-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
9/11 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
- Status
Ballistics
Smash Champion
I'd rather not debate conspiracy theories about why or how these things happened, I'd rather talk about the evidence of controlled demolition presented by the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.
fragbait
Smash Master
Yes. For 9/11 truth. Architects and engineers with obvious bias.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
Sorry what is their bias? And how is this relevant to the evidence they have procured?
fragbait
Smash Master
Bias against the establishment.
Evidence could be faked, numbers could be fudged, or just general data tampering.
Not saying that's what's happening, but you really need to look at evidence in relation to all the other angles too, so you can fully understand it and what's involved with it.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
If you had watched the video I linked, which presents the factual evidence very clearly, leaving no room in your mind for theories of data tampering, you would know that the head of AE911, Richard Gage was a Reagan Republican who had forgotten all about 9/11 and was busy doing his architecture job when he heard Dr. David Ray Griffin ask some serious questions on the radio. This spurred his own search and caused him to create AE911 and come to conclusions that he didn't particularly want to be true.
Anything is possible but youre really going out on a limb pointing the finger of bias. Please take a look at the presentation and evidence.
Anything is possible but youre really going out on a limb pointing the finger of bias. Please take a look at the presentation and evidence.
Of course, everyone has bias. It bugs me when someone claims a source is unbiased; which is why I'm focusing on the science of what happened. I've been in several of these 9/11 debates and no one's actually disproven my points. People keep diverting attention with other conspiracy theories, who and why questions, off topic statements and so on. I think people don't like the idea of controlled demolition being involved. Take away the 'foreshadowing', names, politics, conspiracy theories, and just focus on the solid facts of the tragedy. I've illustrated several key points about how the buildings fell, the nature of the fires and heat, characteristics of controlled demolition as opposed to the piledriver theory, basic laws of freefall, etc. What does it show? I can't see any theory besides controlled demolition being accurate. No one has disproven this or provided a different theory without (metaphoric) holes. What's interesting is no one can think of another scenario, with a very wide assortment of possible components, in which the events of the towers falling would be recreated: "simply name anything, ever, that has fallen strait down due to fire or a side impact".
----------------------
Why I'm stressing this is, how to put it... "the wise man knows he is weakest when he thinks himself strong". People didn't think the stock market could crash, people would abuse power as CEOs, the USA could go into another depression, Iraq would last so long, and so on. In other words, Americans didn't want to believe that we were susceptible to the same corruption and vulnerability that everyone in the history of human civilization is. And as a result our generation is who fights the Iraq war and has to deal with fixing the economy, etc. And people still continue this ridiculous 'us vs them' agenda rather than focusing on common goals.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
-Albert Einstein
What would it mean if controlled demolition was the cause? The media who has been pushing that the impact caused the collapse for 9 years would, at best, have been covering the glaring oversite to save their credibility. The Bush administration would certainly come into question. People would start to educate themselves and not accept knowing soundbites as being informed.
I know people who are going to Iraq. I have family who were in New Orleans when Katrina hit, another huge event they completely screwed up and just covered it. There was a insider joke about 'will this storm break the levies?' for decades. Prevention is 90% of anything, and there is no 'magical force that will make things workout'. People, as in everyone, should be involved and educated with their country and the world. If people had been looking at the whole picture a decade ago, we wouldn't be nearly this bad off.
tl;dr
9/11 is a keystone for a lot of events which didn't work. It's the USA's wake up call.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not associating the Bush Administration with Republicans. And I believe both sides of the media are sensationalistic, corrupt, and pushing 'don't think' and 'us vs them' propaganda.
Desert storm seems to have a lot of influence on the Iraq war, but I don't want to start that until why the towers fell is established. I can keep bringing the focus back to points based on scientific properties and evidence.
Well I could just as easily say that controlled demolition looks the same as when the towers got hit on 9/11. Just because their destruction seems to mimic planned demolition doesn't mean it -was- planned demolition. And ignoring the logistics of how the demolition was executed is fallacious. That's like saying you know someone died in a fire because they had the tell tale signs of being burned to death, but in fact they'd died of natural causes and the body was burned afterward. Forensically speaking it IS important to understand the total picture, and not be trapped by tunnel vision. They can't see the forest for the trees.
Also it's suspect that they charge for the "fullest" version of their presentation.
Just sayin'
This type of comment is exactly why I questioned your motives to begin with. You'd rather not debate conspiracy theories? Is that not what AE911 is claiming? That there was a conspiracy to hide the "truth" behind 9/11? If all you want to do is talk about the presentation, there's not much to talk about, frankly. We're not architects or engineers. And what exactly is there to discuss or debate? This thread is just a plug for their website.
Also it's suspect that they charge for the "fullest" version of their presentation.
Just sayin'
Just a random question- if it was a Government job, and they planted explosives etc., why would they need to do that?
Why would they need to risk arising suspicion, just to claim extra casualties? Surely just flying the plane into the side of the building us enough to get the message across, I don't see why the Gov would care to get extra casualties.
Why would they need to risk arising suspicion, just to claim extra casualties? Surely just flying the plane into the side of the building us enough to get the message across, I don't see why the Gov would care to get extra casualties.
But building's don't die of natural causes then get hit by planes and fall down. The demolition doesn't just seem to mimic other planned demolitions, it has been proven through scientific methods to have all the signs of demolition. Forensics don't ask why 'Colonel Mustard killed in the kitchen with a candlestick' first. Investigations identify the solid proven facts before moving to the speculative elements.
I'm not ignoring the logistics of how the demolition was executed, that has been proven. I'm not looking into who did it or why because that's not conclusively provable. You make sure it's a candlestick bump before blaming Colonel Mustard because Prof Plum has the wrench. ('Clue' references for those who are wondering).
Like with forensics, my argument would be compromised by mixing speculation with the facts. No matter who did it or how they rigged it, the towers falling has been proven controlled demolition.
Once people acknowledge the facts as accurate or defeat them and prove another theory, there will be a platform to build speculations on.
This kind of thing happens a lot, people stray from the points they can't argue against. I decided to take an aggressive approach to the debate this time. My methods are standard for investigations. And again, no one has disproven them or provided a different theory without (metaphoric) holes.
I guess I just don't see it that. I see your investigation and results as effect, not cause. You can't have a demolition without, the demolition, lol. The planes are the only thing that are actually proven to have interacted with the towers that day. The planes, and their "payload" of jet fuel. To argue that on top of all that was some planted charges of C4 or whatever, IS speculation, because there's no way to know that's what happened, without having been there to sift through the debris to find evidence of it. Again, just because it looks like a demolition, even if it's exactly like a demolition (which I pointed out it's not, but whatever) all that means is that when a building as tall as the WTC, and designed exactly as the former WTC was designed, gets hit w/a 767 at that velocity and at around that floor, and if fire crews cannot get to it the impact area in time, the building will collapse within hours, and the collapse will look suspiciously like a planned demolition.
Blinders on? maybe, but that's why I'm holding out for a computer model to be done. Shouldn't be too much to ask, or is it? I mean these ARE engineers and stuff. What's the hold up? They've had almost a decade! I'd even pay their fee or whatever to see it, though I'd rather not. This info should be free. If they're charging then what's the money for? "Research." Wasted research if it doesn't result in a reproduction of the event.
Blinders on? maybe, but that's why I'm holding out for a computer model to be done. Shouldn't be too much to ask, or is it? I mean these ARE engineers and stuff. What's the hold up? They've had almost a decade! I'd even pay their fee or whatever to see it, though I'd rather not. This info should be free. If they're charging then what's the money for? "Research." Wasted research if it doesn't result in a reproduction of the event.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
People were there to collect the dust and found evidence of explosive materials. Please watch the presentation it will clear that up for you.
The presentation also contains computer ananlysis of the footage by a physics professor showing how due to the speed at which the squibs projected from the tower and the speed at which the towers fell, it is literally impossible that a gravity driven collapse occurred.
If someone is going to tour around the country trying to educate various groups of people giving a presentation, hes going to have to sacrifice his own job time, and he needs money to do this. If you want, you can buy the dvd, if you don't want to, you can watch it on google video or anywhere, your claim that hes charging money and therefore a lying thief is ludicrous.
Thats a good question and it could have a hundred possible explanations.
Going into speculation mode, I think that they needed to demolish building 7 :
Wikipedia:
7 World Trade Center housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. While some were backed up in other places, others were not, especially those classified as confidential.[50] Files relating Citigroup to the WorldCom scandal were lost.[51] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected.[52] The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and lost investigative files. Says one agent: “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.”[53]
The collapse of 7 World Trade Center is remarkable because it was the first known instance of a tall building collapsing primarily as a result of uncontrolled fires.[32]
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say that the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition.[54][55][56][57] The draft NIST report rejected this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.[58]
The use of thermate instead of explosives is discarded by NIST on the basis that it is unlikely the necessary 100 pounds of thermate for each steel column could have been planted without being discovered.[32]
In order to do this, they needed a reason for it to fall. I am not suggesting that the whole shabang revolved around building 7. But I think this is why the buildings needed to come down.
Personally I believe that the buildings were not supposed to be detonated until everyone was out of the building, but something went wrong, and they had to bring them down early in order to perpetuate the myth of the planes being the cause.
WTC 7 came down some 7 hours after the initial two collapses. I think this is the time they were all supposed to fall. Perhaps the plane that never hit its target was really aimed for building 7.
Actually it was designed to take that kind of abuse, the structural engineers who built the building claimed that the wtc could withstand multiple hits from jet airliners. You need to research steel framed buildings and grasp how powerful and strong these behemoths are. Fires CANNOT cause them to collapse. It is ignorant opinions like this that have perpetuated the myth.
1. How Could They Plant Bombs in the World Trade Center?
Recently, a smart, accomplished person told me:
"I don't believe that the World Trade Center could have been destroyed by controlled demolition . . . how could they have possibly planted bombs without anyone seeing them?"
In fact, there were plenty of opportunities to plant bombs in the World Trade Center. For example:
Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11
The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11
There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.
And -- as an interesting coincidence -- a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings.
These are just a few of the known, public examples of opportunities to plant bombs. There were undoubtedly many additional opportunities available to skilled operatives."
In addition to these facts, demolition and building collapse experts have purportedly raised the possibility of "explosive tenants" -- i.e. tenants in the World
Trade Centers who planted bombs in their own, rented space. For example, according to Webster Tarpley and others, Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake engineering at the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich:
“In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.” The article went on to say that “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these “explosive
tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building “without having anyone notice.”
2. Like I said, I do think they wanted to wait for everyone to get out of the buildings, at least the bottom half. However something could have gone wrong, and they had to blow it early. This is not so hard to think about.
3. There are 85 videos of what hit the pentagon, from various security cameras of hotels and other places that are pointed at the pentagon, however, the FBI immediately confiscated these videos and will not release them. The freedom of Information Act was called upon in a court case and the FBI finally relented and released the one video you are talking about, but the footage is inconclusive.
In reality, no plane hit the pentagon, as there were no bodies found, or the massive tons of metal that makes up the engines. Otherwise they would release the videos and show us the plane.
The plane over shanksville was probably shot out of the sky, as there were no remains of the plane found, or any bodies or blood.
Who knows what the connection is, probably to divert attention away from the gross errors involved with the towers.
fragbait
Smash Master
Pure conjecture and you know it.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
Definitely but I said I was in speculation mode.
We're looking at this differently. I'm taking the results and events of the tragedy, which are determinable and captured on camera, and comparing them to know data and science to determine the cause. The results were that controlled demolition caused it to happen. The investigation wasn't initially based on a specific cause.
It's thermite, but that wasn't the argument. The plane fire theory is based on a piledriver of momentum causing the floors under it to collapse. And burning fuel running down shafts. But the floors above the crash exploded first suddenly. So there wasn't enough momentum to crush the lower floors. The plane hit the side by the building's collaspe was symmetrical. Buildings don't normally fall strait down unless it's planned too. A specific chain of explosions is required to spread debris over 600ft starting at the top, cause almost instant freefall acceleration, and blow the interior structure and things within outward. Evidence of thermite were found which leads to controlled demolition.
It's free.
What do you think about the parts that aren't based on conjecture?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
All of your arguments are based on blatantly ignoring what credible and unbiased experts have stated. Following a group that has 9/11 Truth in their title is no less ridiculous than the search for paranormal life. Read Popular Mechanics breakdown along with skepticwiki's breakdown, and there is no room for the notion that the presented case is false. Also, wikileaks would have had SOME leaked document.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/9/11_coverup - there is your homework. A complete debunking of the theory that it was a planned demolition.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/9/11_coverup - there is your homework. A complete debunking of the theory that it was a planned demolition.
fragbait
Smash Master
I've stated it before, and since he's really not bringing up anything new other than conjecture, I think CK sums up my feelings pretty well with this.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
The popular mechanics article does not address the scientific evidence presented by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11, instead it makes stabs at conspiracy theorist and talks about arbitrary theories. All in all it is not a credible source. Neither is your skeptic wiki source. By comparing a group of 1200 engineers to the search for paranormal life you have shown me that you do not wish to take this issue seriously.
Have you even been following what I and Arizen have been posting? Noone has addressed our points, instead you make stabs at a credible organization and postulate about conspiracy theories. We would like to talk about the EVIDENCE, and we would respectfully ask everyone to listen and not write us off as crazy people.
fragbait
Smash Master
...
WHAAAT?
PopMec isn't reliable?
Oh wait, I get it. A source isn't credible if they don't support the theory when it comes to this guy.
Hey, Ballistics, let me tell you how debate works.
1) Present Argument
2) Back it up with evidence
3) Opponent counters with evidence
4) Acknowledge evidence
5) Counter argument with new evidence.
6)???
7) PROFIT
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Because their crediblity is important to the argument. Skepticwiki literally answers how the buildings fell correctly, why WTC7 fell, and how evidence of a controlled demolition are fallacies. You are literally brushing off anything that opposes your viewpoint when you are supposed to convince us we are wrong.
1,200 fringe engineers vs. millions is not how evidence works.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
Please show me some of these millions of engineers and architects you claim to support the gravity driven collapse cause by fires from jet fuel, preferably some without huge salaries from defense contractor companies.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Read the skepticwiki and Pop Mechanics. It literally answers that by explaining an example where another building did the same and how steel loses integrity at 500C. Add in a week steel skeleton and with the north tower, and weakened core.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Sigh, again Ballistics and Arizen, you are asking people to respond to claims from Engineers and Architects. Even if they are wrong, nobody here can really disprove it (unless there is a clear logical fallacy).
For example, here's a false proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (one of the most famous mathematical puzzles).
(1) Assume that Fermat's Last Theorem is true.
(2) Then, there exists xn + yn = zn with n ≥ 3.
(3) For any x,y, we can create a right triangle and so we can suppose a value r such that:
r2 = x2 + y2.
(4) Since n ≥ 3, we know that z is less than r. [I will add the details for this later]
(5) We can construct a triangle based on z,x,y. Since z is less than r, we know that the angle opposite z (let's call it angle B) must be less than 90 degrees (and of course, greater than 0 degrees).
(6) Now, using the Law of Cosines, we know that:
z2 = x2 + y2 - 2xycosB.
(11) Since B is greater than 0 and less than 90, we know that cosB cannot be a whole number. [See here for a Cosine look up table]
QED
Now, by asking people who know what they are doing (or google searching that exact text), I can find out why this is wrong. But I personally do not have the knowledge to show why the above proof is incorrect, and heck I'm in 2nd year Math.
Using your logic, if you cannot disprove what I pasted above, then I win.
For example, here's a false proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (one of the most famous mathematical puzzles).
(1) Assume that Fermat's Last Theorem is true.
(2) Then, there exists xn + yn = zn with n ≥ 3.
(3) For any x,y, we can create a right triangle and so we can suppose a value r such that:
r2 = x2 + y2.
(4) Since n ≥ 3, we know that z is less than r. [I will add the details for this later]
(5) We can construct a triangle based on z,x,y. Since z is less than r, we know that the angle opposite z (let's call it angle B) must be less than 90 degrees (and of course, greater than 0 degrees).
(6) Now, using the Law of Cosines, we know that:
z2 = x2 + y2 - 2xycosB.
(11) Since B is greater than 0 and less than 90, we know that cosB cannot be a whole number. [See here for a Cosine look up table]
QED
Now, by asking people who know what they are doing (or google searching that exact text), I can find out why this is wrong. But I personally do not have the knowledge to show why the above proof is incorrect, and heck I'm in 2nd year Math.
Using your logic, if you cannot disprove what I pasted above, then I win.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
I've read them both and they are both garbage. Again please show me some of these Architects and Engineers that support your jet fuel theory.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
I can tell you have not watched the presentation like I asked. If you did, you would realize how simple these concepts are to grasp.
I am not asking you to go check your physics textbook, I am asking you to consider common sense occurrences.
If a fire causes a building to collapse from the point of impact, the entire top half of the building would meet resistance from the bottom half. This is not so hard to grasp. It would then either topple over to the side, or sytematically break each steel framed floor on its way down. By breaking each floor individually, with common sense, I can assess this process would need to take at least a minute, however the towers came down in relatively around 11-12 seconds.
Which tells my common sense thinking brain, that the steel structured floors offered no resistance, and the core columns were cut.
If you don't realize this one out of a hundred different fallacies in the official theory, you are not using your brain.
The claims of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 are not hard to follow, and if you can't disprove them then you really are wrong.
fragbait
Smash Master
Further proof that supports my previous claim. If it doesn't agree with you, it's wrong.
Yes, because, if we check our Physics textbooks, guess what comes out looking like feces of the male bovine variety?
Common Sense < Evidence in debate, sorry to break it to ya
And who's really using their brain here if they can't produce anything more to counter evidence than....the same evidence?
And the last quote is meaningless. They are disproven, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
Show me how the evidence for the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 was disproven, please.
fragbait
Smash Master
Are you ****ing illiterate? Multiple people have presented evidence to you, and you choose to ignore it all because it doesn't support your theories.
Seriously kid, if you aren't going to actually debate, then leave the Proving Grounds so those of us who actually WANT to go to the main room can.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
Please address my and Arizen's presentations of the evidence. Please do not just post links to yellow journalism and wikipedia skeptics. I would also like to see some of these Architects and Engineers out of the million you claim to back up the gravity driven collapse. Arizen has made good points, still noone has debated his argument.
Sieguest
Smash Master
Fragbait- Try to keep from personally insulting people, it detracts from your argument.
Ballistics- You're setting a double standard by expecting people to take the sources you present as truth, but completely ignoring others sources and calling it "garbage". If you do not agree with the information provided within the source, then you need to show why the sourced information is incorrect or you'll just appear ignorant to your opponent(s).
Ballistics- You're setting a double standard by expecting people to take the sources you present as truth, but completely ignoring others sources and calling it "garbage". If you do not agree with the information provided within the source, then you need to show why the sourced information is incorrect or you'll just appear ignorant to your opponent(s).
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Done:
http://www.nist.gov/index.html - Oh wait, they aren't credible because they are on the side of the people you are essentially accusing...
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?156676 - How's that one? A professor of CIVIL ENGINEERING explains progressive collapsing. If you brush that article off, I am done with this argument (abstract). Full Article for downloading: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.121.4166&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Now, explain to me how a professor of civil engineering is somehow a wikipedia skeptic (the fact you deem that reason along to discredit it as a source shows you are scurrying) or "yellow" journalism.
D
Deleted member
Guest
To be frank, a lot of the rebuttals to the points made by 911 truth can be found using a quick google search. Whether or not you believe them is up to you, but the points you're bringing up aren't exactly revolutionary. Do a quick google search to see the rebuttals, as when somebody else is coming up with them, chances are that's what they're doing.
I'd like to point out that I read each argument and directly addressed each point in my posts instead of just posting links. I have never brought questioning any source's credibility into the argument and based my cause on scientific accuracy. No one has defeated me on these grounds.
"The 9/11 coverup deals with the conspiracy theory that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were not terrorist acts but were in fact committed by the US government."
The focus is not conspiracy theories, I can't stress that enough. Nor pointing fingers; it's determining how the towers fell and why by using know evidence and scientific methods.
"9/11 conspiracy theorists often say they're poking holes in the "official" story, which is that terrorists hijacked four planes, flew one into each World Trade tower and one into the Pentagon, and while they flew the fourth toward an unknown target it was taken down by the passengers."
This has nothing to do with disproving that^.
"None of the scientific reports mention anything close to melting or pulverizing of steel as the conspiracy theorists claim."
They're not accurate.
(Skip to 5:50 for footage of the molten steel) This isn't easy to watch, it shows the tower falling and footage of the cleanup weeks later where temperatures are still extremely hot. Don't watch if you don't want to see traumatic footage. There isn't any gore or things like that.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Pretext_WTC2_molten_metal.wmv
"The conspiracy theorists are correct when they say that this alone would not have caused the towers to collapse, but what it did do was weaken the structure and cause residual stresses on the floor trusses. Once they began to give way, the structure could no longer hold the weight. This aspect of the residual stresses and the loss of the floor trusses does not seem to have been addressed at all by the conspiracy theorists, yet the scientific examinations show them to be the direct cause of the collapse."
How could an explosion start at the top of the building? There's no weight to crush it. After the top was blown out where did the needed weight come from. Even if there was the weight the resistance of the structure under would prevent freefall acceleration. All this^ was addressed but that report's sources were from '05 and earlier and AE911 was formed in '06.
Video footage of collapses:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/eviden...ootage/306-wtc1-a-wtc2-demolition-videos.html
"The South Tower actually tipped to one side as it fell, as that was the side that had lost most of its structure. The North Tower fell straighter because it lost more of its structure on the core. Even so, the towers falling straight down is no indication of deliberate demolition."
How could the top of the south tower tip to one side and immediately cause a symmetrical, near free fall speed, strait down collapse with out controlled demolition involved?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html
^Good read.
"The towers were mostly empty and had no lateral load to push them over to one side."
Not true.
"The speed at which they collapsed gave them too much inertia to go anywhere except straight down."
So why did debris shoot out sideways over 600ft during the entire collapse?
To save room I'll not cover WT7 and the pentagon wasn't part of this to begin with.
"Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given. It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story."
What kinetic energy? The entire building (WTC North or example) was blown outward 600 ft with enough force to hurl steel girders at 70mph. This started from the top at imediate freefall acceleration. The kinetic energy isn't going into the fall and resistance is present. You 'can't squeeze blood from a turnip'.
"Regardless of the load capacity of the columns"
I don't see his logic in this.
"There is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied"
Which it wasn't. There's no inclusion of asymmetrical fire and impact damage in their theory either.
"The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of mass ejected outside the tower perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. It is argued that, using inverse analysis, one could identify these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building."
This^ is what AE9/11 did to conclude controlled demolition. Also the structural damage was not evenly distributed, the weakened side fell strait down at the same rate as the undamaged side with greater resistance.
"Due to a shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of the World Trade Center are only of limited use."
No the undeniable recorded evidence is crucial. Otherwise it's a matter of theory crafting how the tragedy occurred without factoring what did occur during and after.
------------------------------------------------------
About credibility,
Spontaneous generation (like rats generating from spoiled meat) appeared logical and was widely accepted as true until Francesco Redi used science to prove otherwise in 1668. http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm
---------------------------------------------------
I've done my part by reading and answering opposing posts. Please do the same for me. But know, as skeptic as people are at first, no one's ever disproved me in this debate.
Quoted from the above link in orange:
"The 9/11 coverup deals with the conspiracy theory that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were not terrorist acts but were in fact committed by the US government."
The focus is not conspiracy theories, I can't stress that enough. Nor pointing fingers; it's determining how the towers fell and why by using know evidence and scientific methods.
"9/11 conspiracy theorists often say they're poking holes in the "official" story, which is that terrorists hijacked four planes, flew one into each World Trade tower and one into the Pentagon, and while they flew the fourth toward an unknown target it was taken down by the passengers."
This has nothing to do with disproving that^.
"None of the scientific reports mention anything close to melting or pulverizing of steel as the conspiracy theorists claim."
