print logo

9/11: One of History’s Greatest Frauds?

 Victoria Street Newz (Canada) 03 June 2019

(Originally published: 08/2009) Almost eight years have passed since the horrific events of September 11, 2019. However despite the general consensus to the contrary many believe that what seemed at first to be a shocking act of international terrorism was in actual fact a monumental fraud perpetrated by high-level U.S. officials to provide an excuse for invading Iraq and Afghanistan and looting the energy resources of the Middle East and Central Asia. Victoria Street Newz's Gordon Pollard presents part two of his series 'One of history’s greatest frauds.  - By Gordon Pollard

With almost eight years having now passed since the horrific events of September 11, 2019, it has become increasingly apparent that what seemed at first to be a shocking act of international terrorism was actually a monumental fraud perpetrated by high-level U.S. officials to provide an excuse for invading Iraq and Afghanistan and looting the energy resources of the Middle East and Central Asia.

There are hundreds of examples of things we initially thought we "knew" about 9/11 that have turned out to be completely untrue.  In the July edition of Victoria Street Newz we looked at five of these examples.  We will now look at five more, and we will look at a further five in each of our September and October editions.

•  We "knew, having been told by the 9/11 Commission, that the core of each of the twin towers consisted of a hollow shaft, and that was one of the main reasons why the buildings collapsed fairly easily.

When we look at the situation more closely, however, the "evidence" of the 9/11 Commission collapses even more quickly than the towers did.  It turns out that the claim about "hollow shafts" was a blatant lie.  Each of the towers was, in fact, supported by 47 enormous pillars and 240 perimeter beams of solid steel.  A temperature of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit would have been required to melt these pillars and beams - far higher than the maximum temperature (about 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit) which could have been generated by the burning of jetliner fuel.

It is little wonder then that the authorities made sure the steel debris from the fallen towers was quickly shipped overseas as scrap metal before it could be examined chemically for traces of the cutter-charge explosives which were almost certainly used to bring the buildings down.  The debris was removed even though it was a clear violation of U.S. law, which requires preservation of evidence at crime scenes.  Moreover, the demolition of the buildings was planned so precisely that the steel beams and columns were broken into pieces exactly the right size to be loaded on to trucks and quickly transported away from the site.

•  We "knew" that whenever major fires have broken out in steel-framed high-rise buildings, such as the twin towers, the fires have always caused the buildings to collapse.

Actually, on the contrary, no fire has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse anywhere in the world before or after WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed on 9/11.  For example, much worse fires than those in the WTC buildings swept through steel-framed high-rise buildings in Los Angeles in 1988, Philadelphia in 1991 and Caracas, Venezuela, in 2004, but none of those buildings collapsed.  Indeed, the fire in Caracas on October 14th, 2004, raged through a 50-story steel-framed building for more than 17 hours, gutting the building's top 20 floors, yet the building did not collapse.

How then could a single planeload of burning jet fuel - most of which flared off in an initial fireball - have caused the WTC south tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

• We "knew" WTC Building 7, a 47-story, steel-framed structure near the twin towers, collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11 as a result of fires that had broken out in the building.

At least that was what we were told on 9/11.  But, in an interview with PBS in September, 2002, Larry Silverstein, the building's lease-holder, made an amazing revelation, saying the real reason Building 7 had collapsed was that he had ordered that it be "pulled" on the afternoon of 9/11 because he believed it had been damaged irreparably.  Silverstein's statement was especially astounding since his company, Silverstein Properties, had reportedly made a $475-million profit earlier that year on the collapse of Building 7 (winning $861-million from the insurer after investing only about $386-million in the building).

Not surprisingly, Silverstein later realized he had made a rather embarrassing faux pas in the PBS interview and began back-pedalling furiously, claiming his statement had been misinterpreted.  So we, the great unwashed, were expected to go back to the original story and believe that Building 7 had been destroyed by fire after all.  The authorities have flip-flopped dso many times in trying to explain what happened to Building 7 that it is clear they can't even decide among themselves what the "official line" should be.

