by Michael Sokolov
July 2003

from MichaelSokolov Website

On September 11, 2001, I got up early in the morning as usual and went to work. As I do not drive and use public transportation, I had to get up very early to get to work on time and would normally finish my sleep on the bus. That day as I was sitting on the bus half-awake as usual, I was overhearing the driver and some passenger sitting upfront talk about some plane crashes. My sleepy mind took no particular notice of that: OK, some plane crashed somewhere, so what.


Planes crash all the time. No big deal. I arrived at work uneventfully, went up the stairs to my office saying “Hi!” to people on the way, unlocked the door, got in and plopped into my armchair to wake up for real for another day of software engineering.

Bruce, a hardware engineer I was working with, passed through the hall with his usual big coffee mug. He stopped by my office, saying: “A busy day!” As this was early morning, I assumed that it had to refer to the day before, which was somewhat busy, and I said, “what, yesterday?” Bruce replied, “no, today.” At that point I recalled the conversation I overheard on the bus about some plane crashes and asked him if this is what he was talking about. He answered affirmatively. He said, “The World Trade Center has been destroyed.” My response was almost a kneejerk: “Cool!” Bruce continued, “The Pentagon has also been damaged.” I was excited, replying “that’s even better!”

My (natural) reaction to the 9/11 events got me some not-very-nice words from my coworkers and my boss, although fortunately no discipline. Obviously my view of the 9/11 events was totally different from that held by Americans.

  • So what was the real cause of the 9/11 events? 

  • Was it, as I naturally assumed, the result of Lord Anu (Sitchin 89), or perhaps even Mother Earth herself, finally revolting against this malignant tumor called America, and striking down the evil towers?

  • Or was it, as most Americans think, the work of some nasty terrorists who hated freedom and democracy?

  • Or was it something far more sinister?

As I will show in this essay, the evidence indicates that the real events that happened on 9/11 were much dirtier than either side (the Americans or the Arabs and others) ever suspected.

The first problem with the theory that the 9/11 events were caused by haters of freedom and democracy is the choice of targets. Since when have the World Trade Center and the Pentagon stood for freedom and democracy? The World Trade Center was universally understood as a facility and a symbol of global capitalism that America and other imperialist powers now impose on the world. And since when has capitalism equaled freedom and democracy?


Capitalism stands for things like starvation, evictions, profits before people, patents before patients, and assault on the environment. What does it have to do with freedom? And the Pentagon, what does that stand for? The people in the Balkans, in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Colombia, and Lebanon (Marrs 8) know what the Pentagon stands for: it stands for the bombs falling on their heads, and their killed or severely injured families. Again the connection between the Pentagon’s worldwide genocide and freedom and democracy is difficult to trace at best.

I kept hearing how the whole world was shocked by these events, and couldn’t help but think that the world ought to be in joy rather than in shock: the hated towers of transnational corporate criminal outfits and banksters came down, and after bombing the rest of the world for half a century the Pentagon finally learned how it feels to be on the receiving end of the stick. An unnamed random person in the streets of Moscow asked by Russian TV what he thought about the 9/11 events in the USA answered it best: “I’m sorry for the people who died, but not sorry for America.”

So is this really what happened on September 11, 2001?  Was this a just and long-overdue strikeback by the people of the Earth against a cancerous tumor called America that was slowly eating away at Mother Earth?  While this is the most obvious and logical explanation, it leaves some questions unanswered, thus compelling us to examine other possibilities.

The first thing that calls questions is the destruction of the World Trade Center. While the image of the plane hitting the tower followed by that tower collapsing was breathtaking and fantastic, after the initial excited emotions subside, the hard technical question remains: how exactly did it happen? Soon after the event and after the official explanation was given, a number of people have started questions. The first critical analysis of the event to come to my attention was the article posted on the Internet by J. McMichael titled the Bare Bones of the WTC Incident. It is so thought-provoking that I must quote it almost entirely:

Here are the bare facts of the WTC incident:


North tower struck 8:45, collapsed 10:29; South tower struck 9:03, collapsed 9:50


Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market. Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 AM, and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of the smoke and flames shooting from the windows. Then by 9:03 ... the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen— or both.


But by 10:29 AM, the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground. And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower. I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel ... I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.


And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building -- 200,000 tons of it ... I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can’t get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought on very fast, you can heat up the one part of the object, but the heat will quickly spread out and the part will cool off the moment you stop.