They're not accurate.
(Skip to 5:50 for footage of the molten steel) This isn't easy to watch, it shows the tower falling and footage of the cleanup weeks later where temperatures are still extremely hot. Don't watch if you don't want to see traumatic footage. There isn't any gore or things like that.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Pretext_WTC2_molten_metal.wmv
"The conspiracy theorists are correct when they say that this alone would not have caused the towers to collapse, but what it did do was weaken the structure and cause residual stresses on the floor trusses. Once they began to give way, the structure could no longer hold the weight. This aspect of the residual stresses and the loss of the floor trusses does not seem to have been addressed at all by the conspiracy theorists, yet the scientific examinations show them to be the direct cause of the collapse."
How could an explosion start at the top of the building? There's no weight to crush it. After the top was blown out where did the needed weight come from. Even if there was the weight the resistance of the structure under would prevent freefall acceleration. All this^ was addressed but that report's sources were from '05 and earlier and AE911 was formed in '06.
Video footage of collapses:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/eviden...ootage/306-wtc1-a-wtc2-demolition-videos.html
"The South Tower actually tipped to one side as it fell, as that was the side that had lost most of its structure. The North Tower fell straighter because it lost more of its structure on the core. Even so, the towers falling straight down is no indication of deliberate demolition."
How could the top of the south tower tip to one side and immediately cause a symmetrical, near free fall speed, strait down collapse with out controlled demolition involved?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html
^Good read.
"The towers were mostly empty and had no lateral load to push them over to one side."
Not true.
"The speed at which they collapsed gave them too much inertia to go anywhere except straight down."
So why did debris shoot out sideways over 600ft during the entire collapse?
To save room I'll not cover WT7 and the pentagon wasn't part of this to begin with.
Feelings are feelings. Science can be proven or defeated if faulty.
I'd like to see step 3 being applied to my points or at least have them addressed like I'm taking the time do do for other people's. If the science and process isn't complete and reliable the source isn't.
As addressed above, that largely skips the issue and is inaccurate. Please answer our points instead of questioning credibility with logic like popular opinion. And where'd you get the "vs. millions"?
If we rule out scenarios like 'you could be dreaming all this', theories can be proven inaccurate. Which I have done several times. The reason people haven't disproved the demolition theory is it's correct.
Thankyou.
Where's the 9/11 stuff?
Ok, this link http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?156676 is quoted in yellow.
"Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given. It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story."
What kinetic energy? The entire building (WTC North or example) was blown outward 600 ft with enough force to hurl steel girders at 70mph. This started from the top at imediate freefall acceleration. The kinetic energy isn't going into the fall and resistance is present. You 'can't squeeze blood from a turnip'.
"Regardless of the load capacity of the columns"
I don't see his logic in this.
"There is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied"
Which it wasn't. There's no inclusion of asymmetrical fire and impact damage in their theory either.
"The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of mass ejected outside the tower perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. It is argued that, using inverse analysis, one could identify these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building."
This^ is what AE9/11 did to conclude controlled demolition. Also the structural damage was not evenly distributed, the weakened side fell strait down at the same rate as the undamaged side with greater resistance.
"Due to a shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of the World Trade Center are only of limited use."
No the undeniable recorded evidence is crucial. Otherwise it's a matter of theory crafting how the tragedy occurred without factoring what did occur during and after.
------------------------------------------------------
About credibility,
Spontaneous generation (like rats generating from spoiled meat) appeared logical and was widely accepted as true until Francesco Redi used science to prove otherwise in 1668. http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm
---------------------------------------------------
I've done my part by reading and answering opposing posts. Please do the same for me. But know, as skeptic as people are at first, no one's ever disproved me in this debate.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
I found short videos for everyone who thought the 2hour presentation might be a bit too long:
10 minute summary: http://www2.ae911truth.org/team/gra...Web_Videos/911_Blueprint_for_Truth_10_min.wmv
30 minute summary: http://www2.ae911truth.org/team/gra...Web_Videos/911_Blueprint_for_Truth_30_min.wmv
Or if you would rather look through the presentation slides, here they are: http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/ppt_selection.php
10 minute summary: http://www2.ae911truth.org/team/gra...Web_Videos/911_Blueprint_for_Truth_10_min.wmv
30 minute summary: http://www2.ae911truth.org/team/gra...Web_Videos/911_Blueprint_for_Truth_30_min.wmv
Or if you would rather look through the presentation slides, here they are: http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/ppt_selection.php
Ballistics
Smash Champion
So does it mean we win if noone can refute Arizen's points?
1048576
Smash Master
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,417
Nobody has taken the effort yet. It's a long post, and I'm sure everything's been refuted half-a-dozen times before ITT.
Also, here's my refutation:
Introduction
The first conspiracy theories about 9/11 began to emerge while the wreckage was still smoldering. As evidence accumulated that conclusively linked the hijackings to Al Qaeda, some self-proclaimed skeptics searched for alternative explanations. Many seemed driven to find a way to blame the United States for somehow abetting, or even orchestrating, the tragedy.
In the years since the attacks, these assertions have grown progressively more lurid and pervasive. If you search the phrase "9/11 conspiracy" on the Internet, you will discover more than 800,000 Web pages. A few skeptics make a responsible effort to sift through the mountain of available information, but a vast majority ignore all but a few stray details they think support their theories. In fact, many conspiracy advocates demonstrate a double standard. They distrust the mainstream media coverage and government sponsored investigations of 9/11, yet they cherry-pick from those same sources to promote their extreme notions: that the hijacked planes weren't commercial jets, but military aircraft, cruise missiles, or remote-control drones; that the World Trade Center buildings were professionally demolished; that American air defenses were deliberately shut down; and more.
Increasingly, such beliefs are migrating from the fringes and into the mainstream. French author Thierry Meyssan's The Big Lie, which argues that the U.S. military used one of its own guided missiles to attack the Pentagon, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. When Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to President George W. Bush in May 2006, his rambling missive included broad hints that the American government was involved in organizing the attacks. Allegations of American complicity in 9/11 have become standard fare on talk radio, and among both radical left- and radical right-wing groups. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia, has held a Capitol Hill hearing on the topic. Celebrities have gotten into the act as well. "Why did Bush knock down the towers?" rapper Jadakiss asked in his 2004 hit "Why?" And, in an interview with conspiracy-oriented talk-show host Alex Jones, actor Charlie Sheen embraced a variety of popular conspiracy theories.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts." Sooner or later, even the wildest 9/11 theories rely on factual claims. And facts can be checked.
Popular Mechanics became involved in investigating 9/11 conspiracy theories in the fall of 2004, after an advertisement ran in the New York Times for the book Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid, demanding that the 9/11 investigation be reopened. Hufschmid's book includes a number of tangible claims regarding 9/11. It states, for example, that because jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, the fires in the World Trade Center towers could not have caused their collapse. And it claims ample evidence exists to show that demolition-style explosives were prepositioned in the buildings.
As editors of a magazine devoted to science and technology, we saw these claims as significant. Was there hard evidence to support them? And, if so, what would be the implications for our understanding of 9/11? At the very least, we thought, someone should look into these allegations. If there were even a hint of truth to these or similar claims, then the conspiracy theorists had a point: There should be a deeper investigation.
The magazine assembled a team of reporters and researchers and methodically began to analyze the most common factual claims made by conspiracy theorists--assertions that are at the root of the majority of 9/11 alternative scenarios. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses, and members of the investigative teams--more than 300 sources in all. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs, and transcripts. The results of our research appeared in the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics. That cover story, "9/11: Debunking the Myths," provoked a strong reaction on the internet and in the mainstream media. The online version of the article remains the most frequently read story on www.popularmechanics.com and has been printed out more than 850,000 times.
In the months after we published the investigation, many readers--both critics and supporters--wrote to suggest other evidence they thought we had overlooked or to raise new claims they believed worthy of investigation. At the same time, many of the inaccurate claims the magazine investigated continued to appear uncorrected in popular settings, such as Wikipedia, the open-source online encyclopedia, and Loose Change, the 9/11 conspiracy documentary that has become a sensation on college campuses. With the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approaching, we decided to extend our original investigation and publish a book-length version of our findings. We expanded our team of reporters, reinterviewed experts and sources from our first investigation, and, as much as possible, addressed the additional questions raised by both critics and supporters.
The goal of this book is not to tell the complete story of what happened on September 11, 2001. There are numerous excellent sources, including the 9/11 Commission's report and the New York Times and other newspapers, that chronicle the attacks in painful detail. Instead, this book aims only to answer the questions raised by conspiracy theorists themselves. Strip away the political theorizing and logical leaps, and every conspiracy theory ultimately comes down to a small set of claims based on evidence that can be examined. These claims are the only points where the theorists' elaborate conjectures make contact with the real world. Without these foundations, the theories crumble. In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified.
We understand that not all conspiracy theorists agree with all conspiracy theories. Some prominent theorists even claim that certain theories they deem less plausible have been "planted" in order to make the entire movement look ridiculous. We don't take sides in these debates. We simply checked the facts.
The work of comprehending the events of 9/11 is not finished. It is vital to understand exactly what went wrong that day and to make sure it does not happen again. There were lapses and shortcomings on the part of government agencies in the months and years leading up to 9/11. Every American wishes our government had been more alert and better prepared. And every American is entitled to ask hard questions. But there is a world of difference between believing that our government should have known what was coming and claiming that someone did know and deliberately did nothing--or, even worse, actively perpetrated attacks on its own citizens. By deliberately blurring that line, conspiracy theorists exploit and misdirect the public's legitimate anger over the events of that day.
Some argue that alternative 9/11 scenarios are valuable in that they promote skepticism of a government that has not always been as open as many would like. But a climate of poisonous suspicion will not help America adjust to the post-9/11 world. And the search for truth is not aided by the dissemination of falsehoods.
—David Dunbar and Brad Reagan
Foreword
By Senator John McCain
No American living today will forget what happened on September 11, 2001. Each of us will remember how the serenity of that bright morning was destroyed by a savage atrocity, an act so hostile we could scarcely imagine any human being capable of it. The realization sank into the hearts of every one of us: America was vulnerable and under attack. On September 11, evil literally took flight.
But as 19 men showed the world their worst, we Americans displayed what makes our country great: courage and heroism, compassion and generosity, unity and resolve. We were united, first in sorrow and anger, then in recognition that we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are--a people united in a kinship of ideals, committed to the notion that the people are sovereign, and that people everywhere, no matter what their race or country or religion, possess certain universal and inalienable rights. In that moment, we were not different races. We were not poor or rich. We were not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. We were not two countries.
We were Americans.
As Americans, we acted swiftly. We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe. We revamped our homeland security, reorganized our intelligence community, and advocated reform in calcified societies.
We did these things because it was clear a new page had turned in history's book. The terrorists who attacked America were clear about their intentions. Bin Laden and his ilk have perverted a peaceful religion, devoting it not to the salvation of souls but to the destruction of bodies. They wish to destroy us, to bring the world under totalitarian rule according to some misguided religious fantasy. Our cherished ideals of freedom, equality, and religious tolerance stand in their way.
And so they fight us. Their fight is no secret; September 11 was the most horrific of a long string of attacks, from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 to the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa to the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Al Qaeda does not hide its hand in these crimes; rather, it boasts of its destruction and calls for more.
But though the evidence for Al Qaeda's central role in the 9/11 attacks is overwhelming, many have found the facts unsatisfying. Perhaps this is understandable. We want to believe that 19 men could not murder our citizens, destroy our grandest buildings, and terrorize our country. Surely, something more was at work.
Such sentiments are not new. Many Americans have resisted the notion that an island nation far from our shores could launch a surprise attack against our Navy; that Communism could remain viable in the world without assistance within the U.S. government itself; that one man in a book depository could end the life of a beloved president.
We would like to think there was something more at work on September 11--something hidden, more sophisticated, something as grand as the lives so easily destroyed. Those unsatisfied with the ordinary truth of the attacks have concocted stories more fanciful, more conspiratorial than the events as we know them. Others have done the same for more nefarious reasons. Some, accustomed to viewing U.S. actions as the wellspring of global problems, cannot accept that others wrought evil here. Political extremists peddle explanations that support their ideologies. And still others deliberately fabricate damaging tales.
This conspiracy-mongering is no small phenomenon. Any Internet search will turn up thousands of explanations for the events of September 11.These theories come in nearly infinite variety, but all reach essentially the same conclusion: that the U.S. government, or some shadowy group that controls it, organized the attacks as part of a master plan for global domination. But the truth is more mundane. The philosopher Hannah Arendt described the banality of Nazi evil; the 9/11 hijackers were also ordinary, uninteresting men with twisted beliefs.
In the immediate aftermath of their attacks, all of us had questions. Why didn't we have better intelligence? How could our airport security be so poor? Why weren't we better prepared? Who carried out these attacks, and why? All good questions, and thousands of dedicated Americans, both in and out of government, have worked hard to answer them. Journalists, the 9/11 Commission, Congressional investigators, academic researchers, and others have reconstructed these terrible events in extraordinary detail. Much of what we have learned has been frustrating, even infuriating. Anger can be healthy when it spurs a commitment to change. But it is corrosive and dangerous when it curdles into paranoia and suspicion.
Blaming some conspiracy within our government for the horrific attacks of September 11 mars the memories of all those lost on that day. There were errors and missteps in our government's response, to be sure, but the performance of our public servants was on the whole heroic, not destructive. For their service--for their lives--we are indebted, and we are obliged to pay our debts to those who sacrificed. To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11 insults the police officers and firefighters who raced into the burning towers; the men and women who left for dangerous, distant lands to fight our enemies; and those who have fought in all the wars of our history.
Any explanation for the tragedy of September 11 must start and end with the facts. The evidence, the data, the facts must be gathered, compiled, analyzed, and then--only then--can conclusions be drawn as to what happened. That is precisely what the various investigators have done, and in so doing they have performed a great service to our nation. And yet still the conspiracy theorists peddle their wares.
They ignore the methods of science, the protocols of investigation, and the dictates of logic. The conspiracy theorists chase any bit of information, no matter how flimsy, and use it to fit their preordained conclusions. They ascribe to the government, or to some secretive group, powers wholly out of proportion to what the evidence suggests. And they ignore the facts that are present in plain sight.
We cannot let these tales go unanswered. The 9/11 conspiracy movement exploits the public's anger and sadness. It shakes Americans' faith in their government at a time when that faith is already near an all-time low. It traffics in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans. And, as we have seen recently in the Iranian president's bizarre letter to President Bush, it has even entered the currency of international affairs.
The conspiracy theories are a distraction from the proper lessons of 9/11, from what is truly important to this country. And so it is imperative to confront them with the facts. The authors of this book, through their extensive reporting, disprove these tales of conspiracy. They show that, without exception, the stories are based on misconceptions, distortions, and outright lies. The CIA was not involved in 9/11. Our military did not bring about the destruction of the World Trade Center. Bombs or missiles did not fell the towers. A white jet aircraft did not shoot down Flight 93.
Popular Mechanics stands for an old-fashioned approach to facts. It relies on reporting, evidence, and eyewitnesses, and rejects speculation, falsehoods, and conspiracy. In confronting the various theories head-on, Popular Mechanics shows that evidence and logic matter, and they matter critically. We have much to learn about September 11, 2001, about what happened and about the many lessons it holds for our country. That is the debate we need to have in America. By refuting destructive beliefs in fanciful tales of mayhem, Popular Mechanics has produced a valuable work that will be an important resource for years to come. It represents the innocent thousands who perished on that terrible day--those innocent thousands who deserve to be remembered with honor and truth.
—
GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, responded directly to many conspiracy claims here this morning at his press conference in NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., which was attended by mainstream media and a handful of conspiracy theorist media, including a representative from InfoWars.com, a Web site that puts forward9/11 conspiracy theories. Sunder specifically addressed conspiracy claims linked to WTC 7. "Before I tell you what we found, I'd like to tell you what we did not find," Sunder told reporters. "We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. The collapse was also not due to fires from the substantial amount of diesel fuel stored in the buildings."
Here is a summary of some common 9/11 conspiracy theory claims regarding WTC 7, along with NIST's response:
Claim: "No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode," says WTC7.net, a Web site dedicated to conspiracy theories. "The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth."
NIST report and press conference: Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns.
Claim: The shape of the building's tidy pile of wreckage is consistent with a demolition, conspiracy theorists say.
NIST report and press conference: Sunder agrees that the wreckage was tidy and explained why. "If you look at columns 79, 80 and 81 [three of the building's central columns], the floor area that they're carrying is very large--particularly column 79, which was carrying about 2000 sq. ft. of floor area." Column 79 was the first column to fail. "It was an interior column that failed, followed by two more interior columns [80 and 81], then east to west. So what you're seeing is an interior collapse, then to the outside. What you're getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it's not."
Claim: The way the building fell was caused by demolition or thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which produces brief but intense and highly localized incendiary effects.)
NIST report and press conference: Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.
Prominent conspiracy theorist Steven Jones and others have suggested that thermate could have been inserted into a column, exploding the column without the loud boom of a demolition. Sunder said his team considered that theory. "In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed--at least 100 pounds for one column--you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely."
Claim: At the press conference, theorists questioned why NIST had just now found a previously undocumented cause of building collapse.
NIST report and press conference: The particulars of WTC 7's design contributed to the thermal expansion. WTC 7 had floor spans up to 54 ft. long. "Longer beams can be subject to proportionally greater expansion effects," Sunder noted. "Other tall buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing--when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional. So we knew from the beginning of our study that understanding what happened to Building 7 on 9/11 would be difficult. It did not fit any textbook description that you could readily point to and say, yes, that's why the building failed." The issue, Sunder said, was that buildings are not typically tested for their structural response to fire.
Claim: The minimal wreckage available for later investigation has generated speculation. Some conspirators point to the fast removal of debris as evidence of a government coverup.
NIST report and press conference: Compared to WTC 1 and 2, NIST had very little WTC 7 wreckage to study. The site was cleared quickly in a search-an- rescue effort, and much of the debris was transported to salvage yards. "There was no loss of life," Sunder noted. "In hindsight, we knew that the building was evacuated. But we didn't know that on that day." Hundreds of investigators at the salvage yards later found that the Twin Towers' steel columns were labeled and numbered, while the columns from Towers 5, 6 and 7 were not. "I am not surprised that there wasn't a lot of identifiable debris," Sunder said. "But at the time, we were concerned about terrorists who attacked our country and search and rescue. I think the fact that they [invesigators] didn't collect [wreckage] was the least important activity that happened that day."
Claim: Many theorists have suggested that the long delay in an explanatory report is further proof of a government coverup.
NIST and press conference: NIST first had to complete the investigation on the collapse of the Twin Towers and publish its report before turning to WTC 7. The Twin Towers report was released in September 2005. "We thought we might be able to do things much quicker and faster because of our tower experience," Sunder said. "I think we underestimated the amount of effort that would be required to answer the questions that we raised." In addition, new computer models of the collapse had to be created. "A typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art cluster of Linux computers. We had computer programs that took six to eight months to get a correct run, and we wanted to make sure we got this right. And three years is not an unusual length of time." Sunder emphasized that previous reports were preliminary and provisional. "We didn't have the insight that thermal expansion could have happened until early last year," Sunder said. "After that it was smooth sailing." Until last year, NIST was still investigating other hypotheses, including whether the building's location on top of an electric substation played a critical role and whether 6000 gal. of diesel fuel used to power backup generators in the building directly weakened the columns. Both hypotheses were abandoned.
Sunder classified the report's conclusions as "simple, straightforward, elegant and going along with what was observed. I would say that the findings we have are incredibly conclusive that fire is why WTC 7 collapsed."
GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."
Conspiracy theorists have long pointed to the collapse of the 47-story structure as key evidence that the U.S. government orchestrated or abetted the 9/11 attacks. No planes struck the building, and the commonly available views of the exterior didn't show significant damage. Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. "It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.
Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.
The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.
After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.
The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."
The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."
Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.
NIST will accept public comment on the final report until Sept. 15, 2008.
NIST's press release and other material on the report can be found here. Click here to download the full report in pdf form.
Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most popular myths are:
1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.
This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:
• Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
• Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
• Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded signs of any explosions prior to the tower collapses. Instead, seismic spikes were noted when debris began hitting the ground.
• Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
• Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
• For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article (PDF, 56 K) on the WTC collapses, the March 2005 Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5, “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers,” and the video 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.
2) No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11. Instead, it was a missile fired by elements “from inside the American state apparatus.”
Conspiracy theorists making this claim ignore several facts:
• The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA.
• The flight’s black boxes were also recovered at the site.
• Numerous eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Some saw passengers through the plane’s windows. Missiles don’t have windows or carry passengers.
• Numerous photographs show airplane debris at the crash site, as was also witnessed by survivors and rescue personnel. See sections 4:57 to 6:00 of the “911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77” video for pictures of airliner debris.
• For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?” and Popular Mechanics, part 6.
3) United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was shot down by a missile.
• The cockpit voice recorder of this flight was recovered and showed that the passenger revolt caused the hijackers to deliberately crash the plane. The hijackers controlled the plane until its impact. See full transcript.
• The U.S. military did not learn that flight 93 had been hijacked until several minutes after it crashed, as tapes released in 2006 demonstrate.
• The military never gave interceptor pilots authorization to shoot down United flight 93. See an article on the tapes.
• Listen to the 45-second message to her husband left by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles on her home answering machine.
• For more information, see The 9/11 Commission Report chapter 1, “We Have Some Planes,” pages 13–14.
The Pentagon attack site on September 14, 2001. (© AP Images)
4) World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition.
• This allegation was fueled by a comment by the WTC owner that, after WTC 7 was judged to be unstable, he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building, using the phrase “pull it” in reference to the contingent of firefighters.
• Conspiracy theorists have interpreted the “pull it” remark as slang for demolishing the building with explosives. But demolition experts say “pulling” a building means attaching long cables to a weakened structure and literally pulling it down with bulldozers and other powerful machinery — not using explosives.
• The audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC collapse showed no evidence of the extremely loud sounds that would have indicated the use of explosives. Also, seismographs recorded no telltale spikes or anomalies.
• An exhaustive three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that fires caused by the collapse of the nearby WTC north tower caused fires that burned out of control in WTC 7. These fires caused steel beams to expand and buckle, leading to the collapse of the building.
• See the NIST videos on the collapse of WTC 7.
• For more information, see “The Collapse of World Trade Center 7,” the ImplosionWorld article (PDF, 56 K), and Popular Mechanics, part 5.
5) The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled.
• Boeing, which manufactured the planes that struck the towers, stated that all its commercial jet transports are configured so that they cannot be controlled from anywhere except the flight deck of the aircraft.
• Passengers onboard the flights made several phone calls. All reported that hijackers had commandeered the planes.
• For more information, see “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers.”
6) Insider trading in the stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines just before September 11 is evidence of advance knowledge of the plot.
• The 9/11 Commission investigated this issue in detail, concluding, “Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.”
• For example, it stated, “much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [Airlines stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.”
• For other examples, see The 9/11 Commission Report, “Notes” section, page 499, footnote 130.
7) Four thousand Jews failed to show up for work at the World Trade Center on September 11.
• It appears from media reports that some 10 percent to 15 percent of WTC victims were Jewish, indicating there were no mass absences.
• The “4,000” figure apparently came from an early statement by the Israeli Foreign Ministry that some “4,000 Israelis” were believed to be in the New York and Washington areas, where the attacks occurred. This figure was apparently seized upon by conspiracy theorists, in an attempt to bolster the false rumor.
• For more information, see “The 4,000 Jews Rumor.”
8) Al Qaida is not responsible for the September 11 attacks.
• Al Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, have repeatedly confirmed that they planned and carried out the September 11 attacks.
• In an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, bin Laden stated, “I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers … with those raids..”
• In a November 2001 tape, bin Laden said, “We calculated in advance the number of casualties … who would be killed. … I was the most optimistic of them all. … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.”
• For more information, see “Al Qaida Confirms It Carried Out the September 11 Attacks.”
