Recently while debating 9/11 with a man I respect, the fucker had the audacity to label me a 'conspiracy theory,' ( you know who you are Noel!).
Mind you, it made me re-think it all and go back and look again at the available information surrounding that momentous day. Perhaps you agree that the name "conspiracy theorist," carries a lot of negative baggage, like a looney fringe of some kind and I hope I am not one of those. I like to think my analysis of what's important is at least balanced, if not always right. So in that spirit, I started all over again.
The nub of it came early to me and it centred on the official account of the day as presented in the "9/11 Commission Report," released in 2004. As there was no concrete forensic proof of who did what, no evidence collected for the crime scenes and no confessions, forced or otherwise, from any of the alleged protagonists, then the best they could do was present an educated guess as to events that took place. That is ordinarily called a "Theory." So the official theory goes that, a bloke suffering from kidney disease and living in a cave on the other side of the world, directed and conspired with 19 Arabs, fifteen of them Saudis, to hi-jack four civilian aircraft in the US and using box cutters for weapons, and then overpower the crew and passengers to take control of the jet liners. Then these lads who had failed in their attempts to command single engined planes in flight training schools, somehow managed to steer these huge unwieldy jets in manoeuvres, which even pilots of thirty years admit are impossible, to kill thousands of people for the sin of being infidels. Fairly heady stuff so far.
But rather than bore you with the rest of the 9/11 report, have a look at an accurate, if sarcastic account of it that takes all of five minutes to watch, and then come back to me here.
So the official account of the events of the day, is in fact, the first 'conspiracy theory'. That is vital to understand. All other conspiracy theories you may have heard were as a result of the official narrative. It was that published account and its inconsistencies that spawned the doubters. If you took five minutes to view the condensed version you will understand what I mean. The problem though with all of the subsequent theories is that they too lacked forensic evidence, because all of it was quickly collected and shipped to China under strict security. The crime scenes were cleaned up before any investigation could happen. They had no insiders from the perpetrator's side who would come clean and tell us all what really happened. No-one from any of the four planes could enlighten the secondary theorists because they all died, we are told and Osama himself was denying any hand act or part in it, but from the kind of distance and secrecy that made you think, "He would say that, wouldn't he?"
So why then do we have such a rash of conspiracies theories around that fateful day? The answer to that is because of the 9/11 Commission Report. The group known as, "Engineers & Architects for 9/11 Truth," state emphatically that the report finding around a pancake collapse is impossible, that just could not have happened. "Scientists for 9/11 Truth," claim that the few samples of World Trade dust collected in the weeks after contained unmistakable evidence of explosives of some kind. "Demolition Experts for 9/11 Truth," adamantly maintain that all three New York buildings, (1, 2, & 7.) were brought down in classic controlled explosions. "Pilots for for 9/11 Truth," state categorically that the accounts of the flight paths of all four aircraft would have been impossible for so many reasons. "Victims for 9/11 Truth," just want to know who killed their loved ones and don't believe for a second that 19 civilian arabs did the deed. "Security Experts for 9/11 Truth," agree with the victims that it could not have happened the way we were being told it did. The so-called "conspiracy theorists" then did not have so much a theory of their own as a deep belief they were being lied to and in the absence of hard facts, could only present aspects of an alternative scenario. As an example of this, "Engineers & Architects for 9/11 Truth," show that the buildings in New York could only have been felled in the way they were, by pre-planted explosives. After that, they can only offer suggestion of what would be required to do the job and never once do they name the guilty or explain the motivation behind it. They don't know and it's not their job to find out.
So, "Animators & Film Makers for 9/11 Truth," can pretty convincingly show you that no aircraft were used at all and then they can explain to you how what you thought you saw on TV could convincingly be made so real for you by using special effects video technology in an editing studio. They go on to show how the footage you saw on the day and subsequent days was provided to the big networks like ABC, Fox & NBC by undisclosed sources and the mainstream media cautioned on many occasions that the footage we were seeing wasn't their own. You had forgotten that, hadn't you? Then "Pilots for for 9/11 Truth," having studied the original plans for the Twin Towers, simply said that if modern jetliners hit these buildings regardless of their airspeed, the jets would shatter and crumple against the outside thick steel walls and fall in many pieces to the street below. They are hollow aluminum tubes after all and the only two pieces of aircraft that had some chance of smashing though the outer walls would be the two, six-ton engines because they are made of very strong metal alloys.
