Point Pent-4: Was There Foreknowledge by Officials that the Pentagon would be
Point Pent-4: Attacked?
Critical to the success of the 9/11 attacks was the element of surprise, which was emphasized by key White House and Pentagon officials:
- President George Bush said, “They [al-Qaeda] struck in a way that was unimaginable.” 
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “Never would have crossed anyone’s mind.” 
- General Richard Myers, Deputy Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “You hate to admit it, but we hadn’t thought about this.” 
- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, “Never did we imagine what would take place on September 11th, where people used those airplanes as missiles and weapons.” 
- National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” 
- Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, a Pentagon spokesman, said: “The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday’s event, anyone would have expected anything like that here. There was no foreshadowing, no particular warning that would have led anyone with any reasonable view of the world to think this was a threat we faced.” 
The following evidence suggests that an attack on the Pentagon was not at all unexpected: 
- In 1999 NORAD conducted hijacking exercises where planes were flown into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. 
- The US military held an exercise rehearsing a response to an airliner crash at the Pentagon on October 24-26, 2000. Emergency responders from the Pentagon and Arlington County assembled in a conference room in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for a mass casualty exercise that involved a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon and killing 341 people. 
- Department of Defense medical personnel trained for the scenario of a “guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner” being flown into the Pentagon in May, 2001. 
Several warnings from security sources to Pentagon and other officials about flying on September 11 were reported in the news:
- In a story about warnings, Newsweek reported: “On Sept. 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.” 
- San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a warning from what he described as his airport security people late Monday evening. 
- Salman Rushdie was prevented, by an emergency resolution from the FAA, from flying the week of September 11th, 2001. 
- On the morning of September 11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, seeking approval for enhanced missile defense, held a well-attended 8:00 – 8:50 AM Pentagon breakfast meeting with House supporters. The meeting was winding down just about the time the first Tower was hit at 8:46 AM. During the course of the meeting, Rumsfeld reportedly said that “sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department.” 
- Later, in a meeting in Rumsfeld’s office, Christopher Cox, the defense policy committee chairman of the House of Representatives, reported Rumsfeld to have been more specific. Cox said:
“Just moments before the Department of Defense was hit by a suicide hijacker, Secretary Rumsfeld was describing to me why America needs to … focus on the real threat facing us in the 21st century: terrorism, and the unexpected. …
‘If we remain vulnerable to missile attack, a terrorist group or rogue state that demonstrates the capacity to strike the U.S. or its allies from long range could have the power to hold our entire country hostage to nuclear or other blackmail,’ he said ‘And let me tell you … there will be another event … There will be another event.’ ” 
According to The Telegraph, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, was in his office on the eastern side of the building, in a meeting with Christopher Cox. Mr Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched the TV coverage from New York and said: “Believe me, this isn’t over yet. There’s going to be another attack, and it could be us.” 
Moments later, the plane hit [the Pentagon]. (When the attack did occur, it did not threaten Rumsfeld, as the attack was on the opposite side of the building.)
Sometime between 9:03 and 9:37 AM, NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski said on camera:
“The first time I heard the word ‘terrorism’ out of any US official came shortly after the second plane hit, and I bumped into a US military intelligence official, and I said, ‘Look … what have you got?’ And he said ‘Obviously this is clearly an act of terrorism. And then he got very close to me, and … almost silent for a few seconds, and he leaned in and he said, ‘This attack was so well coordinated that if I were you, I would stay off the E Ring’ – where our NBC office was – ‘the outer ring of the Pentagon for the rest of the day, because we’re next.’ ” 
The intelligence official’s apparent foreknowledge was unaccountably specific:
- How did he know the Pentagon would be hit next?
- Even if he had just guessed that the Pentagon would be hit next, how could he have guessed that the outermost E Ring would be the specific target?
- Of course, if an airplane attack had been aimed at one of the walls, the E Ring would have been struck. But why would he have guessed that the attack would have targeted one of the walls, which are only 80 feet high, when it would have been have been easier for a plane to dive into the Pentagon’s roof, where it might have killed the secretary of defense and some top brass?
A Department of Justice after-action report describes the difficulty the FBI had in getting to the scene following the official attack time of 9:37 AM:
“The FBI Evidence Recovery Team began arriving before 10:00 a.m. and set up in a grassy area a short distance from the heliport. Because of the extremely congested traffic conditions, it took several hours for the entire FBI contingent to negotiate the route from the District of Columbia to the Pentagon.” 
The first priority of the Evidence Recovery Team was “to find and collect all the airplane parts and other bits of evidence from the lawn on the west side of the building, before firefighters and other rescue workers completely trampled it.” 
In spite of these conditions and priorities, FBI agents identified at least two private businesses whose security cameras may have captured the attack. The FBI agents then confiscated their videotapes within minutes after the Pentagon was hit:
- José Velásquez, the Citgo gas station supervisor was interviewed by the Richmond Times-Dispatch: “Velasquez says the gas station’s security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. ‘I’ve never seen what the pictures looked like,’ he said. ‘The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.’ ” 
- “A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video.” 
The FBI agents who arrived so promptly to seize the business videotapes appeared to be operating separately from the traffic-delayed FBI Evidence Recovery Team.
The idea of 9/11 foreknowledge is also covered in a Consensus Point about World Trade Center 7, another about insider trading, a third about VP Cheney’s role regarding the Pentagon, a fourth about NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and a fifth Point about the Able Danger data-mining discoveries.
This compelling array of evidence suggests that there was foreknowledge of the Pentagon attack by various officials. The strike on the Pentagon (whatever its nature) requires a full, impartial investigation with subpoena power.
White House News Release, “President Meets with Muslim Leaders,” September 26, 2001.
“Text: Rumsfeld on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press,’ ” September 30, 2001.
American Free Press Service, US Department of Defense, Oct. 23, 2001.
Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, May 16, 2002.
“National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing,” May 16, 2002.