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-engl...28133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html#ixzz12YGGJNJt
Al Qaida Confirms It Carried Out the September 11 Attacks
Both Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, have confirmed that al Qaida planned and carried out the September 11 attacks.
2004 Videotape
In a videotape broadcast on October 30, 2004, Osama bin Laden admitted that he and al Qaida had planned and directed the September 11 attacks. He stated, “I shall talk to you about the story behind those events (the September 11 attacks) and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken ….” He confirmed his direction of the details of operational planning, stating, “for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Atta … that all operations should be carried out within twenty minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.”
2006 Audiotape
Osama bin Laden repeated that he had planned the September 11 attacks in an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, stating:
I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers - Allah have mercy upon them - with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission.
2001 Videotape
The first direct indication of al Qaida involvement came in a videotape of bin Laden talking to a group of supporters in November 2001, which was obtained by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in late November and released on December 13, 2001. The videotape was clearly intended for internal al Qaida use and bin Laden appeared fully aware that the tape was being made. Independent scholars gave verified that the translation released by the U.S. government is accurate.
The videotape shows clearly that bin Laden knew in advance of the attacks. He said:
We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.
The videotape indicates that, five days before the attacks, which occurred on a Tuesday, bin Laden knew the date and time they would occur:
We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5:30 p.m. our time [8:00 am in New York and Washington]. … Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington. The news continued and no mention of the attack until the end. At the end of the newscast, they reported that a plane just hit the World Trade Center. … After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it. …
Bin Laden knew there would be multiple attacks:
They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building, so I said to them: be patient. The difference between the first and the second plane hitting the towers was twenty minutes. And the difference between the first plane and the plane that hit the Pentagon was one hour.
The videotape shows that bin Laden was very familiar with the operational planning for the attacks:
Muhammad Atta from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group. … The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes. … Those who were trained to fly didn't know the others. One group of people did not know the other group.
April 2002 Interview
Several months later, senior al Qaida official Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also confirmed that al Qaida had carried out the attacks. In April 2002, Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda interviewed Khalid, who proposed the September 11 scheme to bin Laden, and Ramzi Binalshibh, who played a key role in the preparation for 9/11. Fouda asked Khalid if al Qaida was responsible for the September 11 attacks and Khalid confirmed that it was:
Fouda summoned every thread of experience, looked Khalid in the eye and asked: ‘Did you do it [the September 11 attacks]?’ But Khalid didn’t flinch.
‘No filming today,’ he declared, ‘and you do not have to worry about a camera or a cameraman for tomorrow. We will provide everything.’
Ramzi added his own detail of the arrangements: ‘You will be going straight from here to your flight whenever we are done.’
Then, with little fanfare, Khalid got down to business by making an announcement that hit Fouda like a heavyweight punch. ‘I am the head of the al Qaida military committee,’ he said, ‘and Ramzi is the coordinator of the Holy Tuesday operation. And yes, we did it.’ [Masterminds of Terror, Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding (New York: Arcade Publishing, 2003), p. 38.]
9/11 Commission Report
The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, released in 2004, confirms that al Qaida planned and executed the attacks, providing many previously unknown details. Its reconstruction of events is based largely on information provided by September 11 planners Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ramzi Binalshibh, and others.
Excerpts from chapter five of the report:
Just as KSM was reestablishing himself in Afghanistan in mid-1996, Bin Ladin and his colleagues were also completing their migration from Sudan. Through [Al Qaida military commander Mohammed] Atef, KSM arranged a meeting with Bin Ladin in Tora Bora …. (p. 148)
… At the meeting, KSM … presented a proposal for an operation that would involve training pilots who would crash planes into buildings in the United States. This proposal would eventually become the 9/11 operation.
… Bin Ladin listened to KSM’s ideas without much comment, but did ask KSM formally to join al Qaida and move his family to Afghanistan.
KSM declined. He preferred to remain independent ….
… Bin Ladin, apparently at Atef’s urging, finally decided to give KSM the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. (p. 149)
KSM then accepted Bin Ladin’s standing invitation to move to Kandahar and work directly with al Qaida.
… At this point, late 1998 to early 1999, planning for the 9/11 operation began in earnest. (p. 150)
… KSM has insisted to his interrogators that he always contemplated hijacking and crashing large commercial aircraft. Indeed, KSM describes a grandiose original plan: a total of ten aircraft to be hijacked, nine of which would crash into targets on both coasts – they included those eventually hit on September 11 plus CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and the state of Washington. KSM himself was to land the tenth plane at a U.S. airport and, after killing all adult male passengers on board and alerting the media, deliver a speech ….
KSM concedes that this proposal received a lukewarm response from al Qaida leaders skeptical of its scale and complexity. Although Bin Ladin listened to KSM’s proposal, he was not convinced that it was practical.
… KSM acknowledges formally joining al Qaida, in late 1998 or early 1999, and states that soon afterward, Bin Ladin also made the decision to support his proposal to attack the United States using commercial airplanes as weapons.
… Bin Ladin summoned KSM to Kandahar in March or April 1999 to tell him that al Qaida would support his proposal. The plot was now referred to within al Qaida as the “planes operation.” (p. 154)
… KSM’s original concept of using one of the hijacked planes to make a media statement was scrapped, but Bin Ladin considered the basic idea feasible. Bin Ladin, Atef, and KSM developed an initial list of targets. These included the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center. According to KSM, Bin Ladin wanted to destroy the White House and the Pentagon, KSM wanted to strike the World Trade Center, and all of them wanted to hit the Capitol. No one else was involved in the initial selection of targets.
Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives: Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Khallad, and Abu Bara al Yemeni. (p. 155)
Pages 156-159 of the report provide details on the training of these four initial suicide operatives. Further excerpts:
… Hamzi and Mihdhar … arrived in Los Angeles on January 15, 2000. (p. 159)
Meanwhile, the next group of al Qaida operatives destined for the planes operation [the Hamburg group] had just surfaced in Afghanistan. … The new recruits had come to Afghanistan aspiring to wage jihad in Chechnya. But al Qaida quickly recognized their potential and enlisted them in its anti-U.S. jihad.
… Mohammed Atta, Ramzi Binalshibh, Marwan al Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah would all become key players in the 9/11 conspiracy. (p. 160)
… In March 2000, Atta emailed 31 different U.S. flight schools on behalf of a small group of men from various Arab countries studying in Germany who, while lacking prior training, were interested in learning to fly in the United States.
… Binalshibh proved unable to obtain a visa, a victim of the generalized suspicion that visa applicants from Yemen – especially young men applying in another country (Binalshibh first applied in Berlin) – might join the ranks of undocumented aliens seeking work in the United States. (p. 168)
… By late May 2000, two operatives assigned to the planes operation were already in the United States. Three of the four Hamburg cell members would soon arrive. (p. 173)
Excerpts from chapter seven:
Hazmi and Mihdhar came to the United States to learn English, take flying lessons, and become pilots as quickly as possible. They turned out, however, to have no aptitude for English. … This lack of language skills in turn became an insurmountable barrier to learning how to fly. (p. 221)
… [Flight ] instructors who worked with Hamzi and Mihdhar remember them as poor students who focused on learning to control the aircraft in flight but took no interest in takeoffs or landings. By the end of May 2000, Hamzi and Mihdhar had given up on learning how to fly. (p. 222)
… In the early summer of 2000, the Hamburg group arrived in the United States to begin flight training. (p. 223)
… Unable to participate directly in the operation, Binalshibh instead took on the role of coordinating between KSM and the operatives in the United States. … one of Binalshibh’s first tasks in his new role as plot coordinator was to assist another possible pilot, Zacarias Moussaoui.
In the fall of 2000, KSM had sent Moussaoui to Malaysia for flight training, but Moussaoui did not find a school he liked.
… Confronting training or travel problems with Hamzi, Mihdhar, Binalshibh, and Mossaoui, al Qaida was looking for another possible pilot candidate. A new recruit with just the right background [Hani Hanjour] conveniently presented himself in Afghanistan. (p. 225)
… According to KSM, Hanjour was sent to him in Karachi for inclusion in the plot after Hanjour was identified in al Qaida’s al Faruq camp as a trained pilot, on the basis of background information he had provided.
… On December 8 [2000], Hanjour traveled to San Diego. (p. 226)
… By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast [Atta, Shehhi, and Jarrad] were simulating flights on large jets. (p. 227)
… During the summer and early autumn of 2000, Bin Ladin and senior al Qaida leaders in Afghanistan started selecting the muscle hijackers – the operatives who would storm the cockpits and control the passengers. (p. 231)
… Bin Ladin, assisted by Atef, personally chose all the future muscle hijackers for the planes operations, primarily between the summer of 2000 and April 2001. Upon choosing a trainee, Bin Ladin would ask him to swear loyalty for a suicide operation. After the selection and oath-swearing, the operative would be sent to KSM for training and the filming of a martyrdom video ….
… [Captured al Qaida operative] Khallad believes KSM wanted between four and six operatives per plane. KSM states that al Qaida originally planned to use 25 or 26 hijackers but ended up with only 19.
… [T]he muscle hijackers returned to Afghanistan for special training in late 2000 to early 2001. (p. 235)
… [Al Qaida trainer] Abu Turab taught the operatives how to conduct hijackings, disarm air marshals, and handle explosives. He also trained them in bodybuilding and provided them with a few basic English words and phrases.
According to KSM, Abu Turab even had the trainees butcher a sheep and a camel with a knife to prepare to use knives during the hijackings. … According to KSM, the muscle did not learn the full details – including the plan to hijack planes and fly them into buildings – before reaching the United States. (p. 236)
… By the end of June [2001], 14 of the 15 muscle hijackers had crossed the Atlantic. (p. 237)
… [In a July 2001 meeting in Spain,] Binalshibh says he told Atta that Bin Ladin wanted the attacks carried out as soon as possible. … Binalshibh advised Atta that Bin Ladin had directed that the other operatives not be informed of the date until the last minute. Atta was to provide Binalshibh with advance notice of at least a week or two so that Binalshibh could travel to Afghanistan and report the date personally to Bin Ladin.
As to targets, Atta understood Bib Ladin’s interest in striking the White House. Atta said he thought this target was too difficult, but had tasked Hamzi and Hanjour to evaluate its feasibility and was awaiting their answer. Atta said that those two operatives had rented small aircraft and flown reconnaissance flights near the Pentagon. Atta explained that Hanjour was assigned to attack the Pentagon, Jarrah the Capitol, and that both Atta and Shehhi would hit the World Trade Center. If any pilot could not reach his intended target, he was to crash the plane. If Atta could not strike the World Trade Center, he planned to crash his aircraft directly into the streets of New York. (p. 244)
… Atta told Binalshibh he wanted to select planes departing on long flights because they would be full of fuel, and that he wanted to hijack Boeing aircraft because he believed them easier to fly than Airbus aircraft, which he understood had an autopilot feature that did not allow them to be crashed into the ground. (p. 245)
… On August 3 [2001] … Atta and Binalshibh discussed several matters, such as the best way for the operatives to purchase plane tickets and the assignment of muscle hijackers to individual teams. Atta and Binalshibh also revisited the question of whether to target the White House. They discussed targets in coded language, pretending to be students discussing various field of study” “architecture” referred to the World Trade Center, “arts” the Pentagon, “law” the Capitol, and “politics” the White House.
Binalshibh reminded Atta that Bin Ladin wanted to target the White House. Atta again cautioned that this would be difficult. When Binalshibh persisted, Atta agreed to include the White House but suggested they keep the Capitol as an alternate target in case the White House proved too difficult. Atta also suggested that the attacks would not happen until after the first week in September, when Congress reconvened. (p. 248)
… Through August, the hijackers kept busy with their gym training and the pilots took frequent practice runs on small rented aircraft. The operatives also began to make purchases suggesting that their planning was coming to an end. In mid-August, for example, they bought small knives that may actually have been used in the attacks. On August 22, moreover, Jarrah attempted to purchase four GPS [global positioning system] units from a pilot shop in Miami. He was able to buy only one unit, which he picked up a few days later when he also purchased three aeronautical charts.
… All 19 [plane] tickets were booked and purchased between August 25 and September 5. (p. 249)
… According to KSM, in late August, when the operation was fully planned, Bin Ladin formally notified the al Qaida Shura Council that a major attack against the United States would take place in the coming weeks. When some council members objected, Bin Ladin countered that Mullah Omar lacked authority to prevent al Qaida from conducting jihad outside Afghanistan. Though most of the Shura Council reportedly disagreed, Bin Ladin persisted. The attacks went forward.
… In the days just before 9/11, the hijackers returned leftover funds to al Qaida and assembled in their departure cities. They sent the excess funds by wire transfer to Hawsawi in the UAE, about $26,000 altogether. (p. 252)
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-e...747atlahtnevel4.168338e-02.html#ixzz12YGNFDzj
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We present the narrative of this report and the recommendations that flow from it to the President of the United States, the United States Congress, and the American people for their consideration. Ten Commissioners-five Republicans and five Democrats chosen by elected leaders from our nation's capital at a time of great partisan division-have come together to present this report without dissent.
We have come together with a unity of purpose because our nation demands it. September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States. The nation was unprepared.
A NATION TRANSFORMED
At 8:46 on the morning of September 11, 2001, the United States became a nation transformed.
An airliner traveling at hundreds of miles per hour and carrying some 10,000 gallons of jet fuel plowed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan. At 9:03, a second airliner hit the South Tower. Fire and smoke billowed upward. Steel, glass, ash, and bodies fell below. The Twin Towers, where up to 50,000 people worked each day, both collapsed less than 90 minutes later.
At 9:37 that same morning, a third airliner slammed into the western face of the Pentagon. At 10:03, a fourth airliner crashed in a field in southern Pennsylvania. It had been aimed at the United States Capitol or the White House, and was forced down by heroic passengers armed with the knowledge that America was under attack.
More than 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center; 125 died at the Pentagon; 256 died on the four planes. The death toll surpassed that at Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
This immeasurable pain was inflicted by 19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan. Some had been in the United States for more than a year, mixing with the rest of the population. Though four had training as pilots, most were not well-educated. Most spoke English poorly, some hardly at all. In groups of four or five, carrying with them only small knives, box cutters, and cans of Mace or pepper spray, they had hijacked the four planes and turned them into deadly guided missiles.
Why did they do this? How was the attack planned and conceived? How did the U.S. government fail to anticipate and prevent it? What can we do in the future to prevent similar acts of terrorism?
A Shock, Not a Surprise
The 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise. Islamist extremists had given plenty of warning that they meant to kill Americans indiscriminately and in large numbers. Although Usama Bin Ladin himself would not emerge as a signal threat until the late 1990s, the threat of Islamist terrorism grew over the decade.
In February 1993, a group led by Ramzi Yousef tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb. They killed six and wounded a thousand. Plans by Omar Abdel Rahman and others to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and other New York City landmarks were frustrated when the plotters were arrested. In October 1993, Somali tribesmen shot down U.S. helicopters, killing 18 and wounding 73 in an incident that came to be known as "Black Hawk down." Years later it would be learned that those Somali tribesmen had received help from al Qaeda.
In early 1995, police in Manila uncovered a plot by Ramzi Yousef to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners while they were flying over the Pacific. In November 1995, a car bomb exploded outside the office of the U.S. program manager for the Saudi National Guard in Riyadh, killing five Americans and two others. In June 1996, a truck bomb demolished the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and wounding hundreds. The attack was carried out primarily by Saudi Hezbollah, an organization that had received help from the government of Iran.
Until 1997, the U.S. intelligence community viewed Bin Ladin as a financier of terrorism, not as a terrorist leader. In February 1998, Usama Bin Ladin and four others issued a self-styled fatwa, publicly declaring that it was God's decree that every Muslim should try his utmost to kill any American, military or civilian, anywhere in the world, because of American "occupation" of Islam's holy places and aggression against Muslims.
In August 1998, Bin Ladin's group, al Qaeda, carried out near-simultaneous truck bomb attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and wounded thousands more.
In December 1999, Jordanian police foiled a plot to bomb hotels and other sites frequented by American tourists, and a U.S. Customs agent arrested Ahmed Ressam at the U.S. Canadian border as he was smuggling in explosives intended for an attack on Los Angeles International Airport.
In October 2000, an al Qaeda team in Aden, Yemen, used a motorboat filled with explosives to blow a hole in the side of a destroyer, the USS Cole, almost sinking the vessel and killing 17 American sailors.
The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were far more elaborate, precise, and destructive than any of these earlier assaults. But by September 2001, the executive branch of the U.S. government, the Congress, the news media, and the American public had received clear warning that Islamist terrorists meant to kill Americans in high numbers.
Who Is the Enemy?
Who is this enemy that created an organization capable of inflicting such horrific damage on the United States? We now know that these attacks were carried out by various groups of Islamist extremists. The 9/11 attack was driven by Usama Bin Ladin.
In the 1980s, young Muslims from around the world went to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in a jihad (or holy struggle) against the Soviet Union. A wealthy Saudi, Usama Bin Ladin, was one of them. Following the defeat of the Soviets in the late 1980s, Bin Ladin and others formed al Qaeda to mobilize jihads elsewhere.
The history, culture, and body of beliefs from which Bin Ladin shapes and spreads his message are largely unknown to many Americans. Seizing on symbols of Islam's past greatness, he promises to restore pride to people who consider themselves the victims of successive foreign masters. He uses cultural and religious allusions to the holy Qur'an and some of its interpreters. He appeals to people disoriented by cyclonic change as they confront modernity and globalization. His rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources-Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise.
Bin Ladin also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Islam's holiest sites, and against other U.S. policies in the Middle East.
Upon this political and ideological foundation, Bin Ladin built over the course of a decade a dynamic and lethal organization. He built an infrastructure and organization in Afghanistan that could attract, train, and use recruits against ever more ambitious targets. He rallied new zealots and new money with each demonstration of al Qaeda's capability. He had forged a close alliance with the Taliban, a regime providing sanctuary for al Qaeda.
By September 11, 2001, al Qaeda possessed
leaders able to evaluate, approve, and supervise the planning and direction of a major operation;
a personnel system that could recruit candidates, indoctrinate them, vet them, and give them the necessary training;
communications sufficient to enable planning and direction of operatives and those who would be helping them;
an intelligence effort to gather required information and form assessments of enemy strengths and weaknesses;
the ability to move people great distances; and
the ability to raise and move the money necessary to finance an attack.
1998 to September 11, 2001
The August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania established al Qaeda as a potent adversary of the United States.
After launching cruise missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the embassy bombings, the Clinton administration applied diplomatic pressure to try to persuade the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to expel Bin Ladin. The administration also devised covert operations to use CIA-paid foreign agents to capture or kill Bin Ladin and his chief lieutenants. These actions did not stop Bin Ladin or dislodge al Qaeda from its sanctuary.
By late 1998 or early 1999, Bin Ladin and his advisers had agreed on an idea brought to them by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) called the "planes operation." It would eventually culminate in the 9/11 attacks. Bin Ladin and his chief of operations, Mohammed Atef, occupied undisputed leadership positions atop al Qaeda. Within al Qaeda, they relied heavily on the ideas and enterprise of strong-willed field commanders, such as KSM, to carry out worldwide terrorist operations.
KSM claims that his original plot was even grander than those carried out on 9/11-ten planes would attack targets on both the East and West coasts of the United States. This plan was modified by Bin Ladin, KSM said, owing to its scale and complexity. Bin Ladin provided KSM with four initial operatives for suicide plane attacks within the United States, and in the fall of 1999 training for the attacks began. New recruits included four from a cell of expatriate Muslim extremists who had clustered together in Hamburg, Germany. One became the tactical commander of the operation in the United States: Mohamed Atta.
U.S. intelligence frequently picked up reports of attacks planned by al Qaeda. Working with foreign security services, the CIA broke up some al Qaeda cells. The core of Bin Ladin's organization nevertheless remained intact. In December 1999, news about the arrests of the terrorist cell in Jordan and the arrest of a terrorist at the U.S.-Canadian border became part of a "millennium alert." The government was galvanized, and the public was on alert for any possible attack.
In January 2000, the intense intelligence effort glimpsed and then lost sight of two operatives destined for the "planes operation." Spotted in Kuala Lumpur, the pair were lost passing through Bangkok. On January 15, 2000, they arrived in Los Angeles.
Because these two al Qaeda operatives had spent little time in the West and spoke little, if any, English, it is plausible that they or KSM would have tried to identify, in advance, a friendly contact in the United States. We explored suspicions about whether these two operatives had a support network of accomplices in the United States. The evidence is thin-simply not there for some cases, more worrisome in others.
We do know that soon after arriving in California, the two al Qaeda operatives sought out and found a group of ideologically like-minded Muslims with roots in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, individuals mainly associated with a young Yemeni and others who attended a mosque in San Diego. After a brief stay in Los Angeles about which we know little, the al Qaeda operatives lived openly in San Diego under their true names. They managed to avoid attracting much attention.
By the summer of 2000, three of the four Hamburg cell members had arrived on the East Coast of the United States and had begun pilot training. In early 2001, a fourth future hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, journeyed to Arizona with another operative, Nawaf al Hazmi, and conducted his refresher pilot training there. A number of al Qaeda operatives had spent time in Arizona during the 1980s and early 1990s.
During 2000, President Bill Clinton and his advisers renewed diplomatic efforts to get Bin Ladin expelled from Afghanistan. They also renewed secret efforts with some of the Taliban's opponents-the Northern Alliance-to get enough intelligence to attack Bin Ladin directly. Diplomatic efforts centered on the new military government in Pakistan, and they did not succeed. The efforts with the Northern Alliance revived an inconclusive and secret debate about whether the United States should take sides in Afghanistan's civil war and support the Taliban's enemies. The CIA also produced a plan to improve intelligence collection on al Qaeda, including the use of a small, unmanned airplane with a video camera, known as the Predator.
After the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, evidence accumulated that it had been launched by al Qaeda operatives, but without confirmation that Bin Ladin had given the order. The Taliban had earlier been warned that it would be held responsible for another Bin Ladin attack on the United States. The CIA described its findings as a "preliminary judgment"; President Clinton and his chief advisers told us they were waiting for a conclusion before deciding whether to take military action. The military alternatives remained unappealing to them.
The transition to the new Bush administration in late 2000 and early 2001 took place with the Cole issue still pending. President George W. Bush and his chief advisers accepted that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Cole, but did not like the options available for a response.
Bin Ladin's inference may well have been that attacks, at least at the level of the Cole, were risk free.
The Bush administration began developing a new strategy with the stated goal of eliminating the al Qaeda threat within three to five years.
During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings that al Qaeda planned, as one report put it, "something very, very, very big." Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told us, "The system was blinking red."
Although Bin Ladin was determined to strike in the United States, as President Clinton had been told and President Bush was reminded in a Presidential Daily Brief article briefed to him in August 2001, the specific threat information pointed overseas. Numerous precautions were taken overseas. Domestic agencies were not effectively mobilized. The threat did not receive national media attention comparable to the millennium alert.
While the United States continued disruption efforts around the world, its emerging strategy to eliminate the al Qaeda threat was to include an enlarged covert action program in Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The process culminated during the summer of 2001 in a draft presidential directive and arguments about the Predator aircraft, which was soon to be deployed with a missile of its own, so that it might be used to attempt to kill Bin Ladin or his chief lieutenants. At a September 4 meeting, President Bush's chief advisers approved the draft directive of the strategy and endorsed the concept of arming the Predator. This directive on the al Qaeda strategy was awaiting President Bush's signature on September 11, 2001.
Though the "planes operation" was progressing, the plotters had problems of their own in 2001. Several possible participants dropped out; others could not gain entry into the United States (including one denial at a port of entry and visa denials not related to terrorism). One of the eventual pilots may have considered abandoning the planes operation. Zacarias Moussaoui, who showed up at a flight training school in Minnesota, may have been a candidate to replace him.
Some of the vulnerabilities of the plotters become clear in retrospect. Moussaoui aroused suspicion for seeking fast-track training on how to pilot large jet airliners. He was arrested on August 16, 2001, for violations of immigration regulations. In late August, officials in the intelligence community realized that the terrorists spotted in Southeast Asia in January 2000 had arrived in the United States.
