, is that the collapses had all the standard features of controlled demolitions. For example, all three buildings came down at virtually free-fall speed. The Commission even alluded to this feature, saying that the "
Controlled demolition was also suggested by the fact that the collapses were total, with the 110-story
James Glanz, a science writer for the New York Times, co-authored a book in 2003 entitled The Rise and Fall of the
There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it.
Yes, planes hit the buildings- anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions- the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions- they happened.
We were in the basement, helping a man who had been struck by pieces of flying concrete and rebar, and there was one of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it.
We looked around and there were other support columns that were the same. We spoke about it right then and there... we were discussing as we were carrying this man, saying "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?". That sort of thing does not happen from an airplane hitting the building 70, 80 stories up. We stood outside listening to the explosions.
One after the other, every minute or so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot or so section of the courtyard exploded straight up into the air. Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just the planes.
THE BUILDINGS WERE RIGGED. There is no question about it. Hundreds of people know this, Mark. (New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician who wishes to be known only by his first name, Mike, writing to Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, Conspiracy Planet, 7 August 2007, downloaded from http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=89&contentid=4213&page=2, 7 August 2007.)
Breaking those massive steel columns would have required very powerful explosives. Many survivors of the towers have reported hearing and feeling explosions. But the 9/11 Commission failed to mention any of these reports. William Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors about feeling and hearing a huge explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower, then rescuing people from its effects, but neither his name nor any of his testimony is found in Zelikow’s final report.
The mainstream press has also refused to report Rodriguez’s story, even though NBC News spent a day at his home taping it. (Dr. David Ray Griffin, “9/11 and the Mainstream Press,” 9/11 Visibility Project, 29 July 2005, downloaded from http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-07-29-pressclub.php, 15 Aug. 2007.)
WTC towers were money-losers for Port Authority. Tenancy continued to drop. Their steel beams had been sprayed with cancer-causing asbestos. To remove it would have been almost undoable. (Coincidences 9/11 – Part 9.)
Consider the insurance payouts that a jury awarded to the WTC leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, who admitted that he authorized the FDNY to "pull” (i.e. demolish) WTC Building 7, which was not hit by any aircraft. Silverstein is currently under investigation on suspicion of arson (at least). (9/11Truth.org, Answers to 9/11 Families’ Questions, posted 20 July 2007 at http://blogs.albawaba.com/post/2011/73057, downloaded August 6, 2007.)
Mr. Goldman led a group including Mr. Cayre that put up most of the $125 million of the equity that Mr. Silverstein, a
Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Port Authority in December had quietly agreed to return all of the $125 million in equity that Mr. Silverstein and his low-profile group originally invested to buy the leases. The full details of that transaction haven't been released to the public. But the deal effectively eliminated the Silverstein group's capital risk in the project, while allowing the group to retain control of 10 million square feet of office space. The Port Authority has rejected a Wall Street Journal request to review the transaction, citing Mr. Silverstein's ongoing lawsuit against his insurers, led by Swiss Reinsurance Co., over how many claims may be collected as a result of the attacks. (Dean Starkman, “MetLife will Sell Sears Tower,” Wall Street Journal, 12 March 2004.)
NY Governor Eliot Spitzer filed an amicus brief on 1/15/03 on behalf of the
This amicus brief has never been reported before today, in print or online. It was discovered in the court archives on the 17th floor of the 2nd Circuit Court (NYC), and released to the New York Megaphone by attorney Carl Person. In reporter Sander Hicks's exclusive story, author and lawyer Carl Person says:
"I was surprised to see that Spitzer had used his position as attorney general to support one private litigant over another. Normally, this is not done." (“9/11 Spitzser Scandal,” 911Blogger.com, 9 September 2007, downloaded from http://www.911blogger.com/node/11254, 11 Sept. 2007.)
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in
It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at
McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the
Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked.
Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails for comment.
KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.
The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a principal at Stratesec, and Walker, Marvin Bush and al Sabah are listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies during that period.
Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002.
But none of these connections has been looked at during the extensive investigations since 9/11. McDaniel says principals and other personnel at Stratesec have not been questioned or debriefed by the FBI or other investigators.
The suite in which Marvin Bush was annually re-elected, according to public records, is located in the Watergate in space leased to the Saudi government. The company now holds shareholder meetings in space leased by the Kuwaiti government there. The White House has not responded to various requests for comment.