“Air Attack on Pentagon Indicates Weaknesses,” by Sylvia Adcock, Brian Donovan and Craig Gordon, Newsday, September 23, 2001.
When a statement is made about the Pentagon being “attacked,” it is often assumed that this means that the Pentagon was struck by an airplane. But evidence has not been adequate to establish the nature of the attack. What is known for certain is that there was an attack of some type, resulting in dozens of deaths.
US Army. Military District of Washington, “Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies,” November 3, 2000.
Matt Mienka, “Pentagon Medics Trained for Strike,” US Medicine, October 1, 2001.
Mark Hosenball, “Bush: ‘We’re at War,’ ” Newsweek, September 23, 2001. The 9/11 Commission Report omitted this report.
Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, “Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel,” San Francisco Chronicle, September 12, 2001.
James Doran, “Rushdie’s air ban,” London Times (Times Online), September 27, 2001.
“Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Larry King,” Larry King Live, CNN, December 5, 2001. Transcript here.
“Chairman Cox’s Statement on the Terrorist Attack on America,” Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The quote from his press release was picked up by Associated Press the same day: Robert Burns, “Pentagon attack came minutes after Rumsfeld predicted: ‘There will be another event,’ ” The Topeka-Capitol Journal (Associated Press), September 11, 2001.
William Langley, “Revealed: what really went on during Bush’s ‘missing hours,’ ” The Telegraph, December 16, 2001.
For sound only see “9/11 News Oddities – Reporter Pre-Warned of Pentagon Attacks,” NBC News, September 11, 2001. For face-to-face footage of Mr. Miklaszewski, see video documentary by Massimo Mazzucco, “September 11: The New Pearl Harbor,” (@IMDb) 1:15:22 to 1:16:18 (or this short, 1.5 min excerpt).
“Arlington County After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon,” Titan Systems Corporation under contract to Dept. of Justice, n.d. , Annex A, p. A-22. “[t]he Crime Scene Team [was] onsite 30 minutes after the attack. Special Agent John Adams began organizing the FBI Evidence Recovery Team on a grassy site … ” p. C-45.
Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, “Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11,” Presidio Press, 2008, p. 80.
Bill McKelway, “Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, December 11, 2001.
Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, “Inside the Ring,” Washington Times, September 21, 2001.
Point ME-1: Did Military Exercises Show that the Military was Prepared for
Point ME-1: Domestic (as Well as Foreign) Hijackings?
Critical to the success of the 9/11 attacks was the element of surprise, which was emphasized by key White House and Pentagon officials. 
The element of surprise, as the 9/11 Commission pointed out, rested on two factors:
The military had trained for the possibility of hijacked planes used as weapons, including hijacked planes originating within the country. Professor John Arquilla, a Special Operations expert at the Naval Postgraduate School, stated in 2002 that “the idea of such an attack [using hijacked airliners for suicide attacks against major buildings] was well known, had been wargamed as a possibility in exercises before Sept. 11, 2001, and previous airline attacks had been attempted.” 
Multiple training drills using planes as weapons had taken place before September 11, 2001:
- In October 2000, a military exercise had created a scenario of a simulated passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon. The exercise was coordinated by the Defense Protective Services Police and the Pentagon’s Command Emergency Response Team. 
- US Medicine reported that two health clinics housed within the Pentagon trained for a hijacked airplane to hit the Pentagon in May 2001. “Though the Department of Defense had no capability in place to protect the Pentagon from an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner, DoD medical personnel trained for exactly that scenario in May.” 
- The Department of Transportation in Washington held an exercise on August 31, 2001, which Ellen Engleman, the administrator of the department’s Research and Special Projects Administration, described thus:
“Ironically, fortuitously, take your choice, 12 days prior to the incident on September 11th, we were going through a tabletop exercise. It was actually much more than a tabletop … in preparation for the Olympic … which was a full intermodal exercise … Part of the scenario, interestingly enough, involved a potentially highjacked plane and someone calling on a cell phone, among other aspects of the scenario that were very strange when twelve days later, as you know, we had the actual event.” 
- One such operation involved planes originating from inside the United States. According to USA Today:
“In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating … hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties … .[O]ne operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were hijacked.” 
- The operation involving multiple hijacking drills using planes from inside the United States was Amalgam Virgo 2002, planned for 1500 people in July 2001 and scheduled for operation in June 2002. 
Any new investigation should ask why the highest responsible officials denied that such preparation had preceded the attacks on 9/11, and why, given that preparation, no effective actions were taken to stop the hijacked planes from reaching their targets.
President George Bush said, “al Qaeda struck in a way that was unimaginable.” White House News Release. “President Meets with Muslim Leaders,” Sept. 26, 2001.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “Never would have crossed anyone’s mind.” “Text: Rumsfeld on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press,’ ” September 30, 2001.
General Richard Myers, Deputy commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “You hate to admit it, but we hadn’t thought about this.” American Free Press Service, US Department of Defense, Oct. 23rd, 2001.
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, “Never did we imagine what would take place on September 11th, where people used those airplanes as missiles and weapons.” Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, May 16, 2002.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” “National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing,” May 16, 2002.
“In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that … the hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.” The 9/11 Commission Report, 18.
“America’s homeland defenders faced outward. NORAD itself was barely able to retain any alert bases. Its planning scenarios occasionally considered the danger of hijacked aircraft being guided to American targets, but only aircraft that were coming from overseas.” The 9/11 Commission Report, 352.
Kevin Howe, “Expert Stresses Need for Intelligence,” Monterey County Herald, 18 July 2002. Ken Merchant, NORAD’s joint exercise design manager, told the 9/11 Commission in 2003 that he could not “remember a time in the last 33 years when NORAD has not run a hijack exercise.” Memorandum for the Record: Interview with Ken Merchant, NORAD, November 14, 2003.