These cases did not prompt urgent action. No one working on these late leads in the summer of 2001 connected them to the high level of threat reporting. In the words of one official, no analytic work foresaw the lightning that could connect the thundercloud to the ground.
As final preparations were under way during the summer of 2001, dissent emerged among al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan over whether to proceed. The Taliban's chief, Mullah Omar, opposed attacking the United States. Although facing opposition from many of his senior lieutenants, Bin Ladin effectively overruled their objections, and the attacks went forward.
September 11, 2001
The day began with the 19 hijackers getting through a security checkpoint system that they had evidently analyzed and knew how to defeat. Their success rate in penetrating the system was 19 for 19.They took over the four flights, taking advantage of air crews and cockpits that were not prepared for the contingency of a suicide hijacking.
On 9/11, the defense of U.S. air space depended on close interaction between two federal agencies: the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Existing protocols on 9/11 were unsuited in every respect for an attack in which hijacked planes were used as weapons.
What ensued was a hurried attempt to improvise a defense by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction.
A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania. Planes were scrambled, but ineffectively, as they did not know where to go or what targets they were to intercept. And once the shootdown order was given, it was not communicated to the pilots. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters circling above them had been instructed to "take out" hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to "ID type and tail."
Like the national defense, the emergency response on 9/11 was necessarily improvised.
In New York City, the Fire Department of New York, the New York Police Department, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the building employees, and the occupants of the buildings did their best to cope with the effects of almost unimaginable events-unfolding furiously over 102 minutes. Casualties were nearly 100 percent at and above the impact zones and were very high among first responders who stayed in danger as they tried to save lives. Despite weaknesses in preparations for disaster, failure to achieve unified incident command, and inadequate communications among responding agencies, all but approximately one hundred of the thousands of civilians who worked below the impact zone escaped, often with help from the emergency responders.
At the Pentagon, while there were also problems of command and control, the emergency response was generally effective. The Incident Command System, a formalized management structure for emergency response in place in the National Capital Region, overcame the inherent complications of a response across local, state, and federal jurisdictions.
Operational Opportunities
We write with the benefit and handicap of hindsight. We are mindful of the danger of being unjust to men and women who made choices in conditions of uncertainty and in circumstances over which they often had little control.
Nonetheless, there were specific points of vulnerability in the plot and opportunities to disrupt it. Operational failures-opportunities that were not or could not be exploited by the organizations and systems of that time-included
not watchlisting future hijackers Hazmi and Mihdhar, not trailing them after they traveled to Bangkok, and not informing the FBI about one future hijacker's U.S. visa or his companion's travel to the United States;
not sharing information linking individuals in the Cole attack to Mihdhar;
not taking adequate steps in time to find Mihdhar or Hazmi in the United States;
not linking the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, described as interested in flight training for the purpose of using an airplane in a terrorist act, to the heightened indications of attack;
not discovering false statements on visa applications;
not recognizing passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner;
not expanding no-fly lists to include names from terrorist watchlists;
not searching airline passengers identified by the computer-based CAPPS screening system; and
not hardening aircraft cockpit doors or taking other measures to prepare for the possibility of suicide hijackings.
GENERAL FINDINGS
Since the plotters were flexible and resourceful, we cannot know whether any single step or series of steps would have defeated them. What we can say with confidence is that none of the measures adopted by the U.S. government from 1998 to 2001 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al Qaeda plot. Across the government, there were failures of imagination, policy, capabilities, and management.
Imagination
The most important failure was one of imagination. We do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat. The terrorist danger from Bin Ladin and al Qaeda was not a major topic for policy debate among the public, the media, or in the Congress. Indeed, it barely came up during the 2000 presidential campaign.
Al Qaeda's new brand of terrorism presented challenges to U.S. governmental institutions that they were not well-designed to meet. Though top officials all told us that they understood the danger, we believe there was uncertainty among them as to whether this was just a new and especially venomous version of the ordinary terrorist threat the United States had lived with for decades, or it was indeed radically new, posing a threat beyond any yet experienced.
As late as September 4, 2001, Richard Clarke, the White House staffer long responsible for counterterrorism policy coordination, asserted that the government had not yet made up its mind how to answer the question: "Is al Qida a big deal?"
A week later came the answer.
Policy
Terrorism was not the overriding national security concern for the U.S. government under either the Clinton or the pre-9/11 Bush administration.
The policy challenges were linked to this failure of imagination. Officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations regarded a full U.S. invasion of Afghanistan as practically inconceivable before 9/11.
Capabilities
Before 9/11, the United States tried to solve the al Qaeda problem with the capabilities it had used in the last stages of the Cold War and its immediate aftermath. These capabilities were insufficient. Little was done to expand or reform them.
The CIA had minimal capacity to conduct paramilitary operations with its own personnel, and it did not seek a large-scale expansion of these capabilities before 9/11. The CIA also needed to improve its capability to collect intelligence from human agents.
At no point before 9/11 was the Department of Defense fully engaged in the mission of countering al Qaeda, even though this was perhaps the most dangerous foreign enemy threatening the United States.
America's homeland defenders faced outward. NORAD itself was barely able to retain any alert bases at all. Its planning scenarios occasionally considered the danger of hijacked aircraft being guided to American targets, but only aircraft that were coming from overseas.
The most serious weaknesses in agency capabilities were in the domestic arena. The FBI did not have the capability to link the collective knowledge of agents in the field to national priorities. Other domestic agencies deferred to the FBI.
FAA capabilities were weak. Any serious examination of the possibility of a suicide hijacking could have suggested changes to fix glaring vulnerabilities-expanding no-fly lists, searching passengers identified by the CAPPS screening system, deploying federal air marshals domestically, hardening cockpit doors, alerting air crews to a different kind of hijacking possibility than they had been trained to expect. Yet the FAA did not adjust either its own training or training with NORAD to take account of threats other than those experienced in the past.
Management
The missed opportunities to thwart the 9/11 plot were also symptoms of a broader inability to adapt the way government manages problems to the new challenges of the twenty-first century. Action officers should have been able to draw on all available knowledge about al Qaeda in the government. Management should have ensured that information was shared and duties were clearly assigned across agencies, and across the foreign-domestic divide.
There were also broader management issues with respect to how top leaders set priorities and allocated resources. For instance, on December 4, 1998, DCI Tenet issued a directive to several CIA officials and the DDCI for Community Management, stating: "We are at war. I want no resources or people spared in this effort, either inside CIA or the Community." The memorandum had little overall effect on mobilizing the CIA or the intelligence community. This episode indicates the limitations of the DCI's authority over the direction of the intelligence community, including agencies within the Department of Defense.
The U.S. government did not find a way of pooling intelligence and using it to guide the planning and assignment of responsibilities for joint operations involving entities as disparate as the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, the military, and the agencies involved in homeland security.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS
Unsuccessful Diplomacy
Beginning in February 1997, and through September 11, 2001, the U.S. government tried to use diplomatic pressure to persuade the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to stop being a sanctuary for al Qaeda, and to expel Bin Ladin to a country where he could face justice. These efforts included warnings and sanctions, but they all failed.
The U.S. government also pressed two successive Pakistani governments to demand that the Taliban cease providing a sanctuary for Bin Ladin and his organization and, failing that, to cut off their support for the Taliban. Before 9/11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives and pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship with the Taliban.
From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties and enforce sanctions, especially those related to air travel to Afghanistan. These efforts achieved little before 9/11.
Saudi Arabia has been a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism. Before 9/11, the Saudi and U.S. governments did not fully share intelligence information or develop an adequate joint effort to track and disrupt the finances of the al Qaeda organization. On the other hand, government officials of Saudi Arabia at the highest levels worked closely with top U.S. officials in major initiatives to solve the Bin Ladin problem with diplomacy.
Lack of Military Options
In response to the request of policymakers, the military prepared an array of limited strike options for attacking Bin Ladin and his organization from May 1998 onward. When they briefed policymakers, the military presented both the pros and cons of those strike options and the associated risks. Policymakers expressed frustration with the range of options presented.
Following the August 20, 1998, missile strikes on al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, both senior military officials and policymakers placed great emphasis on actionable intelligence as the key factor in recommending or deciding to launch military action against Bin Ladin and his organization. They did not want to risk significant collateral damage, and they did not want to miss Bin Ladin and thus make the United States look weak while making Bin Ladin look strong. On three specific occasions in 1998-1999, intelligence was deemed credible enough to warrant planning for possible strikes to kill Bin Ladin. But in each case the strikes did not go forward, because senior policymakers did not regard the intelligence as sufficiently actionable to offset their assessment of the risks.
The Director of Central Intelligence, policymakers, and military officials expressed frustration with the lack of actionable intelligence. Some officials inside the Pentagon, including those in the special forces and the counterterrorism policy office, also expressed frustration with the lack of military action. The Bush administration began to develop new policies toward al Qaeda in 2001, but military plans did not change until after 9/11.
Problems within the Intelligence Community
The intelligence community struggled throughout the 1990s and up to 9/11 to collect intelligence on and analyze the phenomenon of transnational terrorism. The combination of an overwhelming number of priorities, flat budgets, an outmoded structure, and bureaucratic rivalries resulted in an insufficient response to this new challenge.
Many dedicated officers worked day and night for years to piece together the growing body of evidence on al Qaeda and to understand the threats. Yet, while there were many reports on Bin Laden and his growing al Qaeda organization, there was no comprehensive review of what the intelligence community knew and what it did not know, and what that meant. There was no National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism between 1995 and 9/11.
Before 9/11, no agency did more to attack al Qaeda than the CIA. But there were limits to what the CIA was able to achieve by disrupting terrorist activities abroad and by using proxies to try to capture Bin Ladin and his lieutenants in Afghanistan. CIA officers were aware of those limitations.
To put it simply, covert action was not a silver bullet. It was important to engage proxies in Afghanistan and to build various capabilities so that if an opportunity presented itself, the CIA could act on it. But for more than three years, through both the late Clinton and early Bush administrations, the CIA relied on proxy forces, and there was growing frustration within the CIA's Counterterrorist Center and in the National Security Council staff with the lack of results. The development of the Predator and the push to aid the Northern Alliance were products of this frustration.
Problems in the FBI
From the time of the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, FBI and Department of Justice leadership in Washington and New York became increasingly concerned about the terrorist threat from Islamist extremists to U.S. interests, both at home and abroad. Throughout the 1990s, the FBI's counterterrorism efforts against international terrorist organizations included both intelligence and criminal investigations. The FBI's approach to investigations was case-specific, decentralized, and geared toward prosecution. Significant FBI resources were devoted to after-the-fact investigations of major terrorist attacks, resulting in several prosecutions.
The FBI attempted several reform efforts aimed at strengthening its ability to prevent such attacks, but these reform efforts failed to implement organization-wide institutional change. On September 11, 2001, the FBI was limited in several areas critical to an effective preventive counterterrorism strategy. Those working counterterrorism matters did so despite limited intelligence collection and strategic analysis capabilities, a limited capacity to share information both internally and externally, insufficient training, perceived legal barriers to sharing information, and inadequate resources.
Permeable Borders and Immigration Controls
There were opportunities for intelligence and law enforcement to exploit al Qaeda's travel vulnerabilities. Considered collectively, the 9/11 hijackers
included known al Qaeda operatives who could have been watchlisted;
presented passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner;
presented passports with suspicious indicators of extremism;
made detectable false statements on visa applications;
made false statements to border officials to gain entry into the United States; and
violated immigration laws while in the United States.
Neither the State Department's consular officers nor the Immigration and Naturalization Service's inspectors and agents were ever considered full partners in a national counterterrorism effort. Protecting borders was not a national security issue before 9/11.
Permeable Aviation Security
Hijackers studied publicly available materials on the aviation security system and used items that had less metal content than a handgun and were most likely permissible. Though two of the hijackers were on the U.S.TIPOFF terrorist watchlist, the FAA did not use TIPOFF data. The hijackers had to beat only one layer of security-the security checkpoint process. Even though several hijackers were selected for extra screening by the CAPPS system, this led only to greater scrutiny of their checked baggage. Once on board, the hijackers were faced with aircraft personnel who were trained to be nonconfrontational in the event of a hijacking.
Financing
The 9/11 attacks cost somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to execute. The operatives spent more than $270,000 in the United States. Additional expenses included travel to obtain passports and visas, travel to the United States, expenses incurred by the plot leader and facilitators outside the United States, and expenses incurred by the people selected to be hijackers who ultimately did not participate.
The conspiracy made extensive use of banks in the United States. The hijackers opened accounts in their own names, using passports and other identification documents. Their transactions were unremarkable and essentially invisible amid the billions of dollars flowing around the world every day.
To date, we have not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda had many sources of funding and a pre-9/11 annual budget estimated at $30 million. If a particular source of funds had dried up, al Qaeda could easily have found enough money elsewhere to fund the attack.
An Improvised Homeland Defense
The civilian and military defenders of the nation's airspace-FAA and NORAD-were unprepared for the attacks launched against them. Given that lack of preparedness, they attempted and failed to improvise an effective homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge.
The events of that morning do not reflect discredit on operational personnel. NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector personnel reached out for information and made the best judgments they could based on the information they received. Individual FAA controllers, facility managers, and command center managers were creative and agile in recommending a nationwide alert, ground-stopping local traffic, ordering all aircraft nationwide to land, and executing that unprecedented order flawlessly.
At more senior levels, communication was poor. Senior military and FAA leaders had no effective communication with each other. The chain of command did not function well. The President could not reach some senior officials. The Secretary of Defense did not enter the chain of command until the morning's key events were over. Air National Guard units with different rules of engagement were scrambled without the knowledge of the President, NORAD, or the National Military Command Center.
Emergency Response
The civilians, firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, and emergency management professionals exhibited steady determination and resolve under horrifying, overwhelming conditions on 9/11.Their actions saved lives and inspired a nation.
Effective decisionmaking in New York was hampered by problems in command and control and in internal communications. Within the Fire Department of New York, this was true for several reasons: the magnitude of the incident was unforeseen; commanders had difficulty communicating with their units; more units were actually dispatched than were ordered by the chiefs; some units self-dispatched; and once units arrived at the World Trade Center, they were neither comprehensively accounted for nor coordinated. The Port Authority's response was hampered by the lack both of standard operating procedures and of radios capable of enabling multiple commands to respond to an incident in unified fashion. The New York Police Department, because of its history of mobilizing thousands of officers for major events requiring crowd control, had a technical radio capability and protocols more easily adapted to an incident of the magnitude of 9/11.
Congress
The Congress, like the executive branch, responded slowly to the rise of transnational terrorism as a threat to national security. The legislative branch adjusted little and did not restructure itself to address changing threats. Its attention to terrorism was episodic and splintered across several committees. The Congress gave little guidance to executive branch agencies on terrorism, did not reform them in any significant way to meet the threat, and did not systematically perform robust oversight to identify, address, and attempt to resolve the many problems in national security and domestic agencies that became apparent in the aftermath of 9/11.
So long as oversight is undermined by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need. The United States needs a strong, stable, and capable congressional committee structure to give America's national intelligence agencies oversight, support, and leadership.
Are We Safer?
Since 9/11, the United States and its allies have killed or captured a majority of al Qaeda's leadership; toppled the Taliban, which gave al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan; and severely damaged the organization. Yet terrorist attacks continue. Even as we have thwarted attacks, nearly everyone expects they will come. How can this be?
The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue.
Because of offensive actions against al Qaeda since 9/11, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today. But we are not safe. We therefore make the following recommendations that we believe can make America safer and more secure.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Three years after 9/11, the national debate continues about how to protect our nation in this new era. We divide our recommendations into two basic parts: What to do, and how to do it.
WHAT TO DO? A GLOBAL STRATEGY
The enemy is not just "terrorism." It is the threat posed specifically by Islamist terrorism, by Bin Ladin and others who draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam that does not distinguish politics from religion, and distorts both.
The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam. The enemy goes beyond al Qaeda to include the radical ideological movement, inspired in part by al Qaeda, that has spawned other terrorist groups and violence. Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism.
The first phase of our post-9/11 efforts rightly included military action to topple the Taliban and pursue al Qaeda. This work continues. But long-term success demands the use of all elements of national power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense. If we favor one tool while neglecting others, we leave ourselves vulnerable and weaken our national effort.
What should Americans expect from their government? The goal seems unlimited: Defeat terrorism anywhere in the world. But Americans have also been told to expect the worst: An attack is probably coming; it may be more devastating still.
Vague goals match an amorphous picture of the enemy. Al Qaeda and other groups are popularly described as being all over the world, adaptable, resilient, needing little higher-level organization, and capable of anything. It is an image of an omnipotent hydra of destruction. That image lowers expectations of government effectiveness.
It lowers them too far. Our report shows a determined and capable group of plotters. Yet the group was fragile and occasionally left vulnerable by the marginal, unstable people often attracted to such causes. The enemy made mistakes. The U.S. government was not able to capitalize on them.
No president can promise that a catastrophic attack like that of 9/11 will not happen again. But the American people are entitled to expect that officials will have realistic objectives, clear guidance, and effective organization. They are entitled to see standards for performance so they can judge, with the help of their elected representatives, whether the objectives are being met.
We propose a strategy with three dimensions: (1) attack terrorists and their organizations, (2) prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism, and (3) protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks.
Attack Terrorists and Their Organizations
Root out sanctuaries.The U.S. government should identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries and have realistic country or regional strategies for each, utilizing every element of national power and reaching out to countries that can help us.
Strengthen long-term U.S. and international commitments to the future of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Confront problems with Saudi Arabia in the open and build a relationship beyond oil, a relationship that both sides can defend to their citizens and includes a shared commitment to reform.
Prevent the Continued Growth of Islamist Terrorism
In October 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked if enough was being done "to fashion a broad integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists." As part of such a plan, the U.S. government should
Define the message and stand as an example of moral leadership in the world. To Muslim parents, terrorists like Bin Ladin have nothing to offer their children but visions of violence and death. America and its friends have the advantage-our vision can offer a better future.
Where Muslim governments, even those who are friends, do not offer opportunity, respect the rule of law, or tolerate differences, then the United States needs to stand for a better future.
Communicate and defend American ideals in the Islamic world, through much stronger public diplomacy to reach more people, including students and leaders outside of government. Our efforts here should be as strong as they were in combating closed societies during the Cold War.
Offer an agenda of opportunity that includes support for public education and economic openness.
Develop a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism, using a flexible contact group of leading coalition governments and fashioning a common coalition approach on issues like the treatment of captured terrorists.
Devote a maximum effort to the parallel task of countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Expect less from trying to dry up terrorist money and more from following the money for intelligence, as a tool to hunt terrorists, understand their networks, and disrupt their operations.
Protect against and Prepare for Terrorist Attacks
Target terrorist travel, an intelligence and security strategy that the 9/11 story showed could be at least as powerful as the effort devoted to terrorist finance.
Address problems of screening people with biometric identifiers across agencies and governments, including our border and transportation systems, by designing a comprehensive screening system that addresses common problems and sets common standards. As standards spread, this necessary and ambitious effort could dramatically strengthen the world's ability to intercept individuals who could pose catastrophic threats.
Quickly complete a biometric entry-exit screening system, one that also speeds qualified travelers.
Set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.
Develop strategies for neglected parts of our transportation security system. Since 9/11, about 90 percent of the nation's $5 billion annual investment in transportation security has gone to aviation, to fight the last war.
In aviation, prevent arguments about a new computerized profiling system from delaying vital improvements in the "no-fly" and "automatic selectee" lists. Also, give priority to the improvement of checkpoint screening.
Determine, with leadership from the President, guidelines for gathering and sharing information in the new security systems that are needed, guidelines that integrate safeguards for privacy and other essential liberties.
Underscore that as government power necessarily expands in certain ways, the burden of retaining such powers remains on the executive to demonstrate the value of such powers and ensure adequate supervision of how they are used, including a new board to oversee the implementation of the guidelines needed for gathering and sharing information in these new security systems.
Base federal funding for emergency preparedness solely on risks and vulnerabilities, putting New York City and Washington, D.C., at the top of the current list. Such assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing or pork-barrel spending.
Make homeland security funding contingent on the adoption of an incident command system to strengthen teamwork in a crisis, including a regional approach. Allocate more radio spectrum and improve connectivity for public safety communications, and encourage widespread adoption of newly developed standards for private-sector emergency preparedness-since the private sector controls 85 percent of the nation's critical infrastructure.
HOW TO DO IT? A DIFFERENT WAY OF ORGANIZING GOVERNMENT
The strategy we have recommended is elaborate, even as presented here very briefly. To implement it will require a government better organized than the one that exists today, with its national security institutions designed half a century ago to win the Cold War. Americans should not settle for incremental, ad hoc adjustments to a system created a generation ago for a world that no longer exists.
Our detailed recommendations are designed to fit together. Their purpose is clear: to build unity of effort across the U.S. government. As one official now serving on the front lines overseas put it to us: "One fight, one team."
We call for unity of effort in five areas, beginning with unity of effort on the challenge of counterterrorism itself:
unifying strategic intelligence and operational planning against Islamist terrorists across the foreign-domestic divide with a National Counterterrorism Center;
unifying the intelligence community with a new National Intelligence Director;
unifying the many participants in the counterterrorism effort and their knowledge in a network-based information sharing system that transcends traditional governmental boundaries;
unifying and strengthening congressional oversight to improve quality and accountability; and
strengthening the FBI and homeland defenders.
Unity of Effort: A National Counterterrorism Center
The 9/11 story teaches the value of integrating strategic intelligence from all sources into joint operational planning-with both dimensions spanning the foreign-domestic divide.
In some ways, since 9/11, joint work has gotten better. The effort of fighting terrorism has flooded over many of the usual agency boundaries because of its sheer quantity and energy. Attitudes have changed. But the problems of coordination have multiplied. The Defense Department alone has three unified commands (SOCOM, CENTCOM, and NORTHCOM) that deal with terrorism as one of their principal concerns.
Much of the public commentary about the 9/11 attacks has focused on "lost opportunities." Though characterized as problems of "watchlisting," "information sharing," or "connecting the dots," each of these labels is too narrow. They describe the symptoms, not the disease.
Breaking the older mold of organization stovepiped purely in executive agencies, we propose a National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) that would borrow the joint, unified command concept adopted in the 1980s by the American military in a civilian agency, combining the joint intelligence function alongside the operations work.
The NCTC would build on the existing Terrorist Threat Integration Center and would replace it and other terrorism "fusion centers" within the government. The NCTC would become the authoritative knowledge bank, bringing information to bear on common plans. It should task collection requirements both inside and outside the United States.
The NCTC should perform joint operational planning, assigning lead responsibilities to existing agencies and letting them direct the actual execution of the plans.
Placed in the Executive Office of the President, headed by a Senate-confirmed official (with rank equal to the deputy head of a cabinet department) who reports to the National Intelligence Director, the NCTC would track implementation of plans. It would be able to influence the leadership and the budgets of the counterterrorism operating arms of the CIA, the FBI, and the departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
The NCTC should not be a policymaking body. Its operations and planning should follow the policy direction of the president and the National Security Council.
Unity of Effort: A National Intelligence Director
Since long before 9/11-and continuing to this day-the intelligence community is not organized well for joint intelligence work. It does not employ common standards and practices in reporting intelligence or in training experts overseas and at home. The expensive national capabilities for collecting intelligence have divided management. The structures are too complex and too secret.
The community's head-the Director of Central Intelligence-has at least three jobs: running the CIA, coordinating a 15-agency confederation, and being the intelligence analyst-in-chief to the president. No one person can do all these things.
A new National Intelligence Director should be established with two main jobs: (1) to oversee national intelligence centers that combine experts from all the collection disciplines against common targets- like counterterrorism or nuclear proliferation; and (2) to oversee the agencies that contribute to the national intelligence program, a task that includes setting common standards for personnel and information technology.