When the heat source warms the last cool part of the object, the heat stops escaping and the point of attention can be warmed.

If the north tower collapse was due to heated steel, why did it take 104 minutes to reach the critical temperature? ... Am I to believe that the fire burned all that time, getting constantly hotter until it reached melting temperature? Or did it burn hot and steady throughout until 200,000 tons of steel were heated molten - on one plane load of jet fuel?


In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack of LP (33 1/3 RPM) records, only they were square instead of circular. They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple steel columns stationed in a square around the 103 elevator shafts... With this core bearing the weight of the building, the platters were tied together and stabilized by another set of steel columns at the outside rim, closely spaced and completely surrounding the structure.



The TV experts told us that the joints between the floors and central columns melted (or the floor trusses, or the central columns, or the exterior columns, depending on the expert) and this caused the floor to collapse and fall onto the one below. This overloaded the joints for the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below, and so on. Like dominos ...


Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers, builders, and city inspectors in the job, we can imagine they would be very careful to over-build every aspect of the building. If one bolt was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you can be sure it was rejected.



I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many trades (and some I’ve worked), a structural member must be physically capable of three times the maximum load that will ever be required of it (BreakingStrength = 3 x WorkingStrenghth). Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength.

The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web ...

Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge—inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns. The experts tell us that the heat of the fire melted the steel, causing the joints to fail. In order to weaken those joints, a fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing that gives me problems—all the joints between the platter and the central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same time—and at the same rate as the joints with the outer rim columns on all sides—else one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of tower off balance and to one side.

But there were no irregularities in the fall of the main structure of those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cards in the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.

This is particularly worrisome since the first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side ...


Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry, spewing dust in all directions like a Fourth of July sparkler burning to the ground.



I have seen a videotaped rerun of the south tower falling. In that take, the upper floors descend as a complete unit. All the way, the upper-floor unit was canted over as shown on the BBC page, sliding down behind the intervening buildings like a piece of stage scenery. That scene is the most puzzling of all. Since the upper floors were not collapsed (the connection between the center columns and the platters were intact), this assembly would present itself to the lower floors as a platter WITHOUT a central hole. How then would a platter without a hole slide down the spindle with the other platters? Where would the central columns go if they could not penetrate the upper floors as they fell?


The only model I can find for the situation would be this: If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 40 floors would topple over ... much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1300 ft. tree. This model would hold also for the north tower. According to Chris Wise’s “dominodoctrine, the collapse began only at the floor with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it that the upper floor simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel? The amazing thing is that no one ... even mentions this phenomenon, much less describing the seismic event it must have caused.


Where is the ruin where the 200ft x 200ft x 50 story-object struck? Foty [sic] floors should have caused a ray of devastation 500 ft. into the surrounding cityscape... OK, since it was mentioned, I am also upset with the quantity of concrete dust ... No concrete that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is unnerving. My experience with concrete has shown that it will crumble under stress, but rarely does it just give up the ghost and turn to powder. But look at the pictures—it is truly a fine dust in great billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the collapsing tower.



I would like to find a pictures of all those platters piled up on each other on the ground, just as they fell -- has anyone seen a picture like that? I am told it was cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the collapse, but I don’t see the platters pilled [sic] up like flapjacks on the ground floor...



Dr. Robert Schuller was on television telling about his trip to the ruins. He announced in the interview that there was not a single block of concrete in that rubble. From the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the building, all was dust. How did that happen?

I have just one other point I need help with—the steel columns in the center. When the platters fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven’t seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them.


Now I know those terrorist must have been much better at these things than I am. I would take one look at their kamikaze plans with commercial jets and I would reject it as—spectacular maybe, but not significantly damaging... But if I were a kamikaze terrorist, I would try to hit the towers low in the supports to knock the towers down, maybe trapping the workers with the fire and burning the towers from the ground up, just as the people in last 20 stories were trapped.


But you see, those terrorists were so sure the building would magically collapse that way, the pilot who hit the north tower chose a spot just 20 floors from the top... And the kamikaze for south tower was only slightly lower -- despite a relatively open skyline down to 25 or 30 stories.


The terrorists apparently predicted the whole scenario— the fuel fire, the slow weakening of the structure, and the horrific collapse of the building - phenomena that the architects and the NY civil engineering approval committees never dreamed of.