Dennis Ryan, “Contingency Planning Pentagon MASCAL Exercise Simulates Scenarios in Preparing for Emergencies,” November 3, 2000.
Matt Mientka, “Pentagon Medics Trained for Strike,” U.S. Medicine, October 2001. Although this story has been removed from the internet, a portion of it has been retained by Aldeilis.net.
National Transportation Security Summit, Washington, DC, October 30, 2001, “MTI Report S-01-02,” Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State University, 2001.
Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, “NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons,” USA Today, April 18, 2004.
“Airborne Anti-Terrorist Operation Getting Underway,” CNN.com, June 4, 2002; Gerry J. Gilmore, “NORAD-Sponsored Exercise Prepares For Worst-Case Scenarios,” American Forces Press Service.
The events that took place in the United States on September 11, 2001 were real and they were extremely violent. As David Griffin has recently shown in detail, they also had catastrophic real-life consequences for both the United States and the world. 
But these events were also deeply filmic (like a film) and they were presented to us through a narrative we now know to be fictional. This “9/11 movie” reveals itself to careful investigators as scripted, directed and produced by the U.S. national security state. The movie does not represent the real world. It violates the rules operative in the real world, including the laws of physics. Audiences will remain in thrall to the spectacle and violence of the War on Terror only as long as they remain mesmerized by the B-movie of 9/11.
The Filmic Nature of the September 11 Events
Many people caught a whiff of Hollywood on September 11, 2001. According to Lawrence Wright (screenwriter of The Siege),
“It was about an hour after the first trade centre came down that I began to make the connection with the movie, this haunting feeling at the beginning this looks like a movie, and then I thought it looks like my movie.” 
“Well it did look like a movie. It looked like a movie poster. It looked like one of my movie posters.” 
The 9/11 attacks were filmic in at least the following ways
- Given the complex and coordinated nature of these attacks, they had been scripted and given a timeline in advance;
- given the need to make decisions as the attacks progressed (for example, when an aircraft went off course or was delayed), it is clear that there was a director;
- given the overall vision, the need for funds, resources and international coordination over a period of years, it is obvious that there had been a producer;
- given the numerous roles played in this event (for example, by the “hijackers”), there were undoubtedly actors.
In addition, the event included the key dramatic elements of conflict, violence and spectacle.  The entire production was filmed from several angles, and the films, sometimes in the rough and sometimes cleverly edited, were shown many, many times all over the world.
Official U.S. sources rapidly acknowledged the remarkably filmic nature of these events. In October, 2001 some two dozen Hollywood writers and directors were assembled “to brainstorm with Pentagon advisers and officials in an anonymous building in L.A.”  The Army’s Institute for Creative Technologies was the lead organization.  The assembled group was assumed to have relevant expertise and was asked to brainstorm about what future attacks might look like so that the Pentagon could be prepared. (“We want some left-field, off-the-wall ideas; say the craziest thing that comes into your mind”). 
While the bare fact of this consultation was widely reported by news media, further details about the three-day consultation have been hard to come by. Reporters have had their FOIA requests denied. 
Beneath this consultation lay the “failure of imagination” hypothesis. Although the hypothesis emerged almost immediately after September 11, it was given especially clear expression in a BBC Panorama programme aired on March 24, 2002.  Steve Bradshaw interviewed representatives of Hollywood and of national security institutions. The Pentagon, we were supposed to believe, is a typical large bureaucracy characterized by inertia. It is unable to imagine, and to rapidly respond to, new and emerging threats. It is stuck in the past. It is also afraid to irritate the general population by appearing to be politically incorrect–by looking, in this case, at Islam as a threat. Fortunately, there are two sets of people with imagination and courage: a small number of people within the national security apparatus who were trying to warn the Pentagon but were ignored, and Hollywood screenwriters and directors, who had imagination, who had some contact with the national security dissidents, and who had the courage to risk being called Islamophobic. 
So the planes of September 11, when they burst on the scene, confirmed the imaginative prescience of Hollywood, supported the courageous faction of the national security apparatus, and embarrassed the national security bureaucracy, which had to lower itself in October, 2001 to meet with the purveyors of fiction in order to stimulate its sclerotic brain.
This failure of imagination hypothesis was supported by statements by George W. Bush  and, even more famously, by Condoleeza Rice:
“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” 
The hypothesis became more or less official when it was adopted by the 9/11 Commission in its report on the attacks. 
Of course, given the filmic nature of 9/11, it is clear that, according to these official U.S. sources, there was another group–beyond Hollywood and a few national security malcontents–that had imagination, namely al-Qaeda.
Robert Altman (director of MASH, McCabe and Mrs. Miller and many other films) said in 2002 that Hollywood was to blame for the 9/11 events.
“The movies set the pattern, and these people have copied the movies … Nobody would have thought to commit an atrocity like that unless they’d seen it in a movie.” 
Presumably, by “these people” Altman meant al-Qaeda. Perhaps it was while munching popcorn and watching a Hollywood movie that Osama bin Laden and his high-level companions got the idea for 9/11? This is possible. But would it not make sense to ask if it is true that the Pentagon has no imagination, and that it was incapable of picturing attacks like those of the fall of 2001?
Collaboration between Hollywood and U.S. government agencies goes back at least as far as WW II. Indeed, a 1943 memo from the OSS (forerunner of the CIA) noted that,
“The motion picture is one of the most powerful propaganda weapons at the disposal of the United States.” 
Many Hollywood films and TV programs have, therefore, been supported by the Pentagon, and some have been supported by the CIA. Such support can be crucial for films that require U.S. military assets such as planes and helicopters. But support is not automatic. The script must first be approved, and emendations may be demanded by the national security agency in question. In a recent book on this subject (National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood), authors Tom Secker and Matthew Alford list 814 films and 1133 TV titles that received DOD support. 