The national intelligence centers would be the unified commands of the intelligence world-a long-overdue reform for intelligence comparable to the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols law that reformed the organization of national defense. The home services-such as the CIA, DIA, NSA, and FBI-would organize, train, and equip the best intelligence professionals in the world, and would handle the execution of intelligence operations in the field.
This National Intelligence Director (NID) should be located in the Executive Office of the President and report directly to the president, yet be confirmed by the Senate. In addition to overseeing the National Counterterrorism Center described above (which will include both the national intelligence center for terrorism and the joint operations planning effort), the NID should have three deputies:
For foreign intelligence (a deputy who also would be the head of the CIA)
For defense intelligence (also the under secretary of defense for intelligence)
For homeland intelligence (also the executive assistant director for intelligence at the FBI or the under secretary of homeland security for information analysis and infrastructure protection)
The NID should receive a public appropriation for national intelligence, should have authority to hire and fire his or her intelligence deputies, and should be able to set common personnel and information technology policies across the intelligence community.
The CIA should concentrate on strengthening the collection capabilities of its clandestine service and the talents of its analysts, building pride in its core expertise.
Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability, and information sharing. Unfortunately, all the current organizational incentives encourage overclassification. This balance should change; and as a start, open information should be provided about the overall size of agency intelligence budgets.
Unity of Effort: Sharing Information
The U.S. government has access to a vast amount of information. But it has a weak system for processing and using what it has. The system of "need to know" should be replaced by a system of "need to share."
The President should lead a government-wide effort to bring the major national security institutions into the information revolution, turning a mainframe system into a decentralized network. The obstacles are not technological. Official after official has urged us to call attention to problems with the unglamorous "back office" side of government operations.
But no agency can solve the problems on its own-to build the network requires an effort that transcends old divides, solving common legal and policy issues in ways that can help officials know what they can and cannot do. Again, in tackling information issues, America needs unity of effort.
Unity of Effort: Congress Congress took too little action to adjust itself or to restructure the executive branch to address the emerging terrorist threat. Congressional oversight for intelligence-and counterterrorism-is dysfunctional. Both Congress and the executive need to do more to minimize national security risks during transitions between administrations.
For intelligence oversight, we propose two options: either a joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or a single committee in each house combining authorizing and appropriating committees. Our central message is the same: the intelligence committees cannot carry out their oversight function unless they are made stronger, and thereby have both clear responsibility and accountability for that oversight.
Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security. There should be one permanent standing committee for homeland security in each chamber.
We propose reforms to speed up the nomination, financial reporting, security clearance, and confirmation process for national security officials at the start of an administration, and suggest steps to make sure that incoming administrations have the information they need.
Unity of Effort: Organizing America's Defenses in the United States
We have considered several proposals relating to the future of the domestic intelligence and counterterrorism mission. Adding a new domestic intelligence agency will not solve America's problems in collecting and analyzing intelligence within the United States. We do not recommend creating one.
We propose the establishment of a specialized and integrated national security workforce at the FBI, consisting of agents, analysts, linguists, and surveillance specialists who are recruited, trained, rewarded, and retained to ensure the development of an institutional culture imbued with a deep expertise in intelligence and national security.
At several points we asked: Who has the responsibility for defending us at home? Responsibility for America's national defense is shared by the Department of Defense, with its new Northern Command, and by the Department of Homeland Security.They must have a clear delineation of roles, missions, and authority.
The Department of Defense and its oversight committees should regularly assess the adequacy of Northern Command's strategies and planning to defend against military threats to the homeland.
The Department of Homeland Security and its oversight committees should regularly assess the types of threats the country faces, in order to determine the adequacy of the government's plans and the readiness of the government to respond to those threats.
* * *
We call on the American people to remember how we all felt on 9/11, to remember not only the unspeakable horror but how we came together as a nation-one nation. Unity of purpose and unity of effort are the way we will defeat this enemy and make America safer for our children and grandchildren.
We look forward to a national debate on the merits of what we have recommended, and we will participate vigorously in that debate.
How the Twin Towers Collapsed
The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extremely thorough, three-year investigation into what caused the World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers to collapse, as explained on NIST’s WTC Web site.
Some 200 staff reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than one thousand people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they collapsed.
NIST concluded that the twin towers collapsed because the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, which meant that the subsequent fire, which reached 1000 degrees Celsius, weakened the floors and columns to the point where they bowed and buckled, causing the towers to collapse.
NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers stated in its executive summary (pp. xxxvii-xxxviii), in a passage cited by NIST Technical Administration Director William Jeffrey in testimony before the U.S. Congress on October 26, 2005:
The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. …
In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. …
In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner …. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors on that side to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. …
The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multi-floor fires … if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Remote Piloting Allegation
Another conspiracy theory is that the two Boeing aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center towers had not been hijacked, but were remotely controlled.
A Boeing Company official stated that Boeing has designed its commercial airplanes so that it is impossible to control them remotely. Elizabeth Verdiev, a spokesperson for Boeing, stated on June 16, 2005:
No Boeing commercial jet transport can be controlled from outside the airplane. No Boeing commercial jet transport can be “commanded” or have its flight controlled other than from within the flight deck by the pilots. Pilots can program the airplane to take off, fly to a destination and land automatically, but Boeing design philosophy keeps pilots in control and in the decision-making loop at all times.
Passengers Report Hijackings
Conspiracy theory claims about the World Trade Center attacks also ignore the fact that several passengers and crew from the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers made phone calls describing how their flights had been hijacked.
American Airlines flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center’s north tower at 8:46 am. It had been hijacked at approximately 8:14 am. Flight attendants Betty Ong and Madeline “Amy” Sweeney made phone calls describing the hijacking. Betty Ong’s call lasted about 25 minutes, the first four minutes of which were recorded (see footnote 29 for chapter one in the “Notes” section of The 9-11 Commission Report).
The 9-11 Commission Report (chapter one, pages 5-6) stated:
At 8:19, Ong reported: “The cockpit is not answering, somebody’s stabbed in business class – and I think there’s Mace – that we can’t breathe – I don’t know, I think we’re getting hijacked.” She then told of the stabbings of the two flight attendants.
… At 8:26, Ong reported that the plane was “flying erratically.” A minute later, Flight 11 turned south. …
Sweeney calmly reported on her line that the plane had been hijacked; a man in first class had his throat slashed; two flight attendants had been stabbed – one was seriously hurt and was on oxygen while the other’s wounds seemed minor ….
United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center’s south tower at 9:03 am. It had been hijacked between 8:42 and 8:46 am. Passengers Peter Hanson, Brian David Sweeney, and an unidentified flight attendant made phone calls reporting that United Airlines flight 175 had been hijacked and recounting events onboard the plane.
The 9-11 Commission Report (chapter one, pages 7-8) stated:
At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him, “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit – An attendant has been stabbed – and someone else up front may have been killed.” …
Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco …. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane.
… At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney … called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.
At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:
It’s getting bad, Dad – A stewardess was stabbed – They seem to have knives and Mace – They said they have a bomb – … The plane is making jerky movements – I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane – I think we are going down – Don’t worry, Dad – If it happens, it’ll be very fast – My God, my God.
The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both of them saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.
Thus, passengers and crew members from both flights reported that they had been hijacked, that passengers and crew members had been killed or wounded, and that the planes were flying in an erratic or jerky fashion, as would be the case if they were being flown by first-time pilots, as both hijacker pilots were. There was no mention or indication of a mysterious “remote control” takeover of the planes.
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-e...135102atlahtnevel0.7969629.html#ixzz12YGu86PQ
In 2002, French conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan wrote a book suggesting that a cruise missile instead of a plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Mr. Meyssan believes the attack on the Pentagon was masterminded not by al Qaida, but “from inside the American state apparatus.” (9/11: The Big Lie, page 139)
Mr. Meyssan’s claims suffer from numerous obvious flaws. He ignores or dismisses the facts that:
• many eyewitnesses saw a plane crash into the Pentagon;
• the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site;
• eyewitness reports and photographs show plane debris at the Pentagon crash site;
• passengers on American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls, reporting their aircraft had been hijacked; and
• senior al Qaida leaders have admitted they conducted the September 11 attacks.
Mr. Meyssan’s book, L’Effroyable Imposture [The Horrifying Fraud] is available in 19 languages — French, English, Spanish, German, Russian, Italian, Greek, Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Korean, Greek, Portugese, Romanian, Czech, Estonian, Croatian, Albanian, Serbian — and is being translated into four more — Chinese, Slovenian, Japanese, and Dutch. The book was published in English as 9/11: The Big Lie.
The book was severely criticized in the French press as soon as it appeared. The French newspaper Liberation called the book “The Frightening Confidence Trick … a tissue of wild and irresponsible allegations, entirely without foundation.” Nevertheless, the book was an instant bestseller in France, selling more than 200,000 copies.
Numerous Eyewitness Accounts
Mr. Meyssan suggests that a cruise missile with a depleted uranium warhead, not a plane, struck the Pentagon on September 11. But he never traveled to the United States to conduct research or interviewed any of the many eyewitnesses to the attack on the Pentagon. He ignores or dismisses the many eyewitness accounts — some of which specifically identified the plane as having American Airlines markings, as a Boeing 757, and as a plane with passengers onboard, visible through windows. See excerpts from some of the eyewitness accounts at the end of this document.
Passenger and Crew Remains Recovered at Pentagon Crash Site
In addition to the numerous eyewitness accounts, the remains of the passengers and crew on board American Airlines flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers on board American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims. These positive forensic identifications provide irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. In addition, rescue and recovery personnel at the Pentagon reported seeing the bodies of airline passengers. The September 14, 2001, edition of USA Today reported, “When [Army Sergeant Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped in their seats.”
Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site
People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory Web site that debunks the conspiracy theory claims. The e-mail also contains photographs of airplane landing gear, tires, and fuselage fragments, which were taken at the Pentagon crash site. Moreover, the “black boxes” — the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder — for American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site. For more photographs of debris from the airliner, including the crumpled "C" from "American Airlines," see portions 4:57 to 6:00 of the "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" video.
Passengers Report Hijackings
Mr. Meyssan’s book also ignores the fact that several passengers from American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls reporting that their plane had been hijacked.
At 9:12 am, approximately 10 minutes after the American Airlines flight 77 had been hijacked, passenger Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, to report that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane.
Minutes later, passenger Barbara Olson called her husband Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States, also reporting that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.
Al Qaida Admits it Conducted September 11 Attacks
Finally, high-ranking al Qaida members involved in the September 11 attacks, including Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Ramzi bin al Shibh, have openly admitted that they planned and executed the attacks. As Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda in April 2002, with reference to the September 11 attacks, “I am the head of the al Qaida military committee and Ramzi is the coordinator of the Holy Tuesday operation. And, yes, we did it.” (Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding, Masterminds of Terror, page 38)
Mr. Meyssan provides no explanation for what he believes happened to American Airlines flight 77. If the plane did not crash into the Pentagon, as he claims, where did the plane and all its passengers go? He has no explanation for this question.
Thus, there are:
• numerous eyewitness accounts of an American Airlines passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon;
• phone calls from passengers on American Airlines flight 77 reporting that it had been hijacked;
• eyewitness accounts of airplane parts and the bodies of airline passengers still strapped in their seats found at the Pentagon crash site, as well as photographs of airplane parts;
• the remains of bodies recovered at the Pentagon crash site positively identified as matching those of the passengers and crew on American Airlines flight 77;
• acknowledgements by high-ranking al Qaida members that they carried out the September 11 attacks.
In light of these facts, there is no doubt that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.
Eyewitness Accounts of Pentagon Attack
Following are some of the numerous eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash:
• Richard Benedetto: “It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly.”
• Omar Campo, a Salvadorean: “It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head.”
• Joseph Candelario: “I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.”
• James Cissell: “I saw this plane coming in and it was low — and getting lower. … Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board.”
• Dennis Clem: “There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon.”
• Michael Dobbs: “It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle.”
• Penny Elgas: “… the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car …. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane — I could see the windows and the color stripes.”
• Cheryl Hammond: “We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running.”
• Joe Harrington: “… one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd.”
• Albert Hemphill: “The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus.”
• Terrance Kean: “I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon.”
• William Lagasse: “It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. … I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground.”
• Robert Leonard: “I … saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon.”
• Lincoln Liebner: “I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low.”
• Elaine McCusker: “I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating.”
• Mitch Mitchell: “I … saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it …. It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon.”
• Terry Morin: “The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines.”
• Christopher Munsey: “I couldn’t believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ….”
• Vin Narayanan: “I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet.”
• John O’Keefe: “I don’t know whether I saw or heard it first — this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ….”
• Steve Riskus: “I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines’ logo on the tail as it headed towards the building . … I clearly saw the ‘AA’ logo with the eagle in the middle.”
• James Ryan: “I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. … The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane.”
• Joel Sucherman: “… looking straight ahead there was a jet, what looked to be an American Airlines jet, probably a 757, and it came screaming across the highway … [and] hit the west side of the Pentagon.”
• Donald “Tim” Timmerman, a pilot: “I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon … and so I have quite a panorama. … It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.”
• Mike Walter: “I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. … It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. I saw the big ‘AA’ on the side.”
• Ian Wyatt: “I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane and then boom.”
Finally, The 9/11 Commission Report (chapter one, pages 25-26) states that on September 11, air traffic controllers at Washington’s Reagan National Airport instructed a C-130H cargo plane that had just taken off from the airport to try to follow the plane that had been spotted on radar as heading toward Washington. According to the report, “The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: ‘looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.’”
In sum, many people on nearby roads or in nearby buildings saw a large passenger plane hit the Pentagon and, as the above eyewitness testimonies demonstrate, numerous people specifically identified it as an American Airlines plane.
1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.
This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:
• Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
• Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
• Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded signs of any explosions prior to the tower collapses. Instead, seismic spikes were noted when debris began hitting the ground.
• Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
• Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
• For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article (PDF, 56 K) on the WTC collapses, the March 2005 Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5, “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers,” and the video 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-engl...28133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html#ixzz12YHNckTR
Herpderp
Also, here's my refutation:
Introduction
The first conspiracy theories about 9/11 began to emerge while the wreckage was still smoldering. As evidence accumulated that conclusively linked the hijackings to Al Qaeda, some self-proclaimed skeptics searched for alternative explanations. Many seemed driven to find a way to blame the United States for somehow abetting, or even orchestrating, the tragedy.
In the years since the attacks, these assertions have grown progressively more lurid and pervasive. If you search the phrase "9/11 conspiracy" on the Internet, you will discover more than 800,000 Web pages. A few skeptics make a responsible effort to sift through the mountain of available information, but a vast majority ignore all but a few stray details they think support their theories. In fact, many conspiracy advocates demonstrate a double standard. They distrust the mainstream media coverage and government sponsored investigations of 9/11, yet they cherry-pick from those same sources to promote their extreme notions: that the hijacked planes weren't commercial jets, but military aircraft, cruise missiles, or remote-control drones; that the World Trade Center buildings were professionally demolished; that American air defenses were deliberately shut down; and more.
Increasingly, such beliefs are migrating from the fringes and into the mainstream. French author Thierry Meyssan's The Big Lie, which argues that the U.S. military used one of its own guided missiles to attack the Pentagon, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. When Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to President George W. Bush in May 2006, his rambling missive included broad hints that the American government was involved in organizing the attacks. Allegations of American complicity in 9/11 have become standard fare on talk radio, and among both radical left- and radical right-wing groups. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia, has held a Capitol Hill hearing on the topic. Celebrities have gotten into the act as well. "Why did Bush knock down the towers?" rapper Jadakiss asked in his 2004 hit "Why?" And, in an interview with conspiracy-oriented talk-show host Alex Jones, actor Charlie Sheen embraced a variety of popular conspiracy theories.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts." Sooner or later, even the wildest 9/11 theories rely on factual claims. And facts can be checked.
Popular Mechanics became involved in investigating 9/11 conspiracy theories in the fall of 2004, after an advertisement ran in the New York Times for the book Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid, demanding that the 9/11 investigation be reopened. Hufschmid's book includes a number of tangible claims regarding 9/11. It states, for example, that because jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, the fires in the World Trade Center towers could not have caused their collapse. And it claims ample evidence exists to show that demolition-style explosives were prepositioned in the buildings.
As editors of a magazine devoted to science and technology, we saw these claims as significant. Was there hard evidence to support them? And, if so, what would be the implications for our understanding of 9/11? At the very least, we thought, someone should look into these allegations. If there were even a hint of truth to these or similar claims, then the conspiracy theorists had a point: There should be a deeper investigation.
The magazine assembled a team of reporters and researchers and methodically began to analyze the most common factual claims made by conspiracy theorists--assertions that are at the root of the majority of 9/11 alternative scenarios. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses, and members of the investigative teams--more than 300 sources in all. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs, and transcripts. The results of our research appeared in the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics. That cover story, "9/11: Debunking the Myths," provoked a strong reaction on the internet and in the mainstream media. The online version of the article remains the most frequently read story on www.popularmechanics.com and has been printed out more than 850,000 times.
In the months after we published the investigation, many readers--both critics and supporters--wrote to suggest other evidence they thought we had overlooked or to raise new claims they believed worthy of investigation. At the same time, many of the inaccurate claims the magazine investigated continued to appear uncorrected in popular settings, such as Wikipedia, the open-source online encyclopedia, and Loose Change, the 9/11 conspiracy documentary that has become a sensation on college campuses. With the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approaching, we decided to extend our original investigation and publish a book-length version of our findings. We expanded our team of reporters, reinterviewed experts and sources from our first investigation, and, as much as possible, addressed the additional questions raised by both critics and supporters.
The goal of this book is not to tell the complete story of what happened on September 11, 2001. There are numerous excellent sources, including the 9/11 Commission's report and the New York Times and other newspapers, that chronicle the attacks in painful detail. Instead, this book aims only to answer the questions raised by conspiracy theorists themselves. Strip away the political theorizing and logical leaps, and every conspiracy theory ultimately comes down to a small set of claims based on evidence that can be examined. These claims are the only points where the theorists' elaborate conjectures make contact with the real world. Without these foundations, the theories crumble. In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified.
We understand that not all conspiracy theorists agree with all conspiracy theories. Some prominent theorists even claim that certain theories they deem less plausible have been "planted" in order to make the entire movement look ridiculous. We don't take sides in these debates. We simply checked the facts.
The work of comprehending the events of 9/11 is not finished. It is vital to understand exactly what went wrong that day and to make sure it does not happen again. There were lapses and shortcomings on the part of government agencies in the months and years leading up to 9/11. Every American wishes our government had been more alert and better prepared. And every American is entitled to ask hard questions. But there is a world of difference between believing that our government should have known what was coming and claiming that someone did know and deliberately did nothing--or, even worse, actively perpetrated attacks on its own citizens. By deliberately blurring that line, conspiracy theorists exploit and misdirect the public's legitimate anger over the events of that day.
Some argue that alternative 9/11 scenarios are valuable in that they promote skepticism of a government that has not always been as open as many would like. But a climate of poisonous suspicion will not help America adjust to the post-9/11 world. And the search for truth is not aided by the dissemination of falsehoods.
—David Dunbar and Brad Reagan
Foreword
By Senator John McCain
No American living today will forget what happened on September 11, 2001. Each of us will remember how the serenity of that bright morning was destroyed by a savage atrocity, an act so hostile we could scarcely imagine any human being capable of it. The realization sank into the hearts of every one of us: America was vulnerable and under attack. On September 11, evil literally took flight.
But as 19 men showed the world their worst, we Americans displayed what makes our country great: courage and heroism, compassion and generosity, unity and resolve. We were united, first in sorrow and anger, then in recognition that we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are--a people united in a kinship of ideals, committed to the notion that the people are sovereign, and that people everywhere, no matter what their race or country or religion, possess certain universal and inalienable rights. In that moment, we were not different races. We were not poor or rich. We were not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. We were not two countries.
We were Americans.
As Americans, we acted swiftly. We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe. We revamped our homeland security, reorganized our intelligence community, and advocated reform in calcified societies.
We did these things because it was clear a new page had turned in history's book. The terrorists who attacked America were clear about their intentions. Bin Laden and his ilk have perverted a peaceful religion, devoting it not to the salvation of souls but to the destruction of bodies. They wish to destroy us, to bring the world under totalitarian rule according to some misguided religious fantasy. Our cherished ideals of freedom, equality, and religious tolerance stand in their way.
And so they fight us. Their fight is no secret; September 11 was the most horrific of a long string of attacks, from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 to the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa to the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Al Qaeda does not hide its hand in these crimes; rather, it boasts of its destruction and calls for more.
But though the evidence for Al Qaeda's central role in the 9/11 attacks is overwhelming, many have found the facts unsatisfying. Perhaps this is understandable. We want to believe that 19 men could not murder our citizens, destroy our grandest buildings, and terrorize our country. Surely, something more was at work.
Such sentiments are not new. Many Americans have resisted the notion that an island nation far from our shores could launch a surprise attack against our Navy; that Communism could remain viable in the world without assistance within the U.S. government itself; that one man in a book depository could end the life of a beloved president.
We would like to think there was something more at work on September 11--something hidden, more sophisticated, something as grand as the lives so easily destroyed. Those unsatisfied with the ordinary truth of the attacks have concocted stories more fanciful, more conspiratorial than the events as we know them. Others have done the same for more nefarious reasons. Some, accustomed to viewing U.S. actions as the wellspring of global problems, cannot accept that others wrought evil here. Political extremists peddle explanations that support their ideologies. And still others deliberately fabricate damaging tales.
This conspiracy-mongering is no small phenomenon. Any Internet search will turn up thousands of explanations for the events of September 11.These theories come in nearly infinite variety, but all reach essentially the same conclusion: that the U.S. government, or some shadowy group that controls it, organized the attacks as part of a master plan for global domination. But the truth is more mundane. The philosopher Hannah Arendt described the banality of Nazi evil; the 9/11 hijackers were also ordinary, uninteresting men with twisted beliefs.
In the immediate aftermath of their attacks, all of us had questions. Why didn't we have better intelligence? How could our airport security be so poor? Why weren't we better prepared? Who carried out these attacks, and why? All good questions, and thousands of dedicated Americans, both in and out of government, have worked hard to answer them. Journalists, the 9/11 Commission, Congressional investigators, academic researchers, and others have reconstructed these terrible events in extraordinary detail. Much of what we have learned has been frustrating, even infuriating. Anger can be healthy when it spurs a commitment to change. But it is corrosive and dangerous when it curdles into paranoia and suspicion.
Blaming some conspiracy within our government for the horrific attacks of September 11 mars the memories of all those lost on that day. There were errors and missteps in our government's response, to be sure, but the performance of our public servants was on the whole heroic, not destructive. For their service--for their lives--we are indebted, and we are obliged to pay our debts to those who sacrificed. To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11 insults the police officers and firefighters who raced into the burning towers; the men and women who left for dangerous, distant lands to fight our enemies; and those who have fought in all the wars of our history.
Any explanation for the tragedy of September 11 must start and end with the facts. The evidence, the data, the facts must be gathered, compiled, analyzed, and then--only then--can conclusions be drawn as to what happened. That is precisely what the various investigators have done, and in so doing they have performed a great service to our nation. And yet still the conspiracy theorists peddle their wares.
They ignore the methods of science, the protocols of investigation, and the dictates of logic. The conspiracy theorists chase any bit of information, no matter how flimsy, and use it to fit their preordained conclusions. They ascribe to the government, or to some secretive group, powers wholly out of proportion to what the evidence suggests. And they ignore the facts that are present in plain sight.
We cannot let these tales go unanswered. The 9/11 conspiracy movement exploits the public's anger and sadness. It shakes Americans' faith in their government at a time when that faith is already near an all-time low. It traffics in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans. And, as we have seen recently in the Iranian president's bizarre letter to President Bush, it has even entered the currency of international affairs.
