Sunday, September 11, 2011

9-11 attacks: 10 years and the farce continues

Since I began blogging in 2008, I have made repeated mentions to the 9/11 self-attack and the macabre farce that goes around it with absolute impunity. Since September 11 2001, in the afternoon, I was wholly aware that it was something very strange: not just the dimensions of the attack seemed way beyond what any private military organization could achieve but a lot of contradictions made their way to the news in those first hours of excitement and inquisitive journalists. Mohamed Atta was under BND watch but for being foe of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, not a member (and the BND seldom gets things wrong), his father claimed (and has confirmed later) that he talked with his son after the attacks...

The very collapse of the twin towers, as they were known at the time, was a total nonsense and the official explanation weird enough as to have many engineers and architects protesting it is mere pseudoscience: that the twin towers could not have collapsed at all and that therefore this collapse requires of other explanations: a controlled demolition.

Veteran actor Ed Asner and architect Richard Gage explain this very well in this video:

What have I mentioned since I began blogging in 2008? Importantly:

I also recommend the following resources:

And there's surely more that I am unaware of. Feel free to drop a line if I am missing a key point or resource to uncover this shameful and macabre imperial coup d'etat.


  1. Occam's Razor, Maju. The official explanation, that al Qaeda hijacked and flew those aircraft into the Twin Towers, explains all the known facts. That some engineers and architects think that this wasn't enough to bring them down proves merely that engineers and architects sometimes disagree, for whatever reason. As an engineer myself, I think that should be obvious.

    I was originally open to the idea that it was a false-flag operation. I rejected the theory for lack of evidence. Nothing has come to light in the years since that seriously challenges that assessment.

    There is ample evidence that the Cheney-Bush junta had advance knowledge of 9-11, though how much they knew we may never know. They are evil and incompetent, so it is difficult to say. There is strong reason to suspect that the Israelis knew quite a bit about the operation. Whether they were concealing all or part of what they knew from Cheney, I do not know.

    This fantasy of yours helps conceal these inconvenient facts under a mountain of wishful thinking and speculative fiction. You are giving aid and comfort to your own enemies and your need to hate the US is blinding you to it.

    You're smarter than this, otherwise I should not be wasting my time. And I honestly think you are wasting your time on these fantasies, when you should be focusing on anthropology. You are less emotionally invested there and your thinking is clearer and far more valuable to those of us that share your interests.

  2. "The official explanation (...) explains all the known facts".

    It does not. Not at all.

    It does not explain why the cockpit door of AA-77 was never opened, something that must have happened according to the official version.

    It does not explain how an airliner could flight barely above ground at extremely high speeds (enough not to be recorded in any Pentagon security camera) and not disintegrate.

    It does not explain how said magic airliner left no trace of wing marks in the Pentagon's wall, not even a dark shade.

    It does not explain why Rumsfeld in person, along with some commander now promoted (can't recall his name right now), made sure that air defense over Washington (the best defended airspace on Earth) was inoperative expressly for that 9-11 day.

    It does not explain why Mohamed Atta did not work for Al Qaeda but the anti-Taliban militias (according to the BND) nor why he was alive after 9-11.

    It does not explain why we have not seen a single credible video of Bin Laden since those dates.

    It does not explain why the twin towers' pillars had 60 degrees sectioning, something proper of a controlled demolition.

    It does not explain why nanotermite remains have been found all over the twin towers' dust.

    It does not explain why the twin towers would fall at all. The official explanation is Hollywoodian nonsense: there was never, nor could be, enough heat; the heat was on the top sections (so at most the top sections would have collapsed, which they did not separately); and the collapse was exactly as a controlled demolition would have been.

    It does not explain building 7 either: another clear case of controlled demolition and a secret services hub.

    It does not explain many other things that I can't recall now or I may not even heard of.

    Occam's Razor does not apply to "miracles", you don't come and say: "Occam's Razor, the biblical explanation that all is done by miracles explains all the known facts". You do not. But still "miracles" would be a better explanation than the official one.

    "Nothing has come to light in the years since that seriously challenges that assessment".

    Have you gone through the links I provided? The videos? I understand that there is A LOT of evidence, new and old. Enough for in fair trial have the whole Bush cabinet and the Pentagon's high command convicted of high treason.

    "There is ample evidence that the Cheney-Bush junta had advance knowledge of 9-11"...

    Sure. More support for the conspiracy theory.

    "They are evil and incompetent"...

    Evil yes, incompetent not really (Bush Jr. personally is but he was just a figurehead for the Nixon cabinet II).

    "There is strong reason to suspect that the Israelis knew quite a bit about the operation".

    Sure. More support for the conspiracy theory.

    I fail to see how that the White House and Tel Aviv knowing in advance dismantles the conspiracy theory. All the opposite.

    Are you mocking me, because I fail to see the joke. And if you're serious, I fail to see any single indication of why the conspiracy theory could be wrong - all the opposite, you add two elements of evidence (would need to be documented but anyhow) in support of the conspiracy theory... and not a single piece of evidence against it.

  3. Maju, I respect your analysis (most of the time) and agree with you (most of the time), but I don´t think this sort of line is any good. Among others things (as Highlander said) it helps yours/ours enemies. Have a look at this text by Robert Fisk and we could type about that later.

