|
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
“domino” doctrine, 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]”
(Minkin).
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.'”
(Marrs22)
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
furnace” hypothesis. 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 the “blast 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
http://www.archives.gov. 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
|