Even as you righteously hate those men, you have to admire them for their genius. (McMichael)

This article made me stop and think. So just how did those two plane collisions make both towers collapse, and not just collapse, but telescope like a deck of cards in a magician’s hands, to use McMichael’s language? How come such a really miniscule impact was all it took to cause such catastrophic destruction, and how come the falling building parts (like the upper floors or the steel columns McMichael mentions) didn’t trample all over Manhattan? How come the attack appeared like a controlled demolition?

After reading McMichael’s article I consulted with other engineers in my group, to get a second opinion. Engineer Stacy Minkin wrote in response to my inquiry:

“books say that despite point of melting for steel is sufficiently high steel cannot sustain high durability when heat reahes [sic] about 800 degrees celcium [sic]”


In order words, what Stacy was saying was that it wasn’t necessary to heat the steel to its melting point (1538 deg C), only 800 deg C would be necessary for it to lose structural strength, allowing for the possibility of the towers collapsing in the manner described in the official pronouncements.

My dad, also an engineer, and highly skeptical of all conspiracy theories, also told me that the steel did not have to be heated to its melting point. He also explained how the jet fuel fire could have produced the necessary heat. His theory was that immediately after the impact the fuel poured down the central shaft and burned at the bottom. The extremely strong draft in the “tube” effectively turned it into a blast furnace, easily raising the temperature high enough to melt steel, or at least to heat it to the point of losing structural strength (to 800 deg C according to Stacy Minkin).


Yet there is evidence that the “blast furnace” scenario proposed by my dad did not actually take place. Jim Marrs wrote:

An audiotape of New York firefighters at the scene, unpublicized until mid-2002, indicated that fire officials managed to reach the 78th floor of the south tower - very near the crash scene - and seemed convinced that the fire was controllable.


Two fire officials mentioned by name in the tape were Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca, both of whom perished when the south tower collapsed along with 343 other firefighters. According to the Times article both firemen “showed no panic, no sense that events were racing beyond their control... At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.

” As noted by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn, 'The fact that veteran firefighters had a ‘coherent plan for putting out’ the ‘two pockets of fire,’ indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide crucial evidence debunking the government’s claim that a raging steel-melting inferno led to the tower’s collapse.'”


The fact that two firefighters were able to reach 78th floor and stand there mere minutes before the building collapsed and see no “inferno” resolutely disproves the “blast furnacehypothesis. Even by the most conservative estimates the temperature necessary to weaken the steel structures of the building had to be higher than 300 deg C at the minimum. Stacy Minkin, who worked on large boiler plants in Uzbekistan, wrote that in boilers the temperature of oil or gas flame often reaches 1500 deg C, and steel tubing is cooled to prevent it from getting torn up in precisely the manner the steel structures of the WTC are presumed to have been torn up. However, the temperature that boiler tubing is cooled down to, according to Stacy, is about 300-400 deg C (Minkin).

If boiler tubing is routinely kept at 300-400 deg C and remains perfectly safe at this temperature, then the temperature needed for steel to lose structural strength must be higher. But even the “low” temperature of 300 deg C is extremely high for humans. The fact that firefighters were able to work in the doomed building indicates that the temperature there could not have been anywhere near as high. Ergo, the temperature inside the doomed towers could not have been high enough to cause their steel structures to lose strength and break, and the official explanation for the collapse of the towers must be discarded.

Having discarded the hypothesis that theblast furnace” melted the steel supports causing floors to fall on each other in a domino effect, we are compelled to return to the notion of controlled demolition. We know, of course, how controlled demolitions are performed: by placing exactly the right amount of explosives of exactly the right kind in key structural points and detonating them in a specific precise sequence with precise timing. Not by hitting a tower with a plane or anything else of that nature. As hard as it may be for patriotic Americans to swallow, there exists evidence that the plane impacts on the WTC towers may have only been decoys, while the actual destruction of the towers was caused by bombs located inside.


Jim Marrs wrote:

Many have wondered about the witnesses who claimed to have heard multiple explosions within the buildings. One such witness was the head of WTC security, John O’Neill, who stated shortly before he himself became a victim that he had helped dig out survivors on the 27th floor before the building collapsed. Since the aircraft crashed into the 80th floor, what heavily damaged the 27th floor? Another of those mentioning bombs was Louie Cacchioli, a fifty-one-year-old fireman assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

“We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck,” recalled Cacchioli. “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth 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.”