Since many of these films are highly imaginative constructions, how can it be that the national security agencies that have helped bring them to fruition have remained trapped in their grey, unimaginative world? Presumably, we are to believe that it is the nature of a bureaucracy to restrict these imaginative insights to one part of the organization–say, the Army’s Institute for Creative Technologies–while neglecting to disseminate them to other parts of the national security state. But is this true?
Those familiar with the History Commons research project on 9/11 will know that it is not true at all. Here are 16 titles from that project (selected from a much longer list) that refer to pre-9/11 exercises and simulations by U.S. government agencies: 
- November 7, 1982: Port Authority Practices for Plane Crashing into the WTC
- (1998-September 10, 2001): NORAD Operations Center Runs Five ‘Hijack Training Events’ Each Month
- 1998-2001: Secret Service Simulates Planes Crashing into the White House
- October 14, 1998: ‘Poised Response’ Exercise Prepares for Bin Laden Attack on Washington
- Between 1999 and September 11, 2001: NORAD Practices Live-Fly Mock Shootdown of a Poison-Filled Jet
- Between September 1999 and September 10, 2001: NORAD Exercises Simulate Plane Crashes into US Buildings; One of Them Is the World Trade Center
- November 6, 1999: NORAD Conducts Exercise Scenario Based around Hijackers Planning to Crash Plane into UN Headquarters in New York
- June 5, 2000: NORAD Exercise Simulates Hijackers Planning to Crash Planes into White House and Statue of Liberty
- October 16-23, 2000: NORAD Exercise Includes Scenarios of Attempted Suicide Plane Crashes into UN Headquarters in New York
- May 2001: Medics Train for Airplane Hitting Pentagon
- June 1-2, 2001: Military Conducts Exercises Based on Scenario in which Cruise Missiles Are Launched against US [“Osama bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the proposal for the exercise”]
- July 2001: NORAD Plans a Mock Simultaneous Hijacking Threat from inside the US
- Early August 2001: Mass Casualty Exercise at the Pentagon Includes a Plane Hitting the Building
- August 4, 2001: Air Defense Exercise Involves the Scenario of Bin Laden Using a Drone Aircraft to Attack Washington
- September 6, 2001: NORAD Exercise Includes Terrorist Hijackers Threatening to Blow Up Airliner
- September 9, 2001: NEADS Exercise Includes Scenario with Terrorist Hijackers Targeting New York
It is not necessary to find an exercise here that perfectly matches the attacks of the fall of 2001. The point is that there is far too much imagination and far too much similarity to the actual attacks of the fall of 2001 to support the “failure of imagination” hypothesis. Hollywood participants in the October, 2001 brainstorming exercise, who thought they were being tapped for their imagination, were conned.
Who was better prepared, through both imagination and logistical capacity, to carry out the attacks of the fall of 2001–Bin Laden’s group or the U.S. national security state? The latter had been practising steadily, in relevant scripted training operations, for years, and it had the power and resources to bring the imaginative scenarios to reality. Al-Qaeda was not remotely its match.
Not Just Filmic, But Exclusively Filmic
The violent destruction of the North Tower
If this business of the filmic nature of the September 11 attacks involved only Hollywood scriptwriters we might be tempted to regard it as nothing but a minor distraction. But what we find is that even members of the Fire Department of New York, risking their lives at the scene, were shocked by the filmic nature of what they witnessed. 
- “I thought I was at an event at Universal Studios, on the side, watching a movie being taped.” (EMS Chief Walter Kowalczyk)
- “I remembered hearing Lieutenant D’Avila coming over the radio and saying Central be advised, a second plane just went into the second tower. We ran out and we saw the second plane. It was like watching a movie. It really was.” (EMT Peter Cachia)
- “I looked over my shoulder and you could see the whole top of the south tower leaning towards us. It looked like it was coming over. You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one and a half floors pop out.” (Chief Steve Grabher)
- “The building started collapsing, the north tower started collapsing. It tipped down first and then the thing fell within itself. It was an amazing sight to see. It was really unbelievable. I thought I was watching a movie with special effects.” (EMT Michael Mejias)
- “As I’m looking up at this stuff that’s going on up there now, I just like — I’m saying to myself I’ve seen this in a movie. My whole recollection is going back to a movie or something I saw. I just saw this before.” (Fire Marshal Steven Mosiello)
- “ … it looked like a bomb, of course, had gone off, almost like a nuclear bomb. That’s all I could think of. I’ve never been at war. I equated it to being like when I saw something like when I was a kid and I saw Godzilla in the movies or something, when he crushes those buildings and stuff like that, that’s what it looked like to me.” (Firefighter Edward Kennedy)
- “I’m standing on top of the rig between the bucket and the cab, between the ladder and the cab. People were blessing themselves in this gloominess of going down. It was like out of a movie. I couldn’t believe what was going on.” (Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy)
- “I just recall that those first — those first minutes from the time that sound started, the rumbling started to occur and the dust started to fall and then stopped to get gear and equipment from the fire truck and then continue down to West Street and getting there and seeing the crushed fire trucks, crushed cars, vehicles on fire. It was like a movie set.” (Firefighter Daniel Lynch)
- “Then like a Godzilla movie, everybody that had been standing in that little park there across from One Liberty Plaza and had been just looking up and watching the north tower burn just started running eastbound like they were being chased by someone.” (Battalion Chief Brian Dixon)
- “Then, you started to run, your [sic] helping people, helping them run. You saw it, it was amazing … like out of a movie, you know, the cloud’s just chasing you. As you look back, you see it engulf people.” (EMP Peter Constantine)
- “ … as I turned on Albany I looked over my shoulder and I saw the big cloud of dust that was already on the ground like just making its way down the block, just like a movie.” (EMS Captain Frank D’Amato)
- “The first thing came in my mind was the movie Armageddon, and this was reality, with the black smoke 30 floors high, debris falling everywhere … .Because I have never seen anything like that in 21 years of emergency work.” (EMT Russell Harris)
- “Then as soon as we got over there, as soon as we got off of the Brooklyn Bridge, the people were running like it was a Godzilla movie, and we had to stop there for a while. People were overcome, were shaken, were scared … ” (EMT Christopher Kagenaar)
- “But I ran and ran, and finally I could see the light. When I got to where the tunnel was, I’m looking everywhere. It was just like that movie the day after with the atomic bomb. They drop it and nobody’s left and I’m the only one.” (Paramedic Robert Ruiz)
- “I remember seeing the rubble, seeing the rubble fall and actually start to chase down the street, and, you know, it’s strange because you wouldn’t expect — you wouldn’t expect debris to do that, but it literally traveled, like, you would see these movies with like a tidal wave that flows through the streets and hits down any path it can.” (Rosario Terranova)
These comments, selected from a wider set of similar comments, are intriguing, but what is their significance? As we examine them closely we recognize that the September 11 event was not just filmic but exclusively filmic. By this I mean that the narrative presented to us by authorities could not have unfolded outside of a film.