  4. Oooooops, forgot to type the link.

  5. Fisk, your link:

    "I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7".

    He's clearly demanding answers.

    So do you mean this Fisk guy is "my enemy"? Why? I have never heard of him before, so I presume he's your usual center-right journalist, not my cup of tea but in the end just some human being rising important questions that affect us all: was the most important event of the century (so far) a macabre propaganda farce much like the Reichstag fire?

    I think it was and I would like the matter clarified for good. This Fisk guy seems to feel the same, so, at least in this aspect we are in the same side.

  6. Btw, after reading a bit on him, this Fisk guy looks like a decent journalist, of the honest kind of which there are very few left. He's been questioning the official version of 9/11 since 2007 or even as early as 2006, it seems.

    So, which was your point, Javier?

  7. I didn´t explain myself clearly.

    I´ve been reading Fisk for a long time and he´s one of my favorite journalists, always a reliable source about Middle East, always honest and intelligent. No, he´s not your enemy (neither mine). And no, I don´t consider him center-right.

    Of course we have to demand answers. Of course we have to question the official version of 9/11. Too many questions and too many lies. But that doesn´t mean that they (your/our enemies) did it. It doesn´t necessarily imply that it was a “self-attack”.

    My feeling is that defending this conspiracy theory only helps the ones we are calling liars, making our criticism less credible. And, as you know, there´s a lot to be criticized, and a lot of people that should be convinced.

    That´s my point. Fisk´s approach is going to be more effective than yours, even talking about and questioning the same things!!!!!!

  8. "It doesn´t necessarily imply that it was a “self-attack”".

    It does imply it almost automatically: it could have never happened nor being kept secret without the collaboration of the highest powers within the USA, notably the cabinet and at least part of the Pentagon and secret services.

    But besides that, we have indirect evidence: Rumsfeld, as secretary of defense took a number of decisions just before 9/11 that facilitated the attack, at least the Pentagon part of it. He made very difficult to respond to an incoming attack in Washington and made sure that replacement commanders of his trust were in place of the usual ones. Rumsfeld can easily be declared guilty.

    As for the rest of the cabinet, etc. it'd have to be proven case by case but I'm quite sure that it could be proven once a proper investigation takes place. There's no way that this attack could happen, and then be hidden, without US top tier complicity.

    "My feeling is that defending this conspiracy theory only helps the ones we are calling liars, making our criticism less credible"...

    Why? Criticism of what and whom? I don't have any idea of what are you talking about: I am all for the truth, for transparency, for democracy and for full accountability, not for any sort of "war". What you say reminds me of those who defend Gaddafi because of some geostrategical ideas they have and which they put ahead of democracy, truth and human rights.

    I'm a communist and therefore I am 100% for People's Power: democracy.

    Just that brought a few steps beyond what bourgeois democracies allow, notably in the economic aspect but also on direct participation and decentralization.

    "That´s my point. Fisk´s approach is going to be more effective than yours"...

    I don't see any difference between Fisk's approach and mine: just style in writing. He writes for a liberal audience (which in Europe is center-right) and I write for the radical left. I can be a bit more direct.

  9. It certainly was a self attack. The PNAC demanded an new Pearl Harbor. It was designed to allow sacking of the banks and at the expense of middle class property values! It destroyed a condemned building. WTC 7 was never hit nor burning!

    There never was an investigation. Best thing to do to stop one is to get thousands of volunteers into asbestos filled debris and breathe in hard as often as possible. Nice one, Rudy!

  10. Robert Fisk is a well known Brit journo, probably SIS.

    The crappy nature of the cover up finding 29 pristine passports in domestic luggage, means a reveal is to be expected.

    Anyway, Americans deserve this treatment, they seem to be so dumb!

  11. I don't think US-Americans or anyone deserves this but, in any case, the dimensions of the coup (because it is a coup) are much wider than the USA: it affects all the Empire (NATO-plus) and therefore all Earth. While it may have been more dramatic in the USA, the anti-terrorist paranoia has been used all around Earth, and certainly here in Europe, to justify increased police state, continuity of NATO, imperialist adventures (in Afghanistan for example).

    9-11 is, we must understand, an Imperial coup for the Empire (and therefore against democracy). It's also as you say related to the increased class exploitation from top to bottom, but this seems more a side issue. I do not think it was planned: it just happened that the credit card snowball initiated by Reagan in the 80s had to reach a limit and it did in 2007/08. But that happened long after 9-11 and does not seem particularly related. In fact, it weakens the Empire.

    In a sense this coup can be compared to the liquidation of the Republic with Rome under Pompey, Caesar and Augustus. But what you say is (almost at the same time) the liquidation of the Empire with the (Christian-Hellenistic) implementation of Feudalism.

    It's like a hyper fast imperial cycle in which consolidation of the empire in the political-military aspect and decadence in the economical-social aspect is almost simultaneous. And no empire survives its socio-economical decadence, so it's a false beginning and a real end.

    The coup has probably failed by the very fact that class war has accentuated after it happened, depriving the Empire of its social stability central pillar.


Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Comment moderation before publishing is... ON