While the public opinion is in favor of accepting the side of the government, most will still keep a small window of doubt always open.
The media are centralized and under the control of just a handful of people. CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX, BBC, they are all in a political game and journalists especially in the US are required to support the interests of their bosses or governments with military disciplince.
It is the same in Europe and while not so intense yet, still many reporters have to follow the general guidelines once a serious topic appears. This is also a reason I strongly support having many reliable sources of information and not just accept the local or national news agencies feeds. Just sticking to one side of an argument may help find peace of mind, but are we sure that ignorance and blind faith is the right approach?
Is any government totally transparent and honest? Most governments even have black budgets. We are taxed and our funds are going to covert operations we don't need to know about.
The Events as Unfolded:
It was the day that shook the world.
It was morning in New York, and almost afternoon in Europe.
The horrifying events and the shock that followed led almost every person in the world feel numb and scared of what is coming next.
Nothing was the same after that day, across America and across the world.
As with everyone else 911 caught me by surprise as well. I was young but I remember it in detail. We may not remember all the events that followed, but we all remember that too many details didn't fit. It is not easy to accept that two emblematic towers of the worlds only superpower left, collapsed like a piece of paper.
It is inconceivable how the Pentagon was also hit. The hijacker performed 360 degree maneuver and hit right on spot a building that was relatively short when compared to skyscrappers. That would take some real skills and experience.
A fourth hijacked airplane (United Airlines Flight 93) seems that it was heading for the US Capitol Building. In this one the crew and passengers reacted and fought against the terrorists and eventually the terrorists cancelled their plans and crashed the airplane to the ground. The heroic act of these passengers saved other lives and reduced the impact of the attacks.
Search Engines Censorship
Google has censored and shadow-banned links and results that would help researchers find exactly what they are looking for. When a Google query seems to be skeptical about 911, you will immediately find 20 results debunking conspiracy theories and not find actual links that contain any kind of theory or even suspicions.
Google has perfected the art of silencing and manipulating its users. It wasn't like that until recently, though. I remember even in previous years searching with Google was a lot easier for this topic.
Meanwhile, all the debunking articles and websites contain just the same vague and nonprecise responses. It was the fire that melted the steel. It can't be someone from the inside.
Were the Japanese allowed to attack Pearl Harbor? This is how the US entered WW2. Without this attack, the war would have been different.
"Before the attack, many Americans were reluctant to become involved in the war in Europe. This all changed when the United States declared war on Japan, bringing the country into World War II."
Has Justice Been Served?
I think that justice has not been served with the 9-11 victims and not served for the victims of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that followed.
The 20th anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers in New York, and the events of Afghanistan with the Taliban regaining control of the country reminded us of the tragic moments that changed the course of history.
Commemorating the moments of the September 11th, 2001 attack on New York, I still feel sad and confused about everything that happened. For those that lost their lives in the attack, to those that suffered the same fate in the aftermath of the wars that followed.
All these years later, there are still too many questions unanswered.
There is the official report of what happened and various theories on insiders involvement.
The official explanation was a combination of perfect planning by the terrorists, together with a series of mistakes and oversights from the various US security organizations (official excuse).
The conspiracy theorists argue it was an event allowed to take effect and all these mistakes happened deliberately.
Even if the odds are very low, there are still so many clues, oversights, and hasty reviews of the events that provide the ground to listen to the other side.
It is difficult to accept the official side of this. We discuss this tragedy only under the prism of independent research in this article, but equally important to notice the level of censorship and manipulation by the internet media has grown a lot over the years.
The Many Inconsistencies
There are some conspiracy theories that go into more extreme view, claiming the US government planned these attacks, that the airplanes empty and controlled like drones, and some more advanced theories. Mostly, these suggestions didn’t have solid foundations and contained no credible evidence to back them.
There are some events that are strange and contain various inconsistencies. One is the collapse of the third building (WTC7), which fell in the exact same way as the Twin Towers.
Wait, you know there were three buildings collapsed that day, right?
WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.
Building: 7 World Trade Center (a.k.a. Salomon Brothers Building)
Source of Image: DailyCommercialNews
Building 7? What is that? This was my reaction a couple of years later when watching the online videos on 911. I had completely forgotten about the report that a third skyscraper at the WTC also collapsed. It was downplayed by the media and not even contained in the initial 911 report by federal authorities.