The fireman became trapped in an elevator but managed to escape with the use of tools.

Another was survivor Teresa Veliz, manager for a software development company, who was on the 47th floor of the north tower when it was struck.

“I got off [the elevator], turned the corner and opened the door to the ladies’ room. I said good morning to a lady sitting at a mirror when the whole building shook. I thought it was an earthquake. Then I heard those banging noises on the other side of the wall. It sounded like someone had cut the elevator cables. It just fell and fell and fell.”

Veliz reached ground level with a coworker when the south tower collapsed, knocking them down. In near total darkness, she and the coworker followed someone with a flashlight.

“The flashlight led us into Border’s bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street. There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vessy Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn’t know which way to run.”

Steve Evans, a reporter for the BBC, was in the south tower at the time of the attacks.

“I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” he recalled. “There was an explosion - I didn’t think it was an explosion - but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake... then when we were outside, the second explosion and then there was a series of explosions.... We can only wonder at the kind of damage - the kind of human damage - which was caused by those explosions, those series of explosions.”

Fox 5 News in NYC shortly after 10:00 A.M. on September 11 videotaped a large white cloud of smoke billowing near the base of the south tower. The commentator exclaimed,

“There is an explosion at the base of the building... white smoke from the bottom... something has happened at the base of the building... then, another explosion. Another building in the World Trade Center complex...”

The most compelling testimony came from Tom Elliott, who was already in his office at Aon Corp. on the 103rd floor of the WTC South tower before the planes struck. Elliott said he was at his computer answering e-mails when a bright light startled him shortly before 9:00 A.M. A rumble shook the building and he could see flames accompanied by dark smoke that appeared to be crawling up the outside of the building. He also felt heat coming through the windows.


Strangely, there were no alarms. “I don’t know what’s happening, but I think I need to be out of here,” Elliott recalled thinking to himself. Elliott and two others began walking down the building’s stairwell when they ran into a few others. The absence of more people and the lack of alarms made them feel they had prematurely panicked.

He recalled that as his small group reached the 70th floor, they heard the announcement that the building was secure and there was no need to evacuate. “Do you want to believe them?” one woman said to Elliott. “Let’s go!” He followed the woman down the stairs. After descending three more floors, Flight 175 crashed into the south tower. An article in the Christian Science Monitor described what happened next:

“Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible sound - he calls it an ‘exploding sound’ - shook the building, and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell.”


“In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,” Elliott said. He said people in the stairwell panicked and tried to flee upward until some men pointed out that the only escape was downstairs. By about 9:40 A.M., Elliott managed to stumble out of the south tower and make his way to his roommate’s office in Midtown, where he broke down sobbing upon learning of the tower’s collapse.

(Marrs 19-21)

But the realization that the spectacular collapse of the WTC towers was caused by bombs installed inside the towers beforehand rather than by the plane impacts raises new questions. Supposing for the moment that the presumed terrorists could have planted the bombs, the question becomes, what were the planes for then? Were they a diversion?


Jim Marrs quotes Van Romero, vice president for research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and a former director of the Energenic Materials Research and Testing Center, saying,

“One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion”

(qtd in Marrs 18)

The problem with this hypothesis is its sheer magnitude. Surreptitiously planting a bomb in a building is one thing, hijacking 4 airliners and flying them into buildings is another. While religious fanatics eager to die in a terrorist act are not that hard to find, ones capable of piloting a large plane with extreme skill on their suicide mission are another matter.


While one can imagine some group planning and executing a mission of the millennium, especially given the valiant goal of striking down the world’s most hated symbol of global imperial capitalism (as well as the Pentagon from which the bomb-dropping orders on the rest of the planet issue), planning an executing such a mind-boggling operation merely as a diversion is unfathomable. I reason that the possibility of this plane hijacking and crashing operation being a mere diversion or distraction from the main action on the part of a terrorist group can be completely ruled out.

However unfathomable this idea may be to American patriots, there exists only one entity on Earth with enough power and resources that could afford planning and executing the plane hijacking and crashing operation as a mere diversion. It is the U.S. government. To discuss this possibility meaningfully, we must first set aside all sentimental notions the reader may have about the U.S. government and its supposed pledge to protect the American people.


