Table of Contents
THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO THE THOUSANDS OF
9/11 TRUTH RESEARCHERS AND ACTIVISTS
ESPECIALLY UNSUNG ONES, LIKE J.T. WALDRON
WHO HAVE KEPT THIS ISSUE ALIVE AND
IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC FOR TEN YEARS.
THEYVE PATIENTLY BATHED SKEPTICS LIKE ME
IN THE BRIGHT LIGHT OF REASON
UNTIL WE FINALLY OPENED OUR EYES.
PATIENCE IS NOT A VIRTUE
IM WELL ACQUAINTED WITH,
SO IM PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED BY
THEIR SEEMINGLY ENDLESS SUPPLIES OF IT.
Inside design, layout and text, copy-editing, proofreading, tinyURL creation, link-checking, photo research, cover design, layout and copy:Arthur Naiman
Research, contributions, fact-checking, copy-editing, link-checking and proofreading:Gregg Roberts
World Trade Center technical assistance:AE911 Truth
Final link-checking and proofreading:Kimberly Ehart
Index:Ty KoontzLogistical support:Karen Bodding
Cover photo:Gulnara Samoilova (gulnarasamoilova.com)
Graphics enhancement:Lyon Leifer
Production coordinator:Julie Pinkerton
Series editor:Arthur Naiman
Fonts: Bookman (text), Optima (notes, etc.), LIBERTY (headers), LITHOS BLACK (front cover, etc.) Gill Sans Bold (back cover)
Introduction
At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.
John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission
The events of September 11, 2001 were, to put it mildly, major crimes that need to be investigated. But people who question the official story tend to get dismissed as conspiracy theorists. To try to prevent this book from being dumped into that category, Ive ignored theories about who did what and have focused on simply showing the flaws in the official version of events and pointing out the endless number of obvious facts it cant explain.
Before I dive into that, however, lets take a brief moment to consider the phrase conspir - acy theory. The world is full of scary stuff, and the more you know, the scarier it can get. When knowledge leads to terrifying conclu - sions, people look for ways not to pay attention to it. Calling a clearly reasoned, evidencebased argument a conspiracy theory fits that purpose admirably. Once you slap that label on it, youre free to ignore it.
As for the literal meaning of the phrase, consider the official version of events: A bunch of Islamic fundamentalists, mostly Saudis, acting under the direction of Osama bin Laden and other leaders of al-Qaeda, conspired to kill large numbers of Americansand succeeded in doing soby hijacking commercial airliners and flying them into US buildings. Whatever parts of that story are or arent true, if that doesnt qualify as a conspiracy theory, its hard to know what would. But it doesnt get called a conspiracy theory because that phrase is reserved for ideas you want to discount.
In a (probably fruitless) attempt to avoid that label, this book will restrict itself to the hard evidence thats led more than 1500 architects and engineers (with more than 25,000 years of professional experience), as well as thousands of senior government, military, CIA and FBI officials, pilots and other aviation professionals, firefighters, 9/11 family members and survivors, scholars, medical professionals, broadcasters, reporters, authors, publishers, actors, directors and musicians, many of whom youll recognizeplus tens of thousands of ordinary citizens you wontto call for a new, thorough, independent investigation.
All I ask is that you, like them, actually look at the evidence. So, here it is.
The official story, and why it cant be true
Buildings can be destroyed by a number of different forces, each of which has very different characteristics. By identifying those characteristics, you can determine what caused the destructionor at least rule out some impossible candidates. Thats exactly what several government agencies were charged with doing with regard to the World Trade Center attacks.
Similar investigations, such as the ones that looked into Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination and the space shuttle disasters, all started within about a week. Yet the Bush Administration and Congress refused to open a comprehensive, high-level investigation of 9/11 for 441 days, relenting only after intensive demands by relatives of the victims.
Five investigations took place in all and they each had serious problems (failure to consider relevant evidence, conflicts of interest, allowing witnesses not to cooperate, and so on). The first two reports were issued in 2002: one jointly issued by the House Permanent Select Com mittee on Intel igence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and another from FEMA (the Federal Emergency Manage ment Agency, which did such a wonderful job on Hur icane Katrina).
Funding for the FEMA investigation was only $600,000 and it appears that not a penny of that measly sum went to engineers actually analyzing data (they all worked as volunteers). Not surprisingly, Fire Engineering magazine called the report a half-baked farce.
FEMA came up with what came to be called the pancake theory, which basically proposed that the Twin Towers floor trusses sagged due to fire, which caused the bolts that attached them to the perimeter columns to break free, which caused adjacent floor trusses to pull away in a chain reaction that zippered around the building. That caused the floors to fall, smashing down one on top of the other, all the way to the ground.
But if the bolts had failed, that would have been the fault of the buildings designers, engineers or suppliers, not the terrorists, and real-estate investor Larry Silverstein, whod just secured a 99-year lease on the complex in late July 2001, wouldnt have been able to collect on the multi-billion-dollar anti-terrorism insurance policy hed taken out immediately after signing the lease.
So he responded by funding his own private investigation, using the NYC-based engineering firm of Weidlinger Associates. The resulting Silverstein/Weidlinger report concluded that the bolts held tightso much so, in fact, that the sagging floors pulled the external columns inward and the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors, explains the collapses. Since the bolts didnt fail, the terrorists were at fault and Silverstein and his associates would get their money.
Then came the 9/11 Commission, which issued its report in 2004. Although it was supposed to be a high-level, comprehensive investigation, it conducted no criminal inquiries. It had no subpoena power, no special prosecutor, few open public meetings and virtually no scientific presentations.
Its report was criticized by its own cochairs, by more than half the commissioners overall, by several members of Congress and by dozens of former members of the national security establishment.
Senior 9/11 Commission Counsel John Farmer told the Washington Post that we were shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described. He also claimed that the commissions executive director, Philip Zelikow, sent a small group of insiders a secret document outlining the commissions