It was an event that the media didn’t cover to the desired extend and I’m sure that most non-Americans still have not heard about it.
A third skyscraper (52 floor) also collapsed, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers, and the official cause was the heat of the fires burning inside it caused the steel pillars and other metals to melt, reducing structural integrity.
WTC7 is also the only case worldwide of a building collapsing because of fire. The investigation results by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), were released in a way to convince this was the reason.
The institution (NIST) created a computerised model of the collapse, however it seemed different from what we see in our screens and can be considered scientifically dubious with the results it provided, while not being able to investigate the one component that could tell exactly what was going on. Steel. The steel from the building was not present when NIST started its investigation. All the steel had been gathered and sold outside of the US long before NIST began studying this event.
While the researchers give a definite answer, this is still a theory. It is just a guess, a likely outcome, however not the only possible one as we will see below there was another study lately that contradicts NIST’s findings.
What is even more strange is the fact that YouTube has taken down almost all videos on the WTC7 collapse. This is how you right history, by changing the facts, hiding the truth from the public, and withholding vital information.
It took a while to manage and find this youTube video having captured the collapse of WTC7.
There are literally thousands of videos on Youtube deleted becaues they didn't fit the narrative of melting steel.
This one survived but it requires a certain string of words to appear. It is buried within Youtube, and once it gets enough publicity it will also be censored. I will be visiting this article occassionally to find out when it will be deleted.
I'm trying to find a video that a couple of years ago had hundreds of thousands of views. It is the reaction of an engineer watching WTC7 collapse. The engineer was French, and as with many other Europeans didn't know that a third building collapsed. This wasn't something shown in the European media too much.
So, the engineer was discussing controlled demolition and at a point the journalist showed the video. The engineer was then definite that this was a controlled demolition and started to explain how he was also managing such demolitions.
When the journalist told him, this structure was the third building that collapsed during the 911 attacks, the engineer was shocked. He couldn't speak, he had his eyes wide open and couldn't believe it. He only said "they should really look into that".
I can't find this video today. I am trying with any combination possible at YouTube, Google, Duckduckgo, and if I find I will edit and present it.
BBC Reported the WTC7 Building Collapse 20 minutes before it did!
Source of the image and video.
In this video, the BBC newscaster announced the collapse of building “7 World Trade Center” (announced it as Salomon Brothers Building) 20 minutes before its collapse.
Years later, when he was asked about this coverage of the events, he explained it was a mistake, he had a report that wasn’t confirmed and had to decide on the spot to announce it or not.
BBC seems to have this incorrect report by Reuters and explains:
“On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen.“
(Source)
At 13:40 in the BBC video, we watch the BBC newscaster talking about the Salomon Building (WTC 7) collapse where he says “and indeed it has“! He keeps explaining how the building has been weakened and that it was not
A minute later, a reporter on the scene (Jane Standley) is in the beginning, carefully standing at the right of the screen while the area of the WTC is observable behind. We listen to how the building has collapsed and how part of the Ledra Marriot hotel was also structurally damaged.
However, Jane’s head is covering a very important fact! Where she is standing and for another minute on her report, she is covering the fact that WTC7 (the Salomon Building) is still there!
14:42! Do you recognize the building at the top right corner?
I don’t know how you call all of this. A colossal screw up perhaps?
BBC tried in vain to explain everything, but it mostly reacted as if this didn’t happen. All these videos are difficult to find and 99% of internet users will not care unless they are presented as a headline. Important to notice that Jane Standley was already there. She had seen the building and was probably confused about which one it was.
Since Jane Standley tried to cover the building from the view, she was probably told that the building was there and whole and no collapse had happened (yet). She also evades the questions by the newscaster and doesn’t report at all about the Salomon building. Examine this part carefully (after 13:40). The collapse had already been announced 10 minutes earlier than that by the BBC newscaster.
It is highly likely she already knew this report is false and just kept reporting about other relevant situations, but nothing at all on the condition of the Salomon building.
Tenants of WTC 7
These are the tenants of the WTC 7 building at the time of its collapse. It seems there are plenty of influential organizations basing their operations on the WTC7 building. IRS, DOD, CIA, OEM, and a US Secret Service office. The importance of the tenants was also investigated by authorities, but it was another detail that was found not having importance by officials.