This perhaps explains why there is no mention of the collapse of Building 7 anywhere in the official report of the 9/11 Commission.  Nor does the report mention that bigger fires than the one in Building 7 broke out in WTC Buildings 4, 5 and 6, but none of those buildings collapsed. 

•  We "knew" Building 7 was "just an ordinary office building," so we needn't be unduly concerned about why it collapsed.

Actually, however, Building 7 was anything but an ordinary building.  It was, in fact, one of the most important buildings in New York City and its collapse is one of the most significant pieces in the 9/11 puzzle.  The building housed a number of important agencies, including the CIA, FBI and Securities Exchange Commission.  And, most importantly, on the 23rd floor of Building 7 was an emergency-response centre that had been set up by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

A number of 9/11 researchers, including former German Research and Technology Minister Andreas Von Buelow, believe the 23rd floor "bunker" was used as a 9/11 "command centre."  Von Buelow thinks it would have been the "optimal place" from which the "attack planes" could have been guided into the twin towers using remote-control technology.

The former German minister, who is one of Europe's most respected intelligence experts, believes the 9/11 "attacks" were co-ordinated from Building 7 by high-level U.S. intelligence operatives and that the building was later demolished to eliminate any traces of incriminating evidence.

•  We "knew" a group of passengers revolted against hijackers who had taken over United Airlines Flight 93, causing the plane to plummet into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:06 am, and we "knew," having been told by the 9/11 Commission, that "by the time the military learned about the hijacking of Flight 93, it had already crashed."

In fact, however, there is now ample evidence indicating that the Federal Aviation Administration notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 93 well before the "crash" and that Vice-President Dick Cheney gave authorization from the underground bunker at the White House for F-16 jet-fighters to pursue and shoot down Flight 93.  This evidence is presented in painstaking detail by Paul Thompson in his book, The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute.

It is now clear that the official story of the plane spiraling to the ground after a struggle in the cockpit is total fiction.  The plane and its passengers and crew were, in fact, blasted to smithereens by the fighter-jets.  Thorough on-the-ground investigations by independent researchers, including a special unit from Asahi TV of Japan, found the plane and its contents had been reduced to tiny fragments, which were scattered over an area covering almost eight square miles.

By now so much disinformation and fabricated evidence concerning Flight 93 has been circulated that we will probably never know the full truth about what the original "mission" of Flight 93 was on 9/11, what really happened on board the plane or why Dick Cheney seemed so frantically determined that the plane be blasted out of the sky.

We do know for sure, however, that Flight 93 was 41 minutes late leaving Newark, New Jersey, and it was therefore "out of synch" with the other hijacked planes, which had all taken off within minutes of each other.  This time lag created a big problem for the 9/11 plotters because some passengers aboard Flight 93 were informed by cellphone that two planes had struck the twin towers in Manhattan earlier that morning.

There appears to have been a struggle for control of the plane between the hijackers and some passengers though the picture is very murky.  It is almost impossible to separate fact from fiction and genuine evidence from lies and fabrications.  Regardless of the details, however, things had obviously gone terribly wrong with the plotters' original plans for Flight 93, so it is not really surprising that the decision was made to bring the flight to a sudden, dramatic end.

Paul Thompson, who has studied the mystery of Flight 93 in minute detail, believes the plane was shot down only after it became evident that the passengers - among whom were a professional pilot and a flight controller - might gain control of the plane and land it safely.  One passenger, Tom Burnett, told his wife on the cellphone:  "It's up to us.  I think we can do it."  Just a few minutes after that conversation, two F-16 fighter-jets trailing behind Flight 93 closed in and blasted the plane to bits.  Obviously the last thing Dick Cheney wanted was to have any of the "patsy hijackers" possibly survive and be available for interrogation.

Next month we will take a look at the mystery surrounding American Airlines Flight 77, which the authorities said crashed into the Pentagon but which, as we shall see, actually did nothing of the kind.

recently added