The conspiracy theories are a distraction from the proper lessons of 9/11, from what is truly important to this country. And so it is imperative to confront them with the facts. The authors of this book, through their extensive reporting, disprove these tales of conspiracy. They show that, without exception, the stories are based on misconceptions, distortions, and outright lies. The CIA was not involved in 9/11. Our military did not bring about the destruction of the World Trade Center. Bombs or missiles did not fell the towers. A white jet aircraft did not shoot down Flight 93.
Popular Mechanics stands for an old-fashioned approach to facts. It relies on reporting, evidence, and eyewitnesses, and rejects speculation, falsehoods, and conspiracy. In confronting the various theories head-on, Popular Mechanics shows that evidence and logic matter, and they matter critically. We have much to learn about September 11, 2001, about what happened and about the many lessons it holds for our country. That is the debate we need to have in America. By refuting destructive beliefs in fanciful tales of mayhem, Popular Mechanics has produced a valuable work that will be an important resource for years to come. It represents the innocent thousands who perished on that terrible day--those innocent thousands who deserve to be remembered with honor and truth.
—
GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, responded directly to many conspiracy claims here this morning at his press conference in NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., which was attended by mainstream media and a handful of conspiracy theorist media, including a representative from InfoWars.com, a Web site that puts forward9/11 conspiracy theories. Sunder specifically addressed conspiracy claims linked to WTC 7. "Before I tell you what we found, I'd like to tell you what we did not find," Sunder told reporters. "We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. The collapse was also not due to fires from the substantial amount of diesel fuel stored in the buildings."
Here is a summary of some common 9/11 conspiracy theory claims regarding WTC 7, along with NIST's response:
Claim: "No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode," says WTC7.net, a Web site dedicated to conspiracy theories. "The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth."
NIST report and press conference: Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns.
Claim: The shape of the building's tidy pile of wreckage is consistent with a demolition, conspiracy theorists say.
NIST report and press conference: Sunder agrees that the wreckage was tidy and explained why. "If you look at columns 79, 80 and 81 [three of the building's central columns], the floor area that they're carrying is very large--particularly column 79, which was carrying about 2000 sq. ft. of floor area." Column 79 was the first column to fail. "It was an interior column that failed, followed by two more interior columns [80 and 81], then east to west. So what you're seeing is an interior collapse, then to the outside. What you're getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it's not."
Claim: The way the building fell was caused by demolition or thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which produces brief but intense and highly localized incendiary effects.)
NIST report and press conference: Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.
Prominent conspiracy theorist Steven Jones and others have suggested that thermate could have been inserted into a column, exploding the column without the loud boom of a demolition. Sunder said his team considered that theory. "In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed--at least 100 pounds for one column--you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely."
Claim: At the press conference, theorists questioned why NIST had just now found a previously undocumented cause of building collapse.
NIST report and press conference: The particulars of WTC 7's design contributed to the thermal expansion. WTC 7 had floor spans up to 54 ft. long. "Longer beams can be subject to proportionally greater expansion effects," Sunder noted. "Other tall buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing--when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional. So we knew from the beginning of our study that understanding what happened to Building 7 on 9/11 would be difficult. It did not fit any textbook description that you could readily point to and say, yes, that's why the building failed." The issue, Sunder said, was that buildings are not typically tested for their structural response to fire.
Claim: The minimal wreckage available for later investigation has generated speculation. Some conspirators point to the fast removal of debris as evidence of a government coverup.
NIST report and press conference: Compared to WTC 1 and 2, NIST had very little WTC 7 wreckage to study. The site was cleared quickly in a search-an- rescue effort, and much of the debris was transported to salvage yards. "There was no loss of life," Sunder noted. "In hindsight, we knew that the building was evacuated. But we didn't know that on that day." Hundreds of investigators at the salvage yards later found that the Twin Towers' steel columns were labeled and numbered, while the columns from Towers 5, 6 and 7 were not. "I am not surprised that there wasn't a lot of identifiable debris," Sunder said. "But at the time, we were concerned about terrorists who attacked our country and search and rescue. I think the fact that they [invesigators] didn't collect [wreckage] was the least important activity that happened that day."
Claim: Many theorists have suggested that the long delay in an explanatory report is further proof of a government coverup.
NIST and press conference: NIST first had to complete the investigation on the collapse of the Twin Towers and publish its report before turning to WTC 7. The Twin Towers report was released in September 2005. "We thought we might be able to do things much quicker and faster because of our tower experience," Sunder said. "I think we underestimated the amount of effort that would be required to answer the questions that we raised." In addition, new computer models of the collapse had to be created. "A typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art cluster of Linux computers. We had computer programs that took six to eight months to get a correct run, and we wanted to make sure we got this right. And three years is not an unusual length of time." Sunder emphasized that previous reports were preliminary and provisional. "We didn't have the insight that thermal expansion could have happened until early last year," Sunder said. "After that it was smooth sailing." Until last year, NIST was still investigating other hypotheses, including whether the building's location on top of an electric substation played a critical role and whether 6000 gal. of diesel fuel used to power backup generators in the building directly weakened the columns. Both hypotheses were abandoned.
Sunder classified the report's conclusions as "simple, straightforward, elegant and going along with what was observed. I would say that the findings we have are incredibly conclusive that fire is why WTC 7 collapsed."
GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."
Conspiracy theorists have long pointed to the collapse of the 47-story structure as key evidence that the U.S. government orchestrated or abetted the 9/11 attacks. No planes struck the building, and the commonly available views of the exterior didn't show significant damage. Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. "It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.
Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.
The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.
After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.
The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."
The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."
Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.
NIST will accept public comment on the final report until Sept. 15, 2008.
NIST's press release and other material on the report can be found here. Click here to download the full report in pdf form.
Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most popular myths are:
1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.
This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:
• Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
• Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
• Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded signs of any explosions prior to the tower collapses. Instead, seismic spikes were noted when debris began hitting the ground.
• Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
• Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
• For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article (PDF, 56 K) on the WTC collapses, the March 2005 Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5, “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers,” and the video 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.
2) No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11. Instead, it was a missile fired by elements “from inside the American state apparatus.”
Conspiracy theorists making this claim ignore several facts:
• The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA.
• The flight’s black boxes were also recovered at the site.
• Numerous eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Some saw passengers through the plane’s windows. Missiles don’t have windows or carry passengers.
• Numerous photographs show airplane debris at the crash site, as was also witnessed by survivors and rescue personnel. See sections 4:57 to 6:00 of the “911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77” video for pictures of airliner debris.
• For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?” and Popular Mechanics, part 6.
3) United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was shot down by a missile.
• The cockpit voice recorder of this flight was recovered and showed that the passenger revolt caused the hijackers to deliberately crash the plane. The hijackers controlled the plane until its impact. See full transcript.
• The U.S. military did not learn that flight 93 had been hijacked until several minutes after it crashed, as tapes released in 2006 demonstrate.
• The military never gave interceptor pilots authorization to shoot down United flight 93. See an article on the tapes.
• Listen to the 45-second message to her husband left by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles on her home answering machine.
• For more information, see The 9/11 Commission Report chapter 1, “We Have Some Planes,” pages 13–14.
The Pentagon attack site on September 14, 2001. (© AP Images)
4) World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition.
• This allegation was fueled by a comment by the WTC owner that, after WTC 7 was judged to be unstable, he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building, using the phrase “pull it” in reference to the contingent of firefighters.
• Conspiracy theorists have interpreted the “pull it” remark as slang for demolishing the building with explosives. But demolition experts say “pulling” a building means attaching long cables to a weakened structure and literally pulling it down with bulldozers and other powerful machinery — not using explosives.
• The audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC collapse showed no evidence of the extremely loud sounds that would have indicated the use of explosives. Also, seismographs recorded no telltale spikes or anomalies.
• An exhaustive three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that fires caused by the collapse of the nearby WTC north tower caused fires that burned out of control in WTC 7. These fires caused steel beams to expand and buckle, leading to the collapse of the building.
• See the NIST videos on the collapse of WTC 7.
• For more information, see “The Collapse of World Trade Center 7,” the ImplosionWorld article (PDF, 56 K), and Popular Mechanics, part 5.
5) The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled.
• Boeing, which manufactured the planes that struck the towers, stated that all its commercial jet transports are configured so that they cannot be controlled from anywhere except the flight deck of the aircraft.
• Passengers onboard the flights made several phone calls. All reported that hijackers had commandeered the planes.
• For more information, see “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers.”
6) Insider trading in the stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines just before September 11 is evidence of advance knowledge of the plot.
• The 9/11 Commission investigated this issue in detail, concluding, “Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.”
• For example, it stated, “much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [Airlines stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.”
• For other examples, see The 9/11 Commission Report, “Notes” section, page 499, footnote 130.
7) Four thousand Jews failed to show up for work at the World Trade Center on September 11.
• It appears from media reports that some 10 percent to 15 percent of WTC victims were Jewish, indicating there were no mass absences.
• The “4,000” figure apparently came from an early statement by the Israeli Foreign Ministry that some “4,000 Israelis” were believed to be in the New York and Washington areas, where the attacks occurred. This figure was apparently seized upon by conspiracy theorists, in an attempt to bolster the false rumor.
• For more information, see “The 4,000 Jews Rumor.”
8) Al Qaida is not responsible for the September 11 attacks.
• Al Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, have repeatedly confirmed that they planned and carried out the September 11 attacks.
• In an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, bin Laden stated, “I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers … with those raids..”
• In a November 2001 tape, bin Laden said, “We calculated in advance the number of casualties … who would be killed. … I was the most optimistic of them all. … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.”
• For more information, see “Al Qaida Confirms It Carried Out the September 11 Attacks.”
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-engl...28133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html#ixzz12YGGJNJt
Al Qaida Confirms It Carried Out the September 11 Attacks
Both Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, have confirmed that al Qaida planned and carried out the September 11 attacks.
2004 Videotape
In a videotape broadcast on October 30, 2004, Osama bin Laden admitted that he and al Qaida had planned and directed the September 11 attacks. He stated, “I shall talk to you about the story behind those events (the September 11 attacks) and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken ….” He confirmed his direction of the details of operational planning, stating, “for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Atta … that all operations should be carried out within twenty minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.”
2006 Audiotape
Osama bin Laden repeated that he had planned the September 11 attacks in an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, stating:
I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers - Allah have mercy upon them - with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission.
2001 Videotape
The first direct indication of al Qaida involvement came in a videotape of bin Laden talking to a group of supporters in November 2001, which was obtained by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in late November and released on December 13, 2001. The videotape was clearly intended for internal al Qaida use and bin Laden appeared fully aware that the tape was being made. Independent scholars gave verified that the translation released by the U.S. government is accurate.
The videotape shows clearly that bin Laden knew in advance of the attacks. He said:
We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.
The videotape indicates that, five days before the attacks, which occurred on a Tuesday, bin Laden knew the date and time they would occur:
We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5:30 p.m. our time [8:00 am in New York and Washington]. … Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington. The news continued and no mention of the attack until the end. At the end of the newscast, they reported that a plane just hit the World Trade Center. … After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it. …
Bin Laden knew there would be multiple attacks:
They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building, so I said to them: be patient. The difference between the first and the second plane hitting the towers was twenty minutes. And the difference between the first plane and the plane that hit the Pentagon was one hour.
The videotape shows that bin Laden was very familiar with the operational planning for the attacks:
Muhammad Atta from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group. … The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes. … Those who were trained to fly didn't know the others. One group of people did not know the other group.
April 2002 Interview
Several months later, senior al Qaida official Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also confirmed that al Qaida had carried out the attacks. In April 2002, Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda interviewed Khalid, who proposed the September 11 scheme to bin Laden, and Ramzi Binalshibh, who played a key role in the preparation for 9/11. Fouda asked Khalid if al Qaida was responsible for the September 11 attacks and Khalid confirmed that it was:
Fouda summoned every thread of experience, looked Khalid in the eye and asked: ‘Did you do it [the September 11 attacks]?’ But Khalid didn’t flinch.
‘No filming today,’ he declared, ‘and you do not have to worry about a camera or a cameraman for tomorrow. We will provide everything.’
Ramzi added his own detail of the arrangements: ‘You will be going straight from here to your flight whenever we are done.’
Then, with little fanfare, Khalid got down to business by making an announcement that hit Fouda like a heavyweight punch. ‘I am the head of the al Qaida military committee,’ he said, ‘and Ramzi is the coordinator of the Holy Tuesday operation. And yes, we did it.’ [Masterminds of Terror, Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding (New York: Arcade Publishing, 2003), p. 38.]
9/11 Commission Report
The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, released in 2004, confirms that al Qaida planned and executed the attacks, providing many previously unknown details. Its reconstruction of events is based largely on information provided by September 11 planners Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ramzi Binalshibh, and others.
Excerpts from chapter five of the report:
Just as KSM was reestablishing himself in Afghanistan in mid-1996, Bin Ladin and his colleagues were also completing their migration from Sudan. Through [Al Qaida military commander Mohammed] Atef, KSM arranged a meeting with Bin Ladin in Tora Bora …. (p. 148)
… At the meeting, KSM … presented a proposal for an operation that would involve training pilots who would crash planes into buildings in the United States. This proposal would eventually become the 9/11 operation.
… Bin Ladin listened to KSM’s ideas without much comment, but did ask KSM formally to join al Qaida and move his family to Afghanistan.
KSM declined. He preferred to remain independent ….
… Bin Ladin, apparently at Atef’s urging, finally decided to give KSM the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. (p. 149)
KSM then accepted Bin Ladin’s standing invitation to move to Kandahar and work directly with al Qaida.
… At this point, late 1998 to early 1999, planning for the 9/11 operation began in earnest. (p. 150)
… KSM has insisted to his interrogators that he always contemplated hijacking and crashing large commercial aircraft. Indeed, KSM describes a grandiose original plan: a total of ten aircraft to be hijacked, nine of which would crash into targets on both coasts – they included those eventually hit on September 11 plus CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and the state of Washington. KSM himself was to land the tenth plane at a U.S. airport and, after killing all adult male passengers on board and alerting the media, deliver a speech ….
KSM concedes that this proposal received a lukewarm response from al Qaida leaders skeptical of its scale and complexity. Although Bin Ladin listened to KSM’s proposal, he was not convinced that it was practical.
… KSM acknowledges formally joining al Qaida, in late 1998 or early 1999, and states that soon afterward, Bin Ladin also made the decision to support his proposal to attack the United States using commercial airplanes as weapons.
… Bin Ladin summoned KSM to Kandahar in March or April 1999 to tell him that al Qaida would support his proposal. The plot was now referred to within al Qaida as the “planes operation.” (p. 154)
… KSM’s original concept of using one of the hijacked planes to make a media statement was scrapped, but Bin Ladin considered the basic idea feasible. Bin Ladin, Atef, and KSM developed an initial list of targets. These included the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center. According to KSM, Bin Ladin wanted to destroy the White House and the Pentagon, KSM wanted to strike the World Trade Center, and all of them wanted to hit the Capitol. No one else was involved in the initial selection of targets.
Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives: Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Khallad, and Abu Bara al Yemeni. (p. 155)
Pages 156-159 of the report provide details on the training of these four initial suicide operatives. Further excerpts:
… Hamzi and Mihdhar … arrived in Los Angeles on January 15, 2000. (p. 159)
Meanwhile, the next group of al Qaida operatives destined for the planes operation [the Hamburg group] had just surfaced in Afghanistan. … The new recruits had come to Afghanistan aspiring to wage jihad in Chechnya. But al Qaida quickly recognized their potential and enlisted them in its anti-U.S. jihad.
… Mohammed Atta, Ramzi Binalshibh, Marwan al Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah would all become key players in the 9/11 conspiracy. (p. 160)
… In March 2000, Atta emailed 31 different U.S. flight schools on behalf of a small group of men from various Arab countries studying in Germany who, while lacking prior training, were interested in learning to fly in the United States.
… Binalshibh proved unable to obtain a visa, a victim of the generalized suspicion that visa applicants from Yemen – especially young men applying in another country (Binalshibh first applied in Berlin) – might join the ranks of undocumented aliens seeking work in the United States. (p. 168)
… By late May 2000, two operatives assigned to the planes operation were already in the United States. Three of the four Hamburg cell members would soon arrive. (p. 173)
Excerpts from chapter seven:
Hazmi and Mihdhar came to the United States to learn English, take flying lessons, and become pilots as quickly as possible. They turned out, however, to have no aptitude for English. … This lack of language skills in turn became an insurmountable barrier to learning how to fly. (p. 221)
… [Flight ] instructors who worked with Hamzi and Mihdhar remember them as poor students who focused on learning to control the aircraft in flight but took no interest in takeoffs or landings. By the end of May 2000, Hamzi and Mihdhar had given up on learning how to fly. (p. 222)
… In the early summer of 2000, the Hamburg group arrived in the United States to begin flight training. (p. 223)
… Unable to participate directly in the operation, Binalshibh instead took on the role of coordinating between KSM and the operatives in the United States. … one of Binalshibh’s first tasks in his new role as plot coordinator was to assist another possible pilot, Zacarias Moussaoui.
In the fall of 2000, KSM had sent Moussaoui to Malaysia for flight training, but Moussaoui did not find a school he liked.
… Confronting training or travel problems with Hamzi, Mihdhar, Binalshibh, and Mossaoui, al Qaida was looking for another possible pilot candidate. A new recruit with just the right background [Hani Hanjour] conveniently presented himself in Afghanistan. (p. 225)
… According to KSM, Hanjour was sent to him in Karachi for inclusion in the plot after Hanjour was identified in al Qaida’s al Faruq camp as a trained pilot, on the basis of background information he had provided.
… On December 8 [2000], Hanjour traveled to San Diego. (p. 226)
… By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast [Atta, Shehhi, and Jarrad] were simulating flights on large jets. (p. 227)
… During the summer and early autumn of 2000, Bin Ladin and senior al Qaida leaders in Afghanistan started selecting the muscle hijackers – the operatives who would storm the cockpits and control the passengers. (p. 231)
… Bin Ladin, assisted by Atef, personally chose all the future muscle hijackers for the planes operations, primarily between the summer of 2000 and April 2001. Upon choosing a trainee, Bin Ladin would ask him to swear loyalty for a suicide operation. After the selection and oath-swearing, the operative would be sent to KSM for training and the filming of a martyrdom video ….
… [Captured al Qaida operative] Khallad believes KSM wanted between four and six operatives per plane. KSM states that al Qaida originally planned to use 25 or 26 hijackers but ended up with only 19.
… [T]he muscle hijackers returned to Afghanistan for special training in late 2000 to early 2001. (p. 235)
… [Al Qaida trainer] Abu Turab taught the operatives how to conduct hijackings, disarm air marshals, and handle explosives. He also trained them in bodybuilding and provided them with a few basic English words and phrases.
According to KSM, Abu Turab even had the trainees butcher a sheep and a camel with a knife to prepare to use knives during the hijackings. … According to KSM, the muscle did not learn the full details – including the plan to hijack planes and fly them into buildings – before reaching the United States. (p. 236)
… By the end of June [2001], 14 of the 15 muscle hijackers had crossed the Atlantic. (p. 237)
… [In a July 2001 meeting in Spain,] Binalshibh says he told Atta that Bin Ladin wanted the attacks carried out as soon as possible. … Binalshibh advised Atta that Bin Ladin had directed that the other operatives not be informed of the date until the last minute. Atta was to provide Binalshibh with advance notice of at least a week or two so that Binalshibh could travel to Afghanistan and report the date personally to Bin Ladin.
As to targets, Atta understood Bib Ladin’s interest in striking the White House. Atta said he thought this target was too difficult, but had tasked Hamzi and Hanjour to evaluate its feasibility and was awaiting their answer. Atta said that those two operatives had rented small aircraft and flown reconnaissance flights near the Pentagon. Atta explained that Hanjour was assigned to attack the Pentagon, Jarrah the Capitol, and that both Atta and Shehhi would hit the World Trade Center. If any pilot could not reach his intended target, he was to crash the plane. If Atta could not strike the World Trade Center, he planned to crash his aircraft directly into the streets of New York. (p. 244)
… Atta told Binalshibh he wanted to select planes departing on long flights because they would be full of fuel, and that he wanted to hijack Boeing aircraft because he believed them easier to fly than Airbus aircraft, which he understood had an autopilot feature that did not allow them to be crashed into the ground. (p. 245)
… On August 3 [2001] … Atta and Binalshibh discussed several matters, such as the best way for the operatives to purchase plane tickets and the assignment of muscle hijackers to individual teams. Atta and Binalshibh also revisited the question of whether to target the White House. They discussed targets in coded language, pretending to be students discussing various field of study” “architecture” referred to the World Trade Center, “arts” the Pentagon, “law” the Capitol, and “politics” the White House.
Binalshibh reminded Atta that Bin Ladin wanted to target the White House. Atta again cautioned that this would be difficult. When Binalshibh persisted, Atta agreed to include the White House but suggested they keep the Capitol as an alternate target in case the White House proved too difficult. Atta also suggested that the attacks would not happen until after the first week in September, when Congress reconvened. (p. 248)
… Through August, the hijackers kept busy with their gym training and the pilots took frequent practice runs on small rented aircraft. The operatives also began to make purchases suggesting that their planning was coming to an end. In mid-August, for example, they bought small knives that may actually have been used in the attacks. On August 22, moreover, Jarrah attempted to purchase four GPS [global positioning system] units from a pilot shop in Miami. He was able to buy only one unit, which he picked up a few days later when he also purchased three aeronautical charts.
… All 19 [plane] tickets were booked and purchased between August 25 and September 5. (p. 249)
… According to KSM, in late August, when the operation was fully planned, Bin Ladin formally notified the al Qaida Shura Council that a major attack against the United States would take place in the coming weeks. When some council members objected, Bin Ladin countered that Mullah Omar lacked authority to prevent al Qaida from conducting jihad outside Afghanistan. Though most of the Shura Council reportedly disagreed, Bin Ladin persisted. The attacks went forward.
… In the days just before 9/11, the hijackers returned leftover funds to al Qaida and assembled in their departure cities. They sent the excess funds by wire transfer to Hawsawi in the UAE, about $26,000 altogether. (p. 252)
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-e...747atlahtnevel4.168338e-02.html#ixzz12YGNFDzj
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We present the narrative of this report and the recommendations that flow from it to the President of the United States, the United States Congress, and the American people for their consideration. Ten Commissioners-five Republicans and five Democrats chosen by elected leaders from our nation's capital at a time of great partisan division-have come together to present this report without dissent.
We have come together with a unity of purpose because our nation demands it. September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States. The nation was unprepared.
A NATION TRANSFORMED
At 8:46 on the morning of September 11, 2001, the United States became a nation transformed.
An airliner traveling at hundreds of miles per hour and carrying some 10,000 gallons of jet fuel plowed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan. At 9:03, a second airliner hit the South Tower. Fire and smoke billowed upward. Steel, glass, ash, and bodies fell below. The Twin Towers, where up to 50,000 people worked each day, both collapsed less than 90 minutes later.
At 9:37 that same morning, a third airliner slammed into the western face of the Pentagon. At 10:03, a fourth airliner crashed in a field in southern Pennsylvania. It had been aimed at the United States Capitol or the White House, and was forced down by heroic passengers armed with the knowledge that America was under attack.
More than 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center; 125 died at the Pentagon; 256 died on the four planes. The death toll surpassed that at Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
This immeasurable pain was inflicted by 19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan. Some had been in the United States for more than a year, mixing with the rest of the population. Though four had training as pilots, most were not well-educated. Most spoke English poorly, some hardly at all. In groups of four or five, carrying with them only small knives, box cutters, and cans of Mace or pepper spray, they had hijacked the four planes and turned them into deadly guided missiles.
Why did they do this? How was the attack planned and conceived? How did the U.S. government fail to anticipate and prevent it? What can we do in the future to prevent similar acts of terrorism?
A Shock, Not a Surprise
The 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise. Islamist extremists had given plenty of warning that they meant to kill Americans indiscriminately and in large numbers. Although Usama Bin Ladin himself would not emerge as a signal threat until the late 1990s, the threat of Islamist terrorism grew over the decade.