They made the decision to pull
In this video Larry Silverstein explains how "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapsed".
Who was Larry Silverstein you might ask and why is his opinion any important?
Well, he was the owner (lease-holder) of the building (WTC7).
Let's watch Larry Silverstein saying that:
"Pull" in engineering terms means controlled demolition.
The Steel from the Site was Immediately Sold and Melted
Another question arises from the scene of the collapse. The thousands of tonnes of steel were gathered from the debris and sold to Chinese recycling companies to be melted down. This happened before NIST could gather any sample from the steel in the area and caused many controversies, since examining the steel columns and any remains would have been a top priority.
So, the study by NIST did not contain the most important element. A sample from the steel that had melted from the heat.
The collapse of the building was not mentioned in the initial 911 commission report.
FEMA also released a report in 2002 claiming that the fire had intensified because of the high amount of fuel being stored inside the building. (source)
A New Study Contradicts NIST's results
A new report (2018) from the University of Alaska Fairbanks (Institute of Northern Engineering):
"The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on
9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse."
You can find and download in pdf form the whole report (111 pages) here.
The report examines thoroughly the events and resulting in the admission that fire was not the reason for the collapse of the building, but instead a "near simultaneous failure of every column in the building (global failure)".
This is what we also observe happening. There are fires on some floors but it is difficult to explain the fact how fires managed to bring down all the columns of the building at the exact same time.
The new study by INE is giving many details on where exactly the NIST report went wrong and provides a rebuttal on its methodology and results.
For example:
" there were no documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse. "
"Unfortunately, efforts to investigate the collapse of WTC 7 were hampered by the swift
removal and destruction of debris from the WTC site. This type of evidence is typically
preserved and available during any forensic investigation.
Many engineers think that this kind of building collapse could only happen with controlled demolition and the use of thermate.
Fire cannot produce these effects. Fire produces large, gradual deformations and asymmetrical collapses. Thermate can produce all of these effects used in conjunction with linear shaped charges.
Source: Nist.gov - Richard Gage (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)
This is the case of WTC7, the only building of considerable size in the world that has completely collapsed because of fire, according to the official reports.
The mystery is not that Building 7 collapsed due to fire: I don’t think anyone doubts that, in some universe, this is possible. The mystery is that three skyscrapers on the same day collapsed virtually into their own footprints due to fire.
Source: Paul Harvey
What do you make of the collapse of the WTC7 building? Do you have more information that could be important to explain what happened?
The 911 voicemail recording by CeeCee Lyles
Image from: Source
This is a phone call by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles to her husband from flight United Airlines #93 using a GTE Airfone. Her husband didn’t answer the phone, not being home at that moment, so she left him a voicemail recording.
This one is also equally interesting and another recording that was very difficult to find. The media and politicians used this audio recording in the beginning, but within the years’ researchers found something extremely surprising and frightening.
"It's a frame"
Right after she says the last words “Goodbye, I love you”, the recording doesn’t stop. We hear noises and also CeeCee Lyes whispering the words: “It’s a frame”.
We can hear with a high degree of confidence saying these words. Why would someone ever whisper something like that when terrorists have hijacked the airplane and know this is a life-threatening situation?
Google Censorship, Again
This link, was a video that contained the recording. YouTube has deleted it and the account has been terminated. After searching with ridiculous keyword combinations, I found this old Reddit post that was providing the link and contained some discussion on the topic. (Reddit link)
You can find the whole recording in the video below, that was used in a political party convention in the US. Some other videos on Youtube contain part of the recording, cut before the whisper is audible.
Increase the audio a little more and the words "It's a frame" are audible at 1:14.
It seems this finding is completely buried online and only a few references appear here and there. How can we find the truth when questions are deleted? This is not even any theory. This is an actual recording. Why was there no investigation into this? Why did nobody talk about it? And how can we trust anything else we've been told, when questions are completely erased from the internet?
Lorne Lyles
I also think that you will find what I'm going to tell you next is equally surprising.
CeeCee Lyles used to be a police officer. And not just a police officer but was also appointed as a detective within her 6 years of service to the force. (US gov link)
It seems though, that she had this urge to travel the world, and she left the police force for United Airlines and became a flight attendant in 2000.