Speaking of the Watergate, Riggs National Bank, where Saudi Princess Al-Faisal had her ``Saudi money trail" bank account, has as one of its executives Jonathan Bush, an uncle of the president. The public has not learned whether Riggs - which services 95 percent of
Meanwhile, Bush has nominated William H. Donaldson to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Donaldson, a longtime Bush family friend, was a Yale classmate of Jonathan Bush.
On the very day of the tragic space shuttle crash, the government appointed an independent investigative panel, and rightly so. Why didn't it do the same on Sept. 12, 2001? (Margie Burns, “Bush-Linked Company handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United,” Prince George’s Journal, 4 Feb. 2003, downloaded from http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm, 1 Aug. 2007.)
Andreas von Bulow: Well, nobody can prove what happened [on] 9 11 directly because it has been a covert operation and you don’t find proof; you will find only indications. And one of the indications - the indication that everything is right with these nineteen people and Usama bin Laden - is that the government is free to show all the [proof] that is on the table that is on the street that lays on the ground of the World Trade Center and so on and so on. If you have a covert operation the probability is always that the leftover pieces of proof are taken away immediately and a lot of secrecy, a band of secrecy, has taken over everything. And, this has happened with 9 11. (“Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA Involvement in 9/11: Alex Jones Interviews Andreas Von Buelow,” Prison Planet, downloaded from http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html, 15 Aug. 2007.)
We heard about air toxicity at Ground Zero still afflicting firefighters, first responders, and
The Haunting of the White House,” 911 Truth.org, 1November 2004.)
Dangerously high levels of asbestos, lead, PCB’s, mercury, radioactive materials, and powdered concrete were in the air after the towers were demolished. Much to the surprise of many audience members, we learned from Torin that by far the most dangerous on the list was the pulverized concrete. The pulverized concrete, which was thick in the air around ground zero after the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, had a pH of 12 which is “about the same as drain cleaner.” This pH level, when breathed in and gets wet in your lungs, will cause chemical burns. “Wet concrete can burn you,” Torin adds. The asbestos is bad, but that will kill you over 20 years - the powdered concrete will kill much faster. So its no surprise to learn that all of the 9/11 rescue and recovery dogs are dead.
Torin’s report goes on to explain how “emissions from the WTC piles were recorded to be hundreds of times above the legal Permissible Exposure Limit as established by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health for more than 2 weeks after 9/11.” Sheer contempt of Christine Todd Whitman, head of the EPA is expressed next by Torin. Torin is rightly angry at her for saying the air was safe to breathe and that people should return to work, even though they refused to release the data from their testing at that time to substantiate their declaration. Torin uncovers that, “The EPA didn’t begin monitoring for airborne asbestos levels until 8:00pm September 14, 2001 – a day and a half after they told everyone that it was safe to return.” Torin then cites the exact law that the EPA is violating and the number of regulatory duties that are violated as well. Torin has caught the EPA in direct violation of a federal law, punishable by up to 10 years in prison as well as a $250,000 fine for each violation. Before the EPA did the tests, independent tests were done in which the machines that do the air quality testing “were so full of junk that they couldn't be read.” If that is the case, Torin adds, “You must, by law, throw the sample out.”
What was in the readable air samples? “Sampling of bulk materials and dust found generally low levels of asbestos.” Since Torin has worked with hazardous materials for over 12 years specializing in asbestos abatement, he knows quite a bit about the industry. “There is no such thing as a 'low level of asbestos'. Bulk samples, by Federal law, either are (>1%) or are not (<1%) asbestos containing materials.” Bottom line, the EPA failed to perform its duties in regards to 9/11 and actively encouraged people to enter an unsafe area containing hazardous materials. As anyone working in the asbestos industry, Torin wanted to land the contract to clean the asbestos in the
A critical slide in [Torin Wolf’s] presentation of Rudolph Giuliani is displayed next. It should be noted that Giuliani agreed with Christine Todd Whitman that the air at ground zero was safe. Giuliani was appointed
As the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman during the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the run-up to the
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”(Alan Miller, “Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation,” OpeEdNews.com, 21 August 2007, downloaded from http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm, 23 Aug. 2007.)