In February 1993, a group led by Ramzi Yousef tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb. They killed six and wounded a thousand. Plans by Omar Abdel Rahman and others to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and other New York City landmarks were frustrated when the plotters were arrested. In October 1993, Somali tribesmen shot down U.S. helicopters, killing 18 and wounding 73 in an incident that came to be known as "Black Hawk down." Years later it would be learned that those Somali tribesmen had received help from al Qaeda.
In early 1995, police in Manila uncovered a plot by Ramzi Yousef to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners while they were flying over the Pacific. In November 1995, a car bomb exploded outside the office of the U.S. program manager for the Saudi National Guard in Riyadh, killing five Americans and two others. In June 1996, a truck bomb demolished the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and wounding hundreds. The attack was carried out primarily by Saudi Hezbollah, an organization that had received help from the government of Iran.
Until 1997, the U.S. intelligence community viewed Bin Ladin as a financier of terrorism, not as a terrorist leader. In February 1998, Usama Bin Ladin and four others issued a self-styled fatwa, publicly declaring that it was God's decree that every Muslim should try his utmost to kill any American, military or civilian, anywhere in the world, because of American "occupation" of Islam's holy places and aggression against Muslims.
In August 1998, Bin Ladin's group, al Qaeda, carried out near-simultaneous truck bomb attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and wounded thousands more.
In December 1999, Jordanian police foiled a plot to bomb hotels and other sites frequented by American tourists, and a U.S. Customs agent arrested Ahmed Ressam at the U.S. Canadian border as he was smuggling in explosives intended for an attack on Los Angeles International Airport.
In October 2000, an al Qaeda team in Aden, Yemen, used a motorboat filled with explosives to blow a hole in the side of a destroyer, the USS Cole, almost sinking the vessel and killing 17 American sailors.
The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were far more elaborate, precise, and destructive than any of these earlier assaults. But by September 2001, the executive branch of the U.S. government, the Congress, the news media, and the American public had received clear warning that Islamist terrorists meant to kill Americans in high numbers.
Who Is the Enemy?
Who is this enemy that created an organization capable of inflicting such horrific damage on the United States? We now know that these attacks were carried out by various groups of Islamist extremists. The 9/11 attack was driven by Usama Bin Ladin.
In the 1980s, young Muslims from around the world went to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in a jihad (or holy struggle) against the Soviet Union. A wealthy Saudi, Usama Bin Ladin, was one of them. Following the defeat of the Soviets in the late 1980s, Bin Ladin and others formed al Qaeda to mobilize jihads elsewhere.
The history, culture, and body of beliefs from which Bin Ladin shapes and spreads his message are largely unknown to many Americans. Seizing on symbols of Islam's past greatness, he promises to restore pride to people who consider themselves the victims of successive foreign masters. He uses cultural and religious allusions to the holy Qur'an and some of its interpreters. He appeals to people disoriented by cyclonic change as they confront modernity and globalization. His rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources-Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise.
Bin Ladin also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Islam's holiest sites, and against other U.S. policies in the Middle East.
Upon this political and ideological foundation, Bin Ladin built over the course of a decade a dynamic and lethal organization. He built an infrastructure and organization in Afghanistan that could attract, train, and use recruits against ever more ambitious targets. He rallied new zealots and new money with each demonstration of al Qaeda's capability. He had forged a close alliance with the Taliban, a regime providing sanctuary for al Qaeda.
By September 11, 2001, al Qaeda possessed
leaders able to evaluate, approve, and supervise the planning and direction of a major operation;
a personnel system that could recruit candidates, indoctrinate them, vet them, and give them the necessary training;
communications sufficient to enable planning and direction of operatives and those who would be helping them;
an intelligence effort to gather required information and form assessments of enemy strengths and weaknesses;
the ability to move people great distances; and
the ability to raise and move the money necessary to finance an attack.
1998 to September 11, 2001
The August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania established al Qaeda as a potent adversary of the United States.
After launching cruise missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the embassy bombings, the Clinton administration applied diplomatic pressure to try to persuade the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to expel Bin Ladin. The administration also devised covert operations to use CIA-paid foreign agents to capture or kill Bin Ladin and his chief lieutenants. These actions did not stop Bin Ladin or dislodge al Qaeda from its sanctuary.
By late 1998 or early 1999, Bin Ladin and his advisers had agreed on an idea brought to them by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) called the "planes operation." It would eventually culminate in the 9/11 attacks. Bin Ladin and his chief of operations, Mohammed Atef, occupied undisputed leadership positions atop al Qaeda. Within al Qaeda, they relied heavily on the ideas and enterprise of strong-willed field commanders, such as KSM, to carry out worldwide terrorist operations.
KSM claims that his original plot was even grander than those carried out on 9/11-ten planes would attack targets on both the East and West coasts of the United States. This plan was modified by Bin Ladin, KSM said, owing to its scale and complexity. Bin Ladin provided KSM with four initial operatives for suicide plane attacks within the United States, and in the fall of 1999 training for the attacks began. New recruits included four from a cell of expatriate Muslim extremists who had clustered together in Hamburg, Germany. One became the tactical commander of the operation in the United States: Mohamed Atta.
U.S. intelligence frequently picked up reports of attacks planned by al Qaeda. Working with foreign security services, the CIA broke up some al Qaeda cells. The core of Bin Ladin's organization nevertheless remained intact. In December 1999, news about the arrests of the terrorist cell in Jordan and the arrest of a terrorist at the U.S.-Canadian border became part of a "millennium alert." The government was galvanized, and the public was on alert for any possible attack.
In January 2000, the intense intelligence effort glimpsed and then lost sight of two operatives destined for the "planes operation." Spotted in Kuala Lumpur, the pair were lost passing through Bangkok. On January 15, 2000, they arrived in Los Angeles.
Because these two al Qaeda operatives had spent little time in the West and spoke little, if any, English, it is plausible that they or KSM would have tried to identify, in advance, a friendly contact in the United States. We explored suspicions about whether these two operatives had a support network of accomplices in the United States. The evidence is thin-simply not there for some cases, more worrisome in others.
We do know that soon after arriving in California, the two al Qaeda operatives sought out and found a group of ideologically like-minded Muslims with roots in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, individuals mainly associated with a young Yemeni and others who attended a mosque in San Diego. After a brief stay in Los Angeles about which we know little, the al Qaeda operatives lived openly in San Diego under their true names. They managed to avoid attracting much attention.
By the summer of 2000, three of the four Hamburg cell members had arrived on the East Coast of the United States and had begun pilot training. In early 2001, a fourth future hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, journeyed to Arizona with another operative, Nawaf al Hazmi, and conducted his refresher pilot training there. A number of al Qaeda operatives had spent time in Arizona during the 1980s and early 1990s.
During 2000, President Bill Clinton and his advisers renewed diplomatic efforts to get Bin Ladin expelled from Afghanistan. They also renewed secret efforts with some of the Taliban's opponents-the Northern Alliance-to get enough intelligence to attack Bin Ladin directly. Diplomatic efforts centered on the new military government in Pakistan, and they did not succeed. The efforts with the Northern Alliance revived an inconclusive and secret debate about whether the United States should take sides in Afghanistan's civil war and support the Taliban's enemies. The CIA also produced a plan to improve intelligence collection on al Qaeda, including the use of a small, unmanned airplane with a video camera, known as the Predator.
After the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, evidence accumulated that it had been launched by al Qaeda operatives, but without confirmation that Bin Ladin had given the order. The Taliban had earlier been warned that it would be held responsible for another Bin Ladin attack on the United States. The CIA described its findings as a "preliminary judgment"; President Clinton and his chief advisers told us they were waiting for a conclusion before deciding whether to take military action. The military alternatives remained unappealing to them.
The transition to the new Bush administration in late 2000 and early 2001 took place with the Cole issue still pending. President George W. Bush and his chief advisers accepted that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Cole, but did not like the options available for a response.
Bin Ladin's inference may well have been that attacks, at least at the level of the Cole, were risk free.
The Bush administration began developing a new strategy with the stated goal of eliminating the al Qaeda threat within three to five years.
During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings that al Qaeda planned, as one report put it, "something very, very, very big." Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told us, "The system was blinking red."
Although Bin Ladin was determined to strike in the United States, as President Clinton had been told and President Bush was reminded in a Presidential Daily Brief article briefed to him in August 2001, the specific threat information pointed overseas. Numerous precautions were taken overseas. Domestic agencies were not effectively mobilized. The threat did not receive national media attention comparable to the millennium alert.
While the United States continued disruption efforts around the world, its emerging strategy to eliminate the al Qaeda threat was to include an enlarged covert action program in Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The process culminated during the summer of 2001 in a draft presidential directive and arguments about the Predator aircraft, which was soon to be deployed with a missile of its own, so that it might be used to attempt to kill Bin Ladin or his chief lieutenants. At a September 4 meeting, President Bush's chief advisers approved the draft directive of the strategy and endorsed the concept of arming the Predator. This directive on the al Qaeda strategy was awaiting President Bush's signature on September 11, 2001.
Though the "planes operation" was progressing, the plotters had problems of their own in 2001. Several possible participants dropped out; others could not gain entry into the United States (including one denial at a port of entry and visa denials not related to terrorism). One of the eventual pilots may have considered abandoning the planes operation. Zacarias Moussaoui, who showed up at a flight training school in Minnesota, may have been a candidate to replace him.
Some of the vulnerabilities of the plotters become clear in retrospect. Moussaoui aroused suspicion for seeking fast-track training on how to pilot large jet airliners. He was arrested on August 16, 2001, for violations of immigration regulations. In late August, officials in the intelligence community realized that the terrorists spotted in Southeast Asia in January 2000 had arrived in the United States.
These cases did not prompt urgent action. No one working on these late leads in the summer of 2001 connected them to the high level of threat reporting. In the words of one official, no analytic work foresaw the lightning that could connect the thundercloud to the ground.
As final preparations were under way during the summer of 2001, dissent emerged among al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan over whether to proceed. The Taliban's chief, Mullah Omar, opposed attacking the United States. Although facing opposition from many of his senior lieutenants, Bin Ladin effectively overruled their objections, and the attacks went forward.
September 11, 2001
The day began with the 19 hijackers getting through a security checkpoint system that they had evidently analyzed and knew how to defeat. Their success rate in penetrating the system was 19 for 19.They took over the four flights, taking advantage of air crews and cockpits that were not prepared for the contingency of a suicide hijacking.
On 9/11, the defense of U.S. air space depended on close interaction between two federal agencies: the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Existing protocols on 9/11 were unsuited in every respect for an attack in which hijacked planes were used as weapons.
What ensued was a hurried attempt to improvise a defense by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction.
A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania. Planes were scrambled, but ineffectively, as they did not know where to go or what targets they were to intercept. And once the shootdown order was given, it was not communicated to the pilots. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters circling above them had been instructed to "take out" hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to "ID type and tail."
Like the national defense, the emergency response on 9/11 was necessarily improvised.
In New York City, the Fire Department of New York, the New York Police Department, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the building employees, and the occupants of the buildings did their best to cope with the effects of almost unimaginable events-unfolding furiously over 102 minutes. Casualties were nearly 100 percent at and above the impact zones and were very high among first responders who stayed in danger as they tried to save lives. Despite weaknesses in preparations for disaster, failure to achieve unified incident command, and inadequate communications among responding agencies, all but approximately one hundred of the thousands of civilians who worked below the impact zone escaped, often with help from the emergency responders.
At the Pentagon, while there were also problems of command and control, the emergency response was generally effective. The Incident Command System, a formalized management structure for emergency response in place in the National Capital Region, overcame the inherent complications of a response across local, state, and federal jurisdictions.
Operational Opportunities
We write with the benefit and handicap of hindsight. We are mindful of the danger of being unjust to men and women who made choices in conditions of uncertainty and in circumstances over which they often had little control.
Nonetheless, there were specific points of vulnerability in the plot and opportunities to disrupt it. Operational failures-opportunities that were not or could not be exploited by the organizations and systems of that time-included
not watchlisting future hijackers Hazmi and Mihdhar, not trailing them after they traveled to Bangkok, and not informing the FBI about one future hijacker's U.S. visa or his companion's travel to the United States;
not sharing information linking individuals in the Cole attack to Mihdhar;
not taking adequate steps in time to find Mihdhar or Hazmi in the United States;
not linking the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, described as interested in flight training for the purpose of using an airplane in a terrorist act, to the heightened indications of attack;
not discovering false statements on visa applications;
not recognizing passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner;
not expanding no-fly lists to include names from terrorist watchlists;
not searching airline passengers identified by the computer-based CAPPS screening system; and
not hardening aircraft cockpit doors or taking other measures to prepare for the possibility of suicide hijackings.
GENERAL FINDINGS
Since the plotters were flexible and resourceful, we cannot know whether any single step or series of steps would have defeated them. What we can say with confidence is that none of the measures adopted by the U.S. government from 1998 to 2001 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al Qaeda plot. Across the government, there were failures of imagination, policy, capabilities, and management.
Imagination
The most important failure was one of imagination. We do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat. The terrorist danger from Bin Ladin and al Qaeda was not a major topic for policy debate among the public, the media, or in the Congress. Indeed, it barely came up during the 2000 presidential campaign.
Al Qaeda's new brand of terrorism presented challenges to U.S. governmental institutions that they were not well-designed to meet. Though top officials all told us that they understood the danger, we believe there was uncertainty among them as to whether this was just a new and especially venomous version of the ordinary terrorist threat the United States had lived with for decades, or it was indeed radically new, posing a threat beyond any yet experienced.
As late as September 4, 2001, Richard Clarke, the White House staffer long responsible for counterterrorism policy coordination, asserted that the government had not yet made up its mind how to answer the question: "Is al Qida a big deal?"
A week later came the answer.
Policy
Terrorism was not the overriding national security concern for the U.S. government under either the Clinton or the pre-9/11 Bush administration.
The policy challenges were linked to this failure of imagination. Officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations regarded a full U.S. invasion of Afghanistan as practically inconceivable before 9/11.
Capabilities
Before 9/11, the United States tried to solve the al Qaeda problem with the capabilities it had used in the last stages of the Cold War and its immediate aftermath. These capabilities were insufficient. Little was done to expand or reform them.
The CIA had minimal capacity to conduct paramilitary operations with its own personnel, and it did not seek a large-scale expansion of these capabilities before 9/11. The CIA also needed to improve its capability to collect intelligence from human agents.
At no point before 9/11 was the Department of Defense fully engaged in the mission of countering al Qaeda, even though this was perhaps the most dangerous foreign enemy threatening the United States.
America's homeland defenders faced outward. NORAD itself was barely able to retain any alert bases at all. Its planning scenarios occasionally considered the danger of hijacked aircraft being guided to American targets, but only aircraft that were coming from overseas.
The most serious weaknesses in agency capabilities were in the domestic arena. The FBI did not have the capability to link the collective knowledge of agents in the field to national priorities. Other domestic agencies deferred to the FBI.
FAA capabilities were weak. Any serious examination of the possibility of a suicide hijacking could have suggested changes to fix glaring vulnerabilities-expanding no-fly lists, searching passengers identified by the CAPPS screening system, deploying federal air marshals domestically, hardening cockpit doors, alerting air crews to a different kind of hijacking possibility than they had been trained to expect. Yet the FAA did not adjust either its own training or training with NORAD to take account of threats other than those experienced in the past.
Management
The missed opportunities to thwart the 9/11 plot were also symptoms of a broader inability to adapt the way government manages problems to the new challenges of the twenty-first century. Action officers should have been able to draw on all available knowledge about al Qaeda in the government. Management should have ensured that information was shared and duties were clearly assigned across agencies, and across the foreign-domestic divide.
There were also broader management issues with respect to how top leaders set priorities and allocated resources. For instance, on December 4, 1998, DCI Tenet issued a directive to several CIA officials and the DDCI for Community Management, stating: "We are at war. I want no resources or people spared in this effort, either inside CIA or the Community." The memorandum had little overall effect on mobilizing the CIA or the intelligence community. This episode indicates the limitations of the DCI's authority over the direction of the intelligence community, including agencies within the Department of Defense.
The U.S. government did not find a way of pooling intelligence and using it to guide the planning and assignment of responsibilities for joint operations involving entities as disparate as the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, the military, and the agencies involved in homeland security.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS
Unsuccessful Diplomacy
Beginning in February 1997, and through September 11, 2001, the U.S. government tried to use diplomatic pressure to persuade the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to stop being a sanctuary for al Qaeda, and to expel Bin Ladin to a country where he could face justice. These efforts included warnings and sanctions, but they all failed.
The U.S. government also pressed two successive Pakistani governments to demand that the Taliban cease providing a sanctuary for Bin Ladin and his organization and, failing that, to cut off their support for the Taliban. Before 9/11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives and pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship with the Taliban.
From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties and enforce sanctions, especially those related to air travel to Afghanistan. These efforts achieved little before 9/11.
Saudi Arabia has been a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism. Before 9/11, the Saudi and U.S. governments did not fully share intelligence information or develop an adequate joint effort to track and disrupt the finances of the al Qaeda organization. On the other hand, government officials of Saudi Arabia at the highest levels worked closely with top U.S. officials in major initiatives to solve the Bin Ladin problem with diplomacy.
Lack of Military Options
In response to the request of policymakers, the military prepared an array of limited strike options for attacking Bin Ladin and his organization from May 1998 onward. When they briefed policymakers, the military presented both the pros and cons of those strike options and the associated risks. Policymakers expressed frustration with the range of options presented.
Following the August 20, 1998, missile strikes on al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, both senior military officials and policymakers placed great emphasis on actionable intelligence as the key factor in recommending or deciding to launch military action against Bin Ladin and his organization. They did not want to risk significant collateral damage, and they did not want to miss Bin Ladin and thus make the United States look weak while making Bin Ladin look strong. On three specific occasions in 1998-1999, intelligence was deemed credible enough to warrant planning for possible strikes to kill Bin Ladin. But in each case the strikes did not go forward, because senior policymakers did not regard the intelligence as sufficiently actionable to offset their assessment of the risks.
The Director of Central Intelligence, policymakers, and military officials expressed frustration with the lack of actionable intelligence. Some officials inside the Pentagon, including those in the special forces and the counterterrorism policy office, also expressed frustration with the lack of military action. The Bush administration began to develop new policies toward al Qaeda in 2001, but military plans did not change until after 9/11.
Problems within the Intelligence Community
The intelligence community struggled throughout the 1990s and up to 9/11 to collect intelligence on and analyze the phenomenon of transnational terrorism. The combination of an overwhelming number of priorities, flat budgets, an outmoded structure, and bureaucratic rivalries resulted in an insufficient response to this new challenge.
Many dedicated officers worked day and night for years to piece together the growing body of evidence on al Qaeda and to understand the threats. Yet, while there were many reports on Bin Laden and his growing al Qaeda organization, there was no comprehensive review of what the intelligence community knew and what it did not know, and what that meant. There was no National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism between 1995 and 9/11.
Before 9/11, no agency did more to attack al Qaeda than the CIA. But there were limits to what the CIA was able to achieve by disrupting terrorist activities abroad and by using proxies to try to capture Bin Ladin and his lieutenants in Afghanistan. CIA officers were aware of those limitations.
To put it simply, covert action was not a silver bullet. It was important to engage proxies in Afghanistan and to build various capabilities so that if an opportunity presented itself, the CIA could act on it. But for more than three years, through both the late Clinton and early Bush administrations, the CIA relied on proxy forces, and there was growing frustration within the CIA's Counterterrorist Center and in the National Security Council staff with the lack of results. The development of the Predator and the push to aid the Northern Alliance were products of this frustration.
Problems in the FBI
From the time of the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, FBI and Department of Justice leadership in Washington and New York became increasingly concerned about the terrorist threat from Islamist extremists to U.S. interests, both at home and abroad. Throughout the 1990s, the FBI's counterterrorism efforts against international terrorist organizations included both intelligence and criminal investigations. The FBI's approach to investigations was case-specific, decentralized, and geared toward prosecution. Significant FBI resources were devoted to after-the-fact investigations of major terrorist attacks, resulting in several prosecutions.
The FBI attempted several reform efforts aimed at strengthening its ability to prevent such attacks, but these reform efforts failed to implement organization-wide institutional change. On September 11, 2001, the FBI was limited in several areas critical to an effective preventive counterterrorism strategy. Those working counterterrorism matters did so despite limited intelligence collection and strategic analysis capabilities, a limited capacity to share information both internally and externally, insufficient training, perceived legal barriers to sharing information, and inadequate resources.
Permeable Borders and Immigration Controls
There were opportunities for intelligence and law enforcement to exploit al Qaeda's travel vulnerabilities. Considered collectively, the 9/11 hijackers
included known al Qaeda operatives who could have been watchlisted;
presented passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner;
presented passports with suspicious indicators of extremism;
made detectable false statements on visa applications;
made false statements to border officials to gain entry into the United States; and
violated immigration laws while in the United States.
Neither the State Department's consular officers nor the Immigration and Naturalization Service's inspectors and agents were ever considered full partners in a national counterterrorism effort. Protecting borders was not a national security issue before 9/11.
Permeable Aviation Security
Hijackers studied publicly available materials on the aviation security system and used items that had less metal content than a handgun and were most likely permissible. Though two of the hijackers were on the U.S.TIPOFF terrorist watchlist, the FAA did not use TIPOFF data. The hijackers had to beat only one layer of security-the security checkpoint process. Even though several hijackers were selected for extra screening by the CAPPS system, this led only to greater scrutiny of their checked baggage. Once on board, the hijackers were faced with aircraft personnel who were trained to be nonconfrontational in the event of a hijacking.
Financing
The 9/11 attacks cost somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to execute. The operatives spent more than $270,000 in the United States. Additional expenses included travel to obtain passports and visas, travel to the United States, expenses incurred by the plot leader and facilitators outside the United States, and expenses incurred by the people selected to be hijackers who ultimately did not participate.
The conspiracy made extensive use of banks in the United States. The hijackers opened accounts in their own names, using passports and other identification documents. Their transactions were unremarkable and essentially invisible amid the billions of dollars flowing around the world every day.
To date, we have not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda had many sources of funding and a pre-9/11 annual budget estimated at $30 million. If a particular source of funds had dried up, al Qaeda could easily have found enough money elsewhere to fund the attack.
An Improvised Homeland Defense
The civilian and military defenders of the nation's airspace-FAA and NORAD-were unprepared for the attacks launched against them. Given that lack of preparedness, they attempted and failed to improvise an effective homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge.
The events of that morning do not reflect discredit on operational personnel. NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector personnel reached out for information and made the best judgments they could based on the information they received. Individual FAA controllers, facility managers, and command center managers were creative and agile in recommending a nationwide alert, ground-stopping local traffic, ordering all aircraft nationwide to land, and executing that unprecedented order flawlessly.
At more senior levels, communication was poor. Senior military and FAA leaders had no effective communication with each other. The chain of command did not function well. The President could not reach some senior officials. The Secretary of Defense did not enter the chain of command until the morning's key events were over. Air National Guard units with different rules of engagement were scrambled without the knowledge of the President, NORAD, or the National Military Command Center.
Emergency Response
The civilians, firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, and emergency management professionals exhibited steady determination and resolve under horrifying, overwhelming conditions on 9/11.Their actions saved lives and inspired a nation.
Effective decisionmaking in New York was hampered by problems in command and control and in internal communications. Within the Fire Department of New York, this was true for several reasons: the magnitude of the incident was unforeseen; commanders had difficulty communicating with their units; more units were actually dispatched than were ordered by the chiefs; some units self-dispatched; and once units arrived at the World Trade Center, they were neither comprehensively accounted for nor coordinated. The Port Authority's response was hampered by the lack both of standard operating procedures and of radios capable of enabling multiple commands to respond to an incident in unified fashion. The New York Police Department, because of its history of mobilizing thousands of officers for major events requiring crowd control, had a technical radio capability and protocols more easily adapted to an incident of the magnitude of 9/11.