Her husband, Lorne, was also a police officer at the same department as Cee Cee.
And guess what.
Image from LinkedIn
He is now also a flight attendant at United Airlines. Exactly as Cee Cee.
I checked Lorne's LinkedIn, and it is all reposts about United Airlines and a few other reposts about Obama and other notable Americans. Nothing else, though. There is simply no other interest and no own posts. I don't know if United Airlines has LinkedIn as mandatory, maybe this can be the case. I will never know this detail, but even this part looks strange.
Too many of the details are confusing. As I recall, her husband wanted to get to the bottom of this and didn't believe the official explanations. He also felt it was extremely strange to receive a phone call from an airplane.
Now, in case her husband is still searching for the truth (as a real cop would) and wants to uncover evidence or at least hope he is doing the right thing, they already know about it, and they accepted him so he will find nothing at all.
If there is the smallest chance of a conspiracy and United Airlines is involved, the data would always be out of reach for him.
And Lorne also knows this. He knows that they know. But probably feels compelled to proceed with this course of action no matter what.
I read the transcripts from almost all phone calls made from the passengers and crew of flight 93 and the discussion between the terrorists. I became part of the passengers while reading and I don’t think this was a made-up story as some suggest.
I only mention this event for the reasons of the deleted videos and lack of attention on what many believe is an important detail. There is a huge detail, a flight attendant (and ex-cop and detective) whispering what seems to be the words “it’s a frame” right before hanging up.
Isn’t this something worth considering and investigating further?
When wanting to debunk a story, you don’t delete the information. People will understand maybe after ten or a hundred times if there is any truth in the content. For what is worth, I also doubt that these are the words spoken. It could be something else and we are all deceived, but I don’t know about analyzing audio.
A full story from just a piece that is taken out is completely different. So in this case, while some suggest the flight didn’t happen, and it was all made up seems to be unreasonable and suspicious as well. When there are doubts about an event, some are coming with this strategy of proceeding with unrealistic claims just to make the initial theories look unimportant.
From the transcripts of the airship’s black box, the phone calls made and the tower control communications; it seems the United Airlines passengers used their cellphones and airplane phones and were notified about the attacks on the Twin Towers.
They made up a plan and tried to break open the cockpit door and take command of the cockpit. The terrorists’ backup plan in this situation was equally cowardice as their plan to attack harmless civilians, and they One of the black boxes of flight 93 recovered at site of the crashed the plane on the ground.
The heroic acts of the people on board probably saved another destruction from occurring and save lives.
The Non-Existent Connection of Iraq to Al-Qaida Terrorists & the Weapons of Mass Destruction
Many were skeptical about 911 and the events that unfolded helped these doubts grow more.
Disbelief was increased the moment the US accused Iraq of sheltering Al-Qaida terrorist shells, promoting terrorism, and holding weapons of mass destruction.
The term “weapons of mass destruction” had to be reduced to a better one, so WMD was fitting better the propaganda machine.
The initialism WMD was an abbreviation used by the news media in the US about a thousand times per day, to convince (brainwash) the American public and the NATO allies that Saddam Hussein was besides just another ruthless ruler, also a dangerous person holding weapons that could be unleashed to the Western countries.
Weapons of mass destruction are mostly nuclear weapons. Or, as G.Bush Junior used to call them, “nucular weapons“.
Besides Britain, Europe didn’t help the US in the Iraqi invasion. There was some facilitation and help in logistics, yet everyone knew the cause was unjust, at least everybody in Europe.
In the U.K. Tony Blair was the president and supported the “War on Terror”.
The U.K. was against Saddam and was preparing for war for years before 2001.
Newspapers like the Guardian were preparing the UK since the end of the first Iraqi war, deliberately manipulating public opinion and trying to force the idea that a war on Iraq was inevitable.
The stance of the U.K. was not surprising, however, protests erupted and a very large part of the population was opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
The time when Saddam and the US were friends
During the Iran-Iraq war, the US considered Saddam Hussein an ally, probably with the psychology of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq to express the US support of the Iraqi government and was photographed while shaking hands with Saddam Hussein (1983).
Image from Wikipedia
This was always deemed a controversial approach and even inside the Pentagon, it didn't look like a long-term friendship was sustainable. Saddam was considered a madman. This was proven later when he slaughtered and gassed Kurds during the Anfal campaign between 1987-1989 (source).