The U.S. government is the worst gang of criminals to ever set foot on the surface of this planet, and it is fundamentally hostile to all life on Earth. It is fundamentally anti-people, and the people who happen to live inside America itself (“in the belly of the beast” as we say) are no different. As just one case of U.S. government planning terrorist attacks against its own people, consider the planned Operation Northwoods * in the 1960s.


* This document can be downloaded from Click on “Research Room,” then on “Archival Research Catalog (ARC),” then on the ARC SEARCH button, then type in “Northwoods” in the search box, then click on “Digital Copy Available” on entry #1. The key information will be found on images 136 through 142.


Jim Marrs writes:

Incredibly, forty-year-old government documents thought to have been destroyed long ago recently were made public. They show the U.S. military in the early 1960s proposed making terrorist attacks in the United States and blaming them on Fidel Castro.



Following the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, President Kennedy, angered by the inept actions of the CIA, had shifted the responsibility for Cuba from that agency to the Department of Defense. Here, military strategists considered plans to create terrorist actions that would alarm the American population and stampede them into supporting a military attack on Cuba. They also planned to,

develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington” or to “sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated) foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the United States.”

Other highlights of Operation Northwoods included the tactics of exploding bombs in carefully chosen locations along with the release of “prepared documents” pointing to Cuban complicity, the use of fake Russian aircraft to harass civilian airliners and “Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft,” even to simulating the shooting down of a civilian airliner.

(Marrs 297-299)

Could the 9/11 events have indeed been nothing less than U.S. government’s attack on its own facilities, executed under controlled conditions to minimize actual damage to its real interests and designed to “sell” to the American people the Orwellian totalitarian regime this country is rapidly moving towards, coupled with sharply increased worldwide aggression, in the name of the War on Terrorism, or the War on Freedom as Jim Marrs has aptly called it?


While at first this scenario appears highly unlikely given the choice of targets, the center of world capitalism and the command center of the U.S. military being the U.S. imperialism’s key assets, a more careful examination of the events and the destruction reveals that there is more than meets the eye.

On September 15, 2001, only days after 9/11 I attended a meeting of the Los Angeles club of Communist Party USA, of which I am a member, which while originally scheduled before 9/11, in the aftermath of those events became an impromptu meeting to discuss how our Party members should respond to those events.


At that meeting one comrade brought to light a noteworthy fact: as the attack took place early in the morning, none of the World Trade Organization (WTO) bosses (the ones rightfully hated by the world for their crimes and the ones who should have been killed had the 9/11 attack been a just revolt by the people of the Earth) were in at the time, the high bosses as usual being rather relaxed about getting to work on time, while the people who were in the WTC early in the morning, i.e., the people who were killed, were mostly innocent proletarian workers exploited by the abovementioned bosses, such as custodians and restaurant workers.

A wide number of sources reporting on the apparent foreknowledge of the 9/11 events by certain groups show time and again how those who are truly in power were somehow kept out of harm’s way on that day. Consider, for example, the purported “worldwide Jewish conspiracy”.


Jim Marrs writes:

[...] a Beirut television station reported that 4,000 Israeli employees of the WTC were absent the day of the attack, suggesting foreknowledge of the attacks.


[...] Finally, on September 22, the New York Times stated that amazingly only one Israeli was killed when the WTC towers collapsed. “There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried,” reported the Times

(Marrs 68)

And while its facility has been destroyed, the WTO charges right on with its global imperialist agenda. Perhaps one of the goals of the attack was to make the world sympathize with the WTO as a victim instead of loudly protesting and denouncing it as the world had been doing right up to 9/11. Consider, for example, the “battle in Seattle” in 1999 (“The real battle for Seattle”). The WTO was really in a hot seat there. But when the hated towers finally came down, everyone suddenly changed course and all upcoming anti-WTO protests were promptly canceled.

And what about the Pentagon?  How could the U.S. government possibly strike against the heart of its own military? Well, it has been widely rumored on the Internet that the damage to the Pentagon from the impact of American flight 77 was superficial, just enough to provoke anger and induce the American people to blindly support war, but no real loss.

(While I have no room for that discussion in this essay, it is also debated whether it really was American flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, or whether it was something more sinister, such as an experimental drone plane tested by the U.S. military against its own offices.)

In conclusion, we can see that one way or the other, by hook or by crook, the events of 9/11 are in the end the handiwork of the American capitalist shadow government, and we want to put an end to such costly shows, the cancerous tumor on the body of Earth known as the American imperialist superpower must be excised.

Works Cited