Since at least as early as 1902, when the French film A Trip to the Moon (Le Voyage dans la Lune) took its viewers into space, audiences have been enjoying the ability of movies to deliver dramatic action through special effects, and especially by suspending, fictionally, the laws of physics. This is part of the power of film and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But it is important to know when we are in the theatre and when we are not.
In the original 1933 film, King Kong, director Merian Cooper was determined to make the appearance of his monster dramatically powerful, and to this end was prepared to change the monster’s size repeatedly to fit particular scenes.
“I was a great believer in constantly changing Kong’s height to fit the settings and the illusions. He’s different in almost every shot; sometimes he’s only 18 feet (5.5 m) tall and sometimes 60 feet (18.3 m) or larger … but I felt confident that if the scenes moved with excitement and beauty, the audience would accept any height that fitted into the scene.” 
Cooper understood what mattered in a movie. But imagine what would happen if audiences remained convinced by the suspension of the laws of physics after they left the theatre? This, it seems to me, is what has happened with the events of September 11, 2001. Many people are still deceived by the special effects. They are still captured by the movie of 9/11.
Consider two of the most traumatizing elements in the attacks, the disappearance of the Twin Towers and the ensuing debris cloud.
The destruction of the Twin Towers stunned first responders. Their previous experiences, including experiences with high-rise fires, did not lead them to suspect these buildings would come down.
“Whoever in their right mind would have thought that the World Trade Center would ever fall down … Nobody in the world, nobody ever would ever have thought those buildings were coming down.” (EMS Captain Mark Stone) 
Investigations over the last 16 years have demonstrated that the first responders’ surprise was justified. The explanations offered by official U.S. agencies have been shown to violate basic laws of physics. 
Awed by the spectacle of the Twin Towers coming down, and by the later fall of World Trade 7, we are supposed to forget our high school physics. We are not supposed to notice that the official explanations given to us leave these spectacles every bit as peculiar as King Kong’s ever-changing size.
So this central dramatic element, as edited for TV, interpreted by ponderous official voices, and played repeatedly for a world audience, belonged to the 9/11 movie. Behind the scenes the director had ordered that explosive charges be set in the buildings.
Well over one hundred members of the Fire Department of New York witnessed explosions at the beginning of the so-called collapses of the Twin Towers.  Their testimony fits with the controlled demolition hypothesis and does not fit with the script of the 9/11 movie. Since promotion of the government’s movie would have been difficult if these voices were heard, they were suppressed.
The second deeply impressive event of September 11, which appears repeatedly in the FDNY musings about the filmic nature of what they witnessed, was the cloud of material that rushed through the streets of Manhattan in the wake of the destruction of each of the Towers. Several films are mentioned by name in this connection, including those featuring Godzilla, King of Monsters, created for Japanese films less than ten years after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a deliberately provocative meditation on the forces of the nuclear age. 
The FDNY World Trade Center Task Force interviews give a lively sense of what it felt like to be trapped in this debris cloud. 
Everything was pitch-black. You couldn’t see anything. All I saw was big bolts of fire, fire balls. I could feel the heat around me. It was pitch-black. I couldn’t see anything at all. My lungs, my airways, everything filled up with ash. I couldn’t breathe.” (EMT Renae O’Carroll)
“All of a sudden the noises stopped, the sound of the building falling stopped. We all turned around and it was dark now. We really couldn’t see … The cloud was in there. All eating the cloud, whatever it was like, very thick. I keep saying it was like a 3 dimensional object. It wasn’t smoke. It was like everything. It was like a sand storm.” (Firefighter Timothy Burke)
“So I’m running, and people are running in front of me. They stop. They turn around. I think everything’s over with. So I stop, all of a sudden the thing is coming at us. It was like in dark hell, like a nuclear blizzard. I couldn’t explain it. You couldn’t see in front of you. You couldn’t breathe. You’re inhaling. You’re coughing. You’re running. You can’t see anything.” (EMT Mary Merced)
“You still can’t see it because it’s dark as a mother. You can’t breathe. It’s so heavy with smoke and dust and ash.
I can’t breathe. I have, for lack of a better term, dust impaction in my ears, in my nose. I was coughing it out of my mouth. It felt like I had a baseball in my mouth. I was just picking it out with my fingers.” (Paramedic Louis Cook)
People on 9/11 running from the debris cloud
As is clear from these testimonies, words like “smoke” and “dust” do not do justice to the cloud in which people were trapped. That is because the clouds were the Towers. Each Tower was converted in less than 20 seconds from a powerful, massive structure over 415 metres (1362 feet) high into cut steel and pulverized matter. While the steel lay on the ground, much of the remainder was rapidly propelled through the streets of Manhattan.
Just as the dramatic tale of building destruction involved deception, so did the equally dramatic tale of this engulfing cloud. This cloud was not the result of a gravitational collapse caused by Muslim terrorists flying planes into buildings. It was the result of an explosive building demolition.