The ties with the US government broke down completely only the moment Iraq annexed Kuwait. In retrospect, this was his grave mistake.
The US went on the offense. 911 was something the hawks at Washington were longing for. Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney (Halliburton), and some more executives of the Bush administration found an opportunity.
The Iraqi oil was the target, and then the rest targets were bound to reduce the ex-Soviet geopolitical influence in the region (Libya, Syria). Iran wasn't even considered a target at that stage, not even North Korea, although both the governments of these nations felt threatened and begun work in nuclear weapons research. Eventually, North Korea achieved this military technology.
These seem to be difficult cards to play and the fatalities would have been too much. The main event for the US strategic expanse in the Middle East was Iraq.
Iran was until 1979 a US ally but all influence was lost after the Iranian Islamic revolution. Losing also Iraq, meant other regional powers would gain a geostrategic advantage in the area.
The US was losing strategic ground in the region and other regional powers (Russia, China) would be placed in a better position.
Conclusion
There are hundreds of controversial details left outside of this article, while all together they point to something bigger than the official explanation.
I am not claiming I am right about WTC7, or the phone recording of CeeCee Lyles’ phone call. I have learned to report events with honesty, though, and to take responsibility for any mistakes.
Can all those that claim WTC7 collapsed down to its foundation due to fire be certain about it? Is it possible for three buildings to collapse in the exact same way because of fire?
There are studies now released that refute the findings of NIST that contained no tangible evidence that just fire can cause a structure like WTC7 to collapse.
Many think that the truth is so well hidden and we will never know it.
Maybe it is just me, 20 years later, still not able to entirely grasp this event and the formal explanation as a real one. I hope it is this and frankly if I offended anyone with this article I never intended it.
Sincerely, I felt sad hundreds of times for every life lost in the 911 attacks and later in the wars that followed.
Maybe, I got this all wrong and maybe the suspicions are exaggerated, but after so many years of watching these manipulative tactics by TV networks and Google, it increased the odds there is an attempt to hide the whole truth from the public.
When an event is so controversial and up to a lot of debate, censoring the other side only creates even more questions than helps.
Backpage
References and Interesting Links:
NIST: WTC Disaster Study
Youtube: 9/11 The Falling Man - The Most Powerful Image of 9/11 | 9/11 Documentary | Documental (contains disturbing images)
Wikipedia: World Trade Center - Controlled Demolition conpiracy theories
Institute of Northern Engineering (University of Alaska): A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (report in pdf)
NIST: Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7
Internet Archive: BBC Sept. 11, 2001 4:54 pm - 5:36 pm
Daily Commercial News: 9/11 destruction “controlled demolition” — fact or fiction?
New York Post: Spike Lee says he believes 9/11 conspiracy theory: ‘I got questions’
Archives.gov: Staff Report
Wikipedia: United Airlines Flight 93
Washington Journal: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Notes from the Underground:
I started writing this article weeks ago but felt it was too early. It is just a week before the 20th anniversary of this horrible attack.
I did not write this article to change your mind about anything. I accept everyone as they want to be. Moreover I mean no disrespect towards Americans, Muslims, or anybody else.
From my perspective, freedom of thought and our freedom of expression is so much important, just like the amount of water we drink every day. Everyone should be allowed to express their opinions and concerns without having to face censorship. What Google, Twitter, Facebook, and so many other platforms have become lately is worse than any Orwellian dystopia. You can’t judge, can’t confront, can’t even creatively criticize anyone in power.
Google doesn’t allow us to think beyond a certain point. Shouldn’t people ask these questions? Should we be taking for granted the official position with no thought given first?
Images
Lead Image from: Pixabay, by David Marc
Platfroms: ● ReadCash ● NoiseCash ● Medium ● Hive ● Steemit ●Vocal ● Minds
Shout out to my top-3 sponsors
A lot of things you have covered here, I am not sure to be honest if the WTC7 collapse was a demolition or not, though I agree that we should be allowed to hear ALL the facts and judge for ourselves, big tech removing all the videos with a view they disagree with can't be right, we should be able to freely debate and discuss these things. The same thing is happening now with the covid vaccines. Mentioning anything negative about them can get your videos removed. This is censorship of free speech, soon it will be wrong to even think for ourselves!