The list of doubters and their alternative suggestions goes on and on. "Demolition Experts for 9/11 Truth," say with conviction that to bring down the buildings would have taken months of planning, weeks of installation of explosives in just the right places with security access clearances and finally real expertise to set everything off in the absolute correct sequence. But even then, they cannot explain the thousands of tons of "pulverized concrete" that became so much powder. "Police & Firemen for 9/11 Truth," cannot explain the many cars burned in a most peculiar fashion several miles from the complex. "Doctors for 9/11 Truth," cannot explain the myriad of cancers that have killed so many 'first-responders' in the years that followed. The same group also want an explanation for many huge explosions that occurred and were experienced by them while the buildings were still standing. They can't accuse anyone because they don't know who to have a go at. But they do know that several of their number were blown to pieces in areas of those buildings where no damage was apparent when they arrived. "IT experts for 9/11 Truth," tell us firmly that the alleged cell-phones conversations from passengers were not possible in 2001 and making such calls from five miles up did not become a reality for many years after. These calls were cited as evidence by the official commission. "Air Traffic Controllers for 9/11 Truth," give us the inside track on what actually happened that morning and it bears no relation to the official version.
All in all then, I would not dub the above parties as conspiracy theorists because I think they are merely and very genuinely doubters. If you think of any argument in your own life where you disagree with a version of any event, the last refuge of the other scoundrel is to challenge you sarcastically, "So how do you think it went instead?" In the case of 9/11, the reality is we don't know how it all went off, (yet). However, it did NOT happen they way we were officially told it happened and the guys THEY blame are unlikely to be the guilty parties either. Whoever did pull off 9/11 got away scot-free without ever having to explain how they did it and why. Isolated as a single calamitous day in America, it was bad enough on its own for the mass-murder that took place and the wanton destruction. But that it justified several wars subsequently and destabilized world peace, makes 9/11 a pivotal and important event in the history of the world itself and that is why the truth of what actually happened is so very urgently needed by all of us.
I've covered this topic here a few times because it nags at my very core. I sense something wildly wrong but do not know, for the life of me, what the hell it is. In re-visiting it due to being labelled a conspiracy theorist, I stumbled on yet another possible version of events, this one truly bizarre and it blows all of the other suggestions of a viable explanation out of the water. Dimitri Khalezov, a senior officer in the USSR military, spent years working for the Soviets in their nuclear development program. He makes a compelling and believable argument as to why the only explosives that could bring those three steel skyscrapers was thermo-nuclear ones set off fifty metres under the basements of all three. Before you dismiss this as fantasy, he recounted an interesting angle of Detente in its heyday. Apparently the two superpowers routinely exchanged information on "pre-planned' nuclear detonations in their spheres of influence. This was to avoid mis-understandings should readings in one country alert another that such an explosion had taken place without warning. The testing of offensive weapons aside, America instituted a building regulation for New York and Chicago, just before the Twin Towers were built. The new regulations called for, not only the details of how the buildings would be erected but then also demanded a plan for how they would be eventually demolished safely tears later. The architects and engineers who designed those Twin Tower buildings in the seventies had to put forward a viable plan for bringing them down before the foundations ever went in. They were to be constructed so well that the teams could only come up with one sure-fire method of demolition, and that was a nuclear explosion.
What I didn't know was that there are several types of these and that it is possible to set one off in downtown Manhattan without the massive fallout associated with such an event. The Russians had always tested their bombs underground and Dimitri explains just why and also how the same could have done on 9/11 where the plans for just that, were always in place for those buildings and the underground infrastructure needed already in place since the seventies. He knew this because the Russians were told about the Twin Towers and Sear's Tower demoition plans way back then as part of the courtesy of Detente. But yet again, it is another plausible account to explain the events of the day. Dimitri does not point the finger of blame at any person or group and says simply that he doesn't know who did it, only how they did it. What he says he does know is that the events in New York bore the unmistakeable fingerprints of nuclear detonations, (three of them according to him), and I'll leave it at that because it is detailed and complicated to explain. But if you have the stomach for it, the Dimitri interview is four hours and sixteen minutes long and the video can be found here.
So anyway Noel, I am fucking well NOT a conspiracy theorist and am in fact a doubter of conspiracy theories, especially the official ones!