Congress
The Congress, like the executive branch, responded slowly to the rise of transnational terrorism as a threat to national security. The legislative branch adjusted little and did not restructure itself to address changing threats. Its attention to terrorism was episodic and splintered across several committees. The Congress gave little guidance to executive branch agencies on terrorism, did not reform them in any significant way to meet the threat, and did not systematically perform robust oversight to identify, address, and attempt to resolve the many problems in national security and domestic agencies that became apparent in the aftermath of 9/11.
So long as oversight is undermined by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need. The United States needs a strong, stable, and capable congressional committee structure to give America's national intelligence agencies oversight, support, and leadership.
Are We Safer?
Since 9/11, the United States and its allies have killed or captured a majority of al Qaeda's leadership; toppled the Taliban, which gave al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan; and severely damaged the organization. Yet terrorist attacks continue. Even as we have thwarted attacks, nearly everyone expects they will come. How can this be?
The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue.
Because of offensive actions against al Qaeda since 9/11, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today. But we are not safe. We therefore make the following recommendations that we believe can make America safer and more secure.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Three years after 9/11, the national debate continues about how to protect our nation in this new era. We divide our recommendations into two basic parts: What to do, and how to do it.
WHAT TO DO? A GLOBAL STRATEGY
The enemy is not just "terrorism." It is the threat posed specifically by Islamist terrorism, by Bin Ladin and others who draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam that does not distinguish politics from religion, and distorts both.
The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam. The enemy goes beyond al Qaeda to include the radical ideological movement, inspired in part by al Qaeda, that has spawned other terrorist groups and violence. Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism.
The first phase of our post-9/11 efforts rightly included military action to topple the Taliban and pursue al Qaeda. This work continues. But long-term success demands the use of all elements of national power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense. If we favor one tool while neglecting others, we leave ourselves vulnerable and weaken our national effort.
What should Americans expect from their government? The goal seems unlimited: Defeat terrorism anywhere in the world. But Americans have also been told to expect the worst: An attack is probably coming; it may be more devastating still.
Vague goals match an amorphous picture of the enemy. Al Qaeda and other groups are popularly described as being all over the world, adaptable, resilient, needing little higher-level organization, and capable of anything. It is an image of an omnipotent hydra of destruction. That image lowers expectations of government effectiveness.
It lowers them too far. Our report shows a determined and capable group of plotters. Yet the group was fragile and occasionally left vulnerable by the marginal, unstable people often attracted to such causes. The enemy made mistakes. The U.S. government was not able to capitalize on them.
No president can promise that a catastrophic attack like that of 9/11 will not happen again. But the American people are entitled to expect that officials will have realistic objectives, clear guidance, and effective organization. They are entitled to see standards for performance so they can judge, with the help of their elected representatives, whether the objectives are being met.
We propose a strategy with three dimensions: (1) attack terrorists and their organizations, (2) prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism, and (3) protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks.
Attack Terrorists and Their Organizations
Root out sanctuaries.The U.S. government should identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries and have realistic country or regional strategies for each, utilizing every element of national power and reaching out to countries that can help us.
Strengthen long-term U.S. and international commitments to the future of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Confront problems with Saudi Arabia in the open and build a relationship beyond oil, a relationship that both sides can defend to their citizens and includes a shared commitment to reform.
Prevent the Continued Growth of Islamist Terrorism
In October 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked if enough was being done "to fashion a broad integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists." As part of such a plan, the U.S. government should
Define the message and stand as an example of moral leadership in the world. To Muslim parents, terrorists like Bin Ladin have nothing to offer their children but visions of violence and death. America and its friends have the advantage-our vision can offer a better future.
Where Muslim governments, even those who are friends, do not offer opportunity, respect the rule of law, or tolerate differences, then the United States needs to stand for a better future.
Communicate and defend American ideals in the Islamic world, through much stronger public diplomacy to reach more people, including students and leaders outside of government. Our efforts here should be as strong as they were in combating closed societies during the Cold War.
Offer an agenda of opportunity that includes support for public education and economic openness.
Develop a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism, using a flexible contact group of leading coalition governments and fashioning a common coalition approach on issues like the treatment of captured terrorists.
Devote a maximum effort to the parallel task of countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Expect less from trying to dry up terrorist money and more from following the money for intelligence, as a tool to hunt terrorists, understand their networks, and disrupt their operations.
Protect against and Prepare for Terrorist Attacks
Target terrorist travel, an intelligence and security strategy that the 9/11 story showed could be at least as powerful as the effort devoted to terrorist finance.
Address problems of screening people with biometric identifiers across agencies and governments, including our border and transportation systems, by designing a comprehensive screening system that addresses common problems and sets common standards. As standards spread, this necessary and ambitious effort could dramatically strengthen the world's ability to intercept individuals who could pose catastrophic threats.
Quickly complete a biometric entry-exit screening system, one that also speeds qualified travelers.
Set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.
Develop strategies for neglected parts of our transportation security system. Since 9/11, about 90 percent of the nation's $5 billion annual investment in transportation security has gone to aviation, to fight the last war.
In aviation, prevent arguments about a new computerized profiling system from delaying vital improvements in the "no-fly" and "automatic selectee" lists. Also, give priority to the improvement of checkpoint screening.
Determine, with leadership from the President, guidelines for gathering and sharing information in the new security systems that are needed, guidelines that integrate safeguards for privacy and other essential liberties.
Underscore that as government power necessarily expands in certain ways, the burden of retaining such powers remains on the executive to demonstrate the value of such powers and ensure adequate supervision of how they are used, including a new board to oversee the implementation of the guidelines needed for gathering and sharing information in these new security systems.
Base federal funding for emergency preparedness solely on risks and vulnerabilities, putting New York City and Washington, D.C., at the top of the current list. Such assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing or pork-barrel spending.
Make homeland security funding contingent on the adoption of an incident command system to strengthen teamwork in a crisis, including a regional approach. Allocate more radio spectrum and improve connectivity for public safety communications, and encourage widespread adoption of newly developed standards for private-sector emergency preparedness-since the private sector controls 85 percent of the nation's critical infrastructure.
HOW TO DO IT? A DIFFERENT WAY OF ORGANIZING GOVERNMENT
The strategy we have recommended is elaborate, even as presented here very briefly. To implement it will require a government better organized than the one that exists today, with its national security institutions designed half a century ago to win the Cold War. Americans should not settle for incremental, ad hoc adjustments to a system created a generation ago for a world that no longer exists.
Our detailed recommendations are designed to fit together. Their purpose is clear: to build unity of effort across the U.S. government. As one official now serving on the front lines overseas put it to us: "One fight, one team."
We call for unity of effort in five areas, beginning with unity of effort on the challenge of counterterrorism itself:
unifying strategic intelligence and operational planning against Islamist terrorists across the foreign-domestic divide with a National Counterterrorism Center;
unifying the intelligence community with a new National Intelligence Director;
unifying the many participants in the counterterrorism effort and their knowledge in a network-based information sharing system that transcends traditional governmental boundaries;
unifying and strengthening congressional oversight to improve quality and accountability; and
strengthening the FBI and homeland defenders.
Unity of Effort: A National Counterterrorism Center
The 9/11 story teaches the value of integrating strategic intelligence from all sources into joint operational planning-with both dimensions spanning the foreign-domestic divide.
In some ways, since 9/11, joint work has gotten better. The effort of fighting terrorism has flooded over many of the usual agency boundaries because of its sheer quantity and energy. Attitudes have changed. But the problems of coordination have multiplied. The Defense Department alone has three unified commands (SOCOM, CENTCOM, and NORTHCOM) that deal with terrorism as one of their principal concerns.
Much of the public commentary about the 9/11 attacks has focused on "lost opportunities." Though characterized as problems of "watchlisting," "information sharing," or "connecting the dots," each of these labels is too narrow. They describe the symptoms, not the disease.
Breaking the older mold of organization stovepiped purely in executive agencies, we propose a National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) that would borrow the joint, unified command concept adopted in the 1980s by the American military in a civilian agency, combining the joint intelligence function alongside the operations work.
The NCTC would build on the existing Terrorist Threat Integration Center and would replace it and other terrorism "fusion centers" within the government. The NCTC would become the authoritative knowledge bank, bringing information to bear on common plans. It should task collection requirements both inside and outside the United States.
The NCTC should perform joint operational planning, assigning lead responsibilities to existing agencies and letting them direct the actual execution of the plans.
Placed in the Executive Office of the President, headed by a Senate-confirmed official (with rank equal to the deputy head of a cabinet department) who reports to the National Intelligence Director, the NCTC would track implementation of plans. It would be able to influence the leadership and the budgets of the counterterrorism operating arms of the CIA, the FBI, and the departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
The NCTC should not be a policymaking body. Its operations and planning should follow the policy direction of the president and the National Security Council.
Unity of Effort: A National Intelligence Director
Since long before 9/11-and continuing to this day-the intelligence community is not organized well for joint intelligence work. It does not employ common standards and practices in reporting intelligence or in training experts overseas and at home. The expensive national capabilities for collecting intelligence have divided management. The structures are too complex and too secret.
The community's head-the Director of Central Intelligence-has at least three jobs: running the CIA, coordinating a 15-agency confederation, and being the intelligence analyst-in-chief to the president. No one person can do all these things.
A new National Intelligence Director should be established with two main jobs: (1) to oversee national intelligence centers that combine experts from all the collection disciplines against common targets- like counterterrorism or nuclear proliferation; and (2) to oversee the agencies that contribute to the national intelligence program, a task that includes setting common standards for personnel and information technology.
The national intelligence centers would be the unified commands of the intelligence world-a long-overdue reform for intelligence comparable to the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols law that reformed the organization of national defense. The home services-such as the CIA, DIA, NSA, and FBI-would organize, train, and equip the best intelligence professionals in the world, and would handle the execution of intelligence operations in the field.
This National Intelligence Director (NID) should be located in the Executive Office of the President and report directly to the president, yet be confirmed by the Senate. In addition to overseeing the National Counterterrorism Center described above (which will include both the national intelligence center for terrorism and the joint operations planning effort), the NID should have three deputies:
For foreign intelligence (a deputy who also would be the head of the CIA)
For defense intelligence (also the under secretary of defense for intelligence)
For homeland intelligence (also the executive assistant director for intelligence at the FBI or the under secretary of homeland security for information analysis and infrastructure protection)
The NID should receive a public appropriation for national intelligence, should have authority to hire and fire his or her intelligence deputies, and should be able to set common personnel and information technology policies across the intelligence community.
The CIA should concentrate on strengthening the collection capabilities of its clandestine service and the talents of its analysts, building pride in its core expertise.
Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability, and information sharing. Unfortunately, all the current organizational incentives encourage overclassification. This balance should change; and as a start, open information should be provided about the overall size of agency intelligence budgets.
Unity of Effort: Sharing Information
The U.S. government has access to a vast amount of information. But it has a weak system for processing and using what it has. The system of "need to know" should be replaced by a system of "need to share."
The President should lead a government-wide effort to bring the major national security institutions into the information revolution, turning a mainframe system into a decentralized network. The obstacles are not technological. Official after official has urged us to call attention to problems with the unglamorous "back office" side of government operations.
But no agency can solve the problems on its own-to build the network requires an effort that transcends old divides, solving common legal and policy issues in ways that can help officials know what they can and cannot do. Again, in tackling information issues, America needs unity of effort.
Unity of Effort: Congress Congress took too little action to adjust itself or to restructure the executive branch to address the emerging terrorist threat. Congressional oversight for intelligence-and counterterrorism-is dysfunctional. Both Congress and the executive need to do more to minimize national security risks during transitions between administrations.
For intelligence oversight, we propose two options: either a joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or a single committee in each house combining authorizing and appropriating committees. Our central message is the same: the intelligence committees cannot carry out their oversight function unless they are made stronger, and thereby have both clear responsibility and accountability for that oversight.
Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security. There should be one permanent standing committee for homeland security in each chamber.
We propose reforms to speed up the nomination, financial reporting, security clearance, and confirmation process for national security officials at the start of an administration, and suggest steps to make sure that incoming administrations have the information they need.
Unity of Effort: Organizing America's Defenses in the United States
We have considered several proposals relating to the future of the domestic intelligence and counterterrorism mission. Adding a new domestic intelligence agency will not solve America's problems in collecting and analyzing intelligence within the United States. We do not recommend creating one.
We propose the establishment of a specialized and integrated national security workforce at the FBI, consisting of agents, analysts, linguists, and surveillance specialists who are recruited, trained, rewarded, and retained to ensure the development of an institutional culture imbued with a deep expertise in intelligence and national security.
At several points we asked: Who has the responsibility for defending us at home? Responsibility for America's national defense is shared by the Department of Defense, with its new Northern Command, and by the Department of Homeland Security.They must have a clear delineation of roles, missions, and authority.
The Department of Defense and its oversight committees should regularly assess the adequacy of Northern Command's strategies and planning to defend against military threats to the homeland.
The Department of Homeland Security and its oversight committees should regularly assess the types of threats the country faces, in order to determine the adequacy of the government's plans and the readiness of the government to respond to those threats.
* * *
We call on the American people to remember how we all felt on 9/11, to remember not only the unspeakable horror but how we came together as a nation-one nation. Unity of purpose and unity of effort are the way we will defeat this enemy and make America safer for our children and grandchildren.
We look forward to a national debate on the merits of what we have recommended, and we will participate vigorously in that debate.
How the Twin Towers Collapsed
The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extremely thorough, three-year investigation into what caused the World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers to collapse, as explained on NIST’s WTC Web site.
Some 200 staff reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than one thousand people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they collapsed.
NIST concluded that the twin towers collapsed because the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, which meant that the subsequent fire, which reached 1000 degrees Celsius, weakened the floors and columns to the point where they bowed and buckled, causing the towers to collapse.
NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers stated in its executive summary (pp. xxxvii-xxxviii), in a passage cited by NIST Technical Administration Director William Jeffrey in testimony before the U.S. Congress on October 26, 2005:
The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. …
In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. …
In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner …. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors on that side to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. …
The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multi-floor fires … if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Remote Piloting Allegation
Another conspiracy theory is that the two Boeing aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center towers had not been hijacked, but were remotely controlled.
A Boeing Company official stated that Boeing has designed its commercial airplanes so that it is impossible to control them remotely. Elizabeth Verdiev, a spokesperson for Boeing, stated on June 16, 2005:
No Boeing commercial jet transport can be controlled from outside the airplane. No Boeing commercial jet transport can be “commanded” or have its flight controlled other than from within the flight deck by the pilots. Pilots can program the airplane to take off, fly to a destination and land automatically, but Boeing design philosophy keeps pilots in control and in the decision-making loop at all times.
Passengers Report Hijackings
Conspiracy theory claims about the World Trade Center attacks also ignore the fact that several passengers and crew from the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers made phone calls describing how their flights had been hijacked.
American Airlines flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center’s north tower at 8:46 am. It had been hijacked at approximately 8:14 am. Flight attendants Betty Ong and Madeline “Amy” Sweeney made phone calls describing the hijacking. Betty Ong’s call lasted about 25 minutes, the first four minutes of which were recorded (see footnote 29 for chapter one in the “Notes” section of The 9-11 Commission Report).
The 9-11 Commission Report (chapter one, pages 5-6) stated:
At 8:19, Ong reported: “The cockpit is not answering, somebody’s stabbed in business class – and I think there’s Mace – that we can’t breathe – I don’t know, I think we’re getting hijacked.” She then told of the stabbings of the two flight attendants.
… At 8:26, Ong reported that the plane was “flying erratically.” A minute later, Flight 11 turned south. …
Sweeney calmly reported on her line that the plane had been hijacked; a man in first class had his throat slashed; two flight attendants had been stabbed – one was seriously hurt and was on oxygen while the other’s wounds seemed minor ….
United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center’s south tower at 9:03 am. It had been hijacked between 8:42 and 8:46 am. Passengers Peter Hanson, Brian David Sweeney, and an unidentified flight attendant made phone calls reporting that United Airlines flight 175 had been hijacked and recounting events onboard the plane.
The 9-11 Commission Report (chapter one, pages 7-8) stated:
At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him, “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit – An attendant has been stabbed – and someone else up front may have been killed.” …
Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco …. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane.
… At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney … called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.
At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:
It’s getting bad, Dad – A stewardess was stabbed – They seem to have knives and Mace – They said they have a bomb – … The plane is making jerky movements – I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane – I think we are going down – Don’t worry, Dad – If it happens, it’ll be very fast – My God, my God.
The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both of them saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.
Thus, passengers and crew members from both flights reported that they had been hijacked, that passengers and crew members had been killed or wounded, and that the planes were flying in an erratic or jerky fashion, as would be the case if they were being flown by first-time pilots, as both hijacker pilots were. There was no mention or indication of a mysterious “remote control” takeover of the planes.
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-e...135102atlahtnevel0.7969629.html#ixzz12YGu86PQ
In 2002, French conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan wrote a book suggesting that a cruise missile instead of a plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Mr. Meyssan believes the attack on the Pentagon was masterminded not by al Qaida, but “from inside the American state apparatus.” (9/11: The Big Lie, page 139)
Mr. Meyssan’s claims suffer from numerous obvious flaws. He ignores or dismisses the facts that:
• many eyewitnesses saw a plane crash into the Pentagon;
• the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site;
• eyewitness reports and photographs show plane debris at the Pentagon crash site;
• passengers on American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls, reporting their aircraft had been hijacked; and
• senior al Qaida leaders have admitted they conducted the September 11 attacks.
Mr. Meyssan’s book, L’Effroyable Imposture [The Horrifying Fraud] is available in 19 languages — French, English, Spanish, German, Russian, Italian, Greek, Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Korean, Greek, Portugese, Romanian, Czech, Estonian, Croatian, Albanian, Serbian — and is being translated into four more — Chinese, Slovenian, Japanese, and Dutch. The book was published in English as 9/11: The Big Lie.
The book was severely criticized in the French press as soon as it appeared. The French newspaper Liberation called the book “The Frightening Confidence Trick … a tissue of wild and irresponsible allegations, entirely without foundation.” Nevertheless, the book was an instant bestseller in France, selling more than 200,000 copies.
Numerous Eyewitness Accounts
Mr. Meyssan suggests that a cruise missile with a depleted uranium warhead, not a plane, struck the Pentagon on September 11. But he never traveled to the United States to conduct research or interviewed any of the many eyewitnesses to the attack on the Pentagon. He ignores or dismisses the many eyewitness accounts — some of which specifically identified the plane as having American Airlines markings, as a Boeing 757, and as a plane with passengers onboard, visible through windows. See excerpts from some of the eyewitness accounts at the end of this document.
Passenger and Crew Remains Recovered at Pentagon Crash Site
In addition to the numerous eyewitness accounts, the remains of the passengers and crew on board American Airlines flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers on board American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims. These positive forensic identifications provide irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. In addition, rescue and recovery personnel at the Pentagon reported seeing the bodies of airline passengers. The September 14, 2001, edition of USA Today reported, “When [Army Sergeant Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped in their seats.”
Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site
People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory Web site that debunks the conspiracy theory claims. The e-mail also contains photographs of airplane landing gear, tires, and fuselage fragments, which were taken at the Pentagon crash site. Moreover, the “black boxes” — the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder — for American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site. For more photographs of debris from the airliner, including the crumpled "C" from "American Airlines," see portions 4:57 to 6:00 of the "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" video.
Passengers Report Hijackings
Mr. Meyssan’s book also ignores the fact that several passengers from American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls reporting that their plane had been hijacked.
At 9:12 am, approximately 10 minutes after the American Airlines flight 77 had been hijacked, passenger Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, to report that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane.
Minutes later, passenger Barbara Olson called her husband Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States, also reporting that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.
Al Qaida Admits it Conducted September 11 Attacks
Finally, high-ranking al Qaida members involved in the September 11 attacks, including Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Ramzi bin al Shibh, have openly admitted that they planned and executed the attacks. As Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda in April 2002, with reference to the September 11 attacks, “I am the head of the al Qaida military committee and Ramzi is the coordinator of the Holy Tuesday operation. And, yes, we did it.” (Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding, Masterminds of Terror, page 38)
Mr. Meyssan provides no explanation for what he believes happened to American Airlines flight 77. If the plane did not crash into the Pentagon, as he claims, where did the plane and all its passengers go? He has no explanation for this question.
Thus, there are:
• numerous eyewitness accounts of an American Airlines passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon;
• phone calls from passengers on American Airlines flight 77 reporting that it had been hijacked;
• eyewitness accounts of airplane parts and the bodies of airline passengers still strapped in their seats found at the Pentagon crash site, as well as photographs of airplane parts;
• the remains of bodies recovered at the Pentagon crash site positively identified as matching those of the passengers and crew on American Airlines flight 77;
• acknowledgements by high-ranking al Qaida members that they carried out the September 11 attacks.
In light of these facts, there is no doubt that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.
Eyewitness Accounts of Pentagon Attack
Following are some of the numerous eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash:
• Richard Benedetto: “It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly.”
• Omar Campo, a Salvadorean: “It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head.”
• Joseph Candelario: “I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.”
• James Cissell: “I saw this plane coming in and it was low — and getting lower. … Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board.”
• Dennis Clem: “There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon.”
• Michael Dobbs: “It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle.”
• Penny Elgas: “… the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car …. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane — I could see the windows and the color stripes.”
• Cheryl Hammond: “We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running.”
• Joe Harrington: “… one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd.”
• Albert Hemphill: “The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus.”
• Terrance Kean: “I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon.”
• William Lagasse: “It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. … I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground.”
• Robert Leonard: “I … saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon.”
• Lincoln Liebner: “I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low.”
• Elaine McCusker: “I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating.”
• Mitch Mitchell: “I … saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it …. It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon.”
• Terry Morin: “The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines.”
• Christopher Munsey: “I couldn’t believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ….”
• Vin Narayanan: “I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet.”
• John O’Keefe: “I don’t know whether I saw or heard it first — this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ….”
• Steve Riskus: “I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines’ logo on the tail as it headed towards the building . … I clearly saw the ‘AA’ logo with the eagle in the middle.”
• James Ryan: “I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. … The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane.”
• Joel Sucherman: “… looking straight ahead there was a jet, what looked to be an American Airlines jet, probably a 757, and it came screaming across the highway … [and] hit the west side of the Pentagon.”
• Donald “Tim” Timmerman, a pilot: “I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon … and so I have quite a panorama. … It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.”
• Mike Walter: “I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. … It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. I saw the big ‘AA’ on the side.”
• Ian Wyatt: “I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane and then boom.”
Finally, The 9/11 Commission Report (chapter one, pages 25-26) states that on September 11, air traffic controllers at Washington’s Reagan National Airport instructed a C-130H cargo plane that had just taken off from the airport to try to follow the plane that had been spotted on radar as heading toward Washington. According to the report, “The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: ‘looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.’”
In sum, many people on nearby roads or in nearby buildings saw a large passenger plane hit the Pentagon and, as the above eyewitness testimonies demonstrate, numerous people specifically identified it as an American Airlines plane.
1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.
This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:
• Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
• Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
• Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded signs of any explosions prior to the tower collapses. Instead, seismic spikes were noted when debris began hitting the ground.
• Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
• Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
• For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article (PDF, 56 K) on the WTC collapses, the March 2005 Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5, “The Attack on the World Trade Center Towers,” and the video 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-engl...28133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html#ixzz12YHNckTR
Herpderp
D
Deleted member
Guest
Wow that's a long one. Before I read it, did you type it up yourself? If not is there somewhere else to read it? I've never been a fan of reading long blocks of text on smashboards.
Ballistics
Smash Champion
Thats way too long man, I'd rather if people addressed his post rather than just posting things talking about conspiracy theories
fragbait
Smash Master
So you expect people to sit through 2 hour videoes, and wade through tons and tons of text and pictures on your sites and in your posts, but you can't do the same?
Awfully double standard in here.
- Status