That this cloud could not have been caused in the manner claimed by the official narrative has been argued several times, beginning at least as early as 2003.  The demonstrations are independent of the proofs of explosive destruction of the buildings.
Credible scientists have calculated the amount of potential gravitational energy in the Twin Towers–the only major form of energy available, according to the official narrative, at the time of the “collapse” since the energy contributed at that point by the fires was minimal and indirect–and have compared it to the amount of energy that would have been required to create the pulverized debris cloud.
Professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol has recently discussed this issue.  He has calculated the gravitational potential energy of each of the Towers at 508.4 x 109 joules. He has calculated the energy required to pulverize the concrete of each Tower at 857.5 x 109 joules; the energy to destroy the perimeter columns at 219 x 109 joules; and the energy to destroy the core columns at 178 x 109 joules. The total energy required for the concrete and columns is 1,254.5 x 109 joules.
Simply put, these figures suggest that it would have taken about two and a half times the amount of energy available through gravity to have destroyed the Towers as witnessed.
Professor Korol’s calculations are based on experimental work he has done in the laboratory, the results of which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. He has pulverized concrete. He has buckled and crushed columns. He has measured the force required in each case. His calculations with respect to the Twin Towers are extremely conservative in that they do not attempt to include all forms of destruction attested, such as pulverizing of walls, furniture and human bodies.
If, moreover, we were to add to his calculations the energy required to propel the pulverized buildings in all directions through the streets of Manhattan, as some authors have done, we would find the impossibility of the official narrative even more striking.  The comment by the FDNY’s Terranova, quoted earlier–“you wouldn’t expect debris to do that–” is an understatement.
We cannot avoid the conclusion that the gravity-caused debris cloud was exclusively filmic just like King Kong’s fluctuating height. Both honoured the rules of dramatic action by violating the laws of physics.
The apparently fanciful references to Godzilla by first responders are actually perceptive. Gravity was aided by an extremely muscular destructive force. But in Godzilla movies the monster is visible, while the monster of the 9/11 movie was invisible and must be made visible through investigation.
In the 1958 trailer for the B-movie, The Blob, film-goers are shown sitting in a theatre as a horror movie begins.  They are frightened, but only in the distant way that film audiences allow themselves to feel frightened by fictional representations. Then we notice the monster (“the Blob”) oozing into the theatre itself. As the movie-goers wake up to this reality and sense the real danger, they tear their eyes from the screen and run from the theatre.
As audiences today watch the War on Terror, hypnotized by the extremist evil-doers, a pitiless oligarchy creeps unseen into the room. Our challenge is to break the spell of the B-movie of 9/11. Only when people sense the genuine danger and leave behind fiction and special effects will they be in a position to deal with the real monster that confronts us.
Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2017)
“September 11: A Warning from Hollywood,” BBC Panorama (BBC, March 24, 2002).)
Spectacle, the visual aspect of dramatic action, was included in Aristotle’s Poetics as an essential element of drama. As for conflict and violence, see Lew Hunter, Lew Hunter’s Screenwriting 434 (New York: Perigee, 1993), pp. 19, 22 ff.
“Hollywood: The Pentagon’s New Advisor,” BBC Panorama (BBC, 2002); Sharon Weinberger, “Hollywood’s Secret Meet,” Wired, March 16, 2007.
Weinberger, “Hollywood’s Secret Meet.”
“Hollywood: The Pentagon’s New Advisor.”
Weinberger, “Hollywood’s Secret Meet.”
George W. Bush, “President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference,” (U.S. government archives, April 13, 2004).
Condoleezza Rice, “Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice,” (U.S. government archives, May 16, 2002).
Alec Russell, “9/11 Report Condemns ‘failure of Imagination,’” Telegraphly 23, 2004. [The 9/11 Commission Report credits Rumsfeld with this phrase (on p. 336, pdf: 353), giving the “DOD memo Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, ‘Were We Asleep?’” of Sept. 18, 2001 as souce. – editor’s note]
Sean Alfano, “Iconic Director Robert Altman Dead At 81,” CBS/AP, November 21, 2006.
“The Motion Picture As A Weapon of Psychological Warfare.” Matthew Alford, National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood (Drum Roll Books, 2017), p. 31.
The New York Times, having obtained the World Trade Center Task Force Interviews from the City of New York through a lawsuit, hosts the documents on its website. The interviews are in the form of separate PDF files. Each file is identified by the interviewee’s name.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews” (City of New York, 2002 2001)
From an interview with Cooper quoted in “King Kong,” Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2017.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews.” See note 18.
Ibid. See note 18.
The best summary in recent years is Ted Walter, BEYOND MISINFORMATION: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 (Berkeley, California: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., 2015) (free pdf; free e-version).
Graeme MacQueen, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, August 2006.
Tim Martin, “Godzilla: Why the Japanese Original Is No Joke,” The Telegraph, May 15, 2014.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews.” See note 18.
The earliest attempt I know of is by Jim Hoffman. See “The North Tower’s Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center, Version 3.1,” 9-11 Research, October 16, 2003.
Ted Walter, BEYOND MISINFORMATION: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 (Berkeley, California: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., 2015) (free pdf; free e-version). Full references to Korol’s articles are given in Adnan Zuberi’s compilation accompanying “9/11 in the Academic Community: Academia’s Treatment of Critical Perspectives on 9/11—Documentary” [which is available on YouTube – editor’s note].
Trailer, The Blob, 1958, YouTube.
Images in this article are from the author.
Point MC-Intro: Overview of Contradicted Claims about Key Military and
Point MC-Intro: Political Leaders
(Editor’s Note: References supporting this Overview Point are included on the linked pages of the individual Points summarized below.)
One of the most remarkable features of 9/11 is the fact that the official accounts of the activities of six political and military leaders with central roles on 9/11 – roles that put them in position to affect the outcome of crucial events of that day – are challenged by facts suggesting that each story is false or at best dubious.
On the morning of 9/11, President Bush was visiting a grade school in Sarasota, Florida. When it appeared that hijackers were going after high-value targets, the head of the Secret Service detail allowed President Bush to remain at the school for 30 minutes, and to make a television address to the nation, thereby letting any terrorists know that the President was still there.
The Secret Service is charged with protecting the President. One of the unanswered questions, wrote the St. Petersburg Times, is “why the Secret Service did not immediately hustle Bush to a secure location.” The 9/11 Family Steering Committee asked: “Why was President Bush permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the Sarasota elementary school?”
The 9/11 Commission Report merely said, “The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.”
This break in protocol suggests – even if it does not prove – that the Secret Service, at some level, knew that the President was not in danger.
In addition, the White House, during the week of the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, described Bush’s visit to the school room in afalse way (see Point MC-2), which later had to be corrected after a videotape of the event emerged.
However, a number of witnesses – including Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, White House photographer David Bohrer, and Cheney himself (on Meet the Press) – reported that Cheney was in the PEOC before the Pentagon attack. Most important was Mineta, who reported that Cheney had given responses to questions from a young officer, as a plane approached the Pentagon, about whether the “orders still stand.” Cheney’s reply that they did stand can best be understood as Cheney’s confirmation of a stand-down order.
However, counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke’s book Against All Enemies, which appeared in 2004 several months before the publication of The 9/11 Commission Report, portrayed Rumsfeld as being in the Pentagon’s video center in the Executive Support Center from shortly after the second WTC attack until after the attack on the Pentagon. Also, Robert Andrews, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, stated independently that, after the second WTC attack, Rumsfeld went across the hall to the Executive Support Center to join Clarke’s video conference.
It appears that the accounts given by Secretary Rumsfeld and the 9/11 Commission were false.
- The 2004 book Against All Enemies, by counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, portrayed Myers as having, along with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, gone to the Pentagon’s video center at roughly 9:10 AM — it was shortly after the second (9:03) attack on the World Trade Center — which would mean that Myers could not have been on Capitol Hill at that time.
- Thomas White, the Secretary of the Army, indicated that Myers was in a breakfast meeting with Rumsfeld from 8:00 AM until 8:46 AM (when the first plane hit the WTC).
- The 2009 book by General Hugh Shelton, for whom Myers was substituting that morning, portrayed Myers as being in the Pentagon when it was hit.
It thus appears that the account given by Myers and the 9/11 Commission was false.
After learning of the second WTC attack, he ordered his crew to return to the Pentagon. According to Shelton, he was almost immediately given permission to return to the USA, returned to Andrews Air Force Base by roughly noon, and reached the Pentagon shortly thereafter.
However, the claim that Shelton’s plane returned to the Pentagon shortly after noon is contradicted by several facts:
- The Speckled Trout flight navigator reportedly said that the plane, having not quickly received clearance, had to go into a holding pattern over Greenland (for two hours) and again over Canada.
- The flight tracking strip indicated that the Speckled Trout did not land at Andrews until 4:40 PM.
- A military assistant traveling with Shelton stated that they drove from Andrews to the Pentagon in the “late afternoon.”
- General Myers stated that Shelton had arrived at the Pentagon at 5:40 PM, having “just returned from an aborted European flight.”
It appears that this part of General Shelton’s story is not true.
For two years it was both assumed and reported on television that Army Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield,the Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) at the National Military Command Center (NMCC), was in charge the morning of 9/11.
But in July 2003, the 9/11 Commission was told that between 8:30 AM and roughly 10:00 AM, Winfield had been replaced – at his own request, to attend a meeting to discuss the ratings of Air Force officers – by Navy Captain Charles Joseph “Joe” Leidig, who two months earlier had been made the Deputy for Command Center Operations and in August had qualified to stand watch in Winfield’s place.
However, this account raises several puzzling questions, including these
- Why did Brig. Gen. Winfield present himself, in CNN and ABC programs in 2002, as the DDO during the attacks?
- Why was Brig. General Winfield not called back to the NMCC after the second attack on the Twin Towers (which made clear that America was being attacked)?
- Why did General Richard Myers, who had been the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,describe Winfield – in a memoir published in 2009 – as the “duty officer in charge” of the NMCC on the morning of 9/11?
These unanswered questions suggest the untruth of the claim of the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission that Leidig, rather than Winfield, served as the DDO during the 9/11 attacks – even though it is not clear why, if this claim is untrue – the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission made the claim.
- All six men were officials who had positions from which they could have affected the outcome of the 9/11 attacks.
- The 9/11 Commission gave an account of each man that is contradicted by considerable evidence.
These six accounts provide, therefore, a remarkable fact: that the 9/11 Commission has evidently given false accounts of the behavior of six officials occupying positions from which they could have affected the outcomes of the 9/11 attacks.
This interlocking evidence clearly points to the need for further investigation into the roles of key government and military officials on September 11, 2001.
Point MC-3: The Claim about the Time of Dick Cheney’s Entry into the
Point MC-3: White House Bunker
Vice President Dick Cheney took charge of the government’s response to the 9/11 attacks after he entered the PEOC (the Presidential Emergency Operations Center), a.k.a. “the bunker.”
The The 9/11 Commission Report said  that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10:00 AM, which was at least 20 minutes after the violent event at the Pentagon that killed more than 100 people.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta told the 9/11 Commission that, after he joined Cheney and others in the bunker at approximately 9:20 AM, he listened to an ongoing conversation between Cheney and a young man, which took place when “the airplane was coming into the Pentagon.” 
After the young man, having reported for the third time that the plane was coming closer, asked whether “the orders still stand,” Cheney emphatically said they did. The The 9/11 Commission Report, by claiming that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until long after the Pentagon was damaged, implies that this exchange between Cheney and the young man – which can most naturally be understood as Cheney’s confirmation of a stand-down order – could not have occurred.
However, testimony that Cheney was in the PEOC by 9:20 was reported not only by Mineta but also by Richard Clarke  and White House photographer David Bohrer.  Cheney himself, speaking on “Meet the Press” five days after 9/11, reported that he had entered the PEOC before the Pentagon was damaged. 
The 9/11 Commission’s attempt to bury the exchange between Cheney and the young man confirms the importance of Mineta’s report of this conversation.
The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), note 213, p. 464 (pdf-p. 481).
“911 Commission: Trans. Sec. Norman Mineta Testimony” (YouTube: derdy).
Richard Clarke, “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror” (New York: Free Press, 2004), pp. 2-5.
See “9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, September 11, 2002.
“The Vice President Appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert,” MSNBC, September 16, 2001.
Point MC-2: The White House Claim as to How Long
Point MC-2: President Bush Remained in the Florida Classroom
After President Bush entered the classroom in Sarasota, Florida, his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered in his ear, reportedly saying: “A second plane hit the second Tower. America is under attack.” 
- The President remained seated “only a matter of seconds,” Card told the San Francisco Chronicle, and then “excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the students and he left.” 
- The President “didn’t want to alarm the children,” Karl Rove told NBC. Knowing that “the drill was coming to a close … he waited for a few moments … not very long at all … and he came into the staff room.” 
- Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher of the second grade class that Bush visited, told the Los Angeles Times: “I knew something was up when President Bush didn’t pick up the book and participate in the lesson … . He said, ‘Mrs. Daniels, I have to leave now. I am going to leave Lt. Gov. Frank Brogan here to do the speech for me.’ Looking at his face, you knew something was wrong. … He shook my hand and left.” 
- In a Tampa Tribune article published September 1, 2002, reporter Jennifer Barrs said that after Card whispered in the President’s ear, Bush remained silent for about 30 seconds and then picked up his book and read with the children “for eight or nine minutes.” 
- The Tampa Tribune article, which came out 10 days before the article by Sandra Kay Daniels quoted above, had indicated that Daniels herself had read with the students “for eight or nine minutes.” It added that Daniels, having observed that Bush was so “lost in thought” that he “forgot about the book in his lap,” had been confronted with a difficult problem: “I couldn’t gently kick him. … I couldn’t say, ‘OK, Mr. President. Pick up your book, sir. The whole world is watching.’ ” 
- Various reports indicated that after the reading lesson was over, Bush continued to talk.  Bush was “openly stretching out the moment” and even “lingered until the press was gone,” wrote Bill Sammon (the White House correspondent for the Washington Times), who referred to Bush as “the dawdler in chief.” 
The fact that Bush had not left the room quickly was confirmed by a videotape of the classroom visit, which had been shot by the local cable-TV director and which became available on the Internet in June 2003. 
- The Wall Street Journal reported in March 2004 that this videotape showed that Bush “followed along for five minutes as children read aloud a story about a pet goat.” 
- This tape became more widely known when Michael Moore’s film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which included it, appeared in June 2004.
- When the White House was contacted by the Wall Street Journal for its March 2004 article, spokesperson Dan Bartlett admitted that the President had remained in the classroom for at least seven minutes, explaining that Bush had not left immediately because his “instinct was not to frighten the children by rushing out of the room.” 
- However, even if this explanation were accepted, the real question, which the WSJ did not ask, was why, on the first anniversary of 9/11, the Bush White House started telling a lie about how long Bush had remained in the classroom.
Was this because the White House, having successfully portrayed Bush as a strong leader in response to the 9/11 attacks, wanted to conceal the fact that he had continued listening to children reading a story rather than taking immediate action as president and commander-in-chief? Was it because the Secret Service knew (as suggested in the Point about the President’s not being hustled away) that the country was not really “under attack” by foreign terrorists?
Whatever the motive, the Bush White House used the national media on the first anniversary of 9/11 to circulate a false story about the President.
The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), 38 (pdf: 55).
Andrew Card, “What If You Had to Tell the President?” San Francisco Chronicle, 11 September 2002. Likewise, : “I pulled away from the president, and not that many seconds later, the president excused himself from the classroom, and we gathered in the holding room and talked about the situation,” NBC News, 9 September 2002. Card similarly told ABC News: “The president waited for a moment for the students to finish, then said, ‘Thank you all so very much for showing me your reading skills,’ and headed for the empty classroom next door,” in “Sept. 11’s Moments of Crisis: Part 1: Terror Hits the Towers,” ABC News, 14 September 2002.
“9/11 Interview with Campbell Brown,” NBC News, 11 September 2002.
Sandra Kay Daniels, “9/11: A Year After/Who We Are Now,” Los Angeles Times, 11 September 2002.
Jennifer Barrs, “From a Whisper to a Tear,” Tampa Tribune, 1 September 2002. On the importance of this story, plus the fact that it has become virtually unavailable on the Internet, see Elizabeth Woodworth, “President Bush at the Florida School: New Conflicting Testimonies,” 7 July 2007, 911Blogger.com.
Barrs, “From a Whisper to a Tear.”
Ibid.; Bill Adair and Stephen Hegarty, “The Drama in Sarasota,” St. Petersburg Times, September 8, 2002.
Bill Sammon, “Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism: From Inside the Bush White House” (Washington: Regnery, 2002), 89-90.
“5-Minute Video of George W. Bush on the Morning of 9/11,” (YouTube: Uncle Steve).
Scot J. Paltrow, “Government Accounts of 9/11 Reveal Gaps, Inconsistencies,” Wall Street Journal, 22 March 2004.
Point MC-1: Why Was President Bush Not Hustled Away
Point MC-1: from the Florida School?
On the morning of September 11, 2001, President Bush was in Sarasota, Florida, scheduled to read with grade school students for a “photo op.” 
- When the President arrived, he was told at 8:55 AM that a small plane had hit the World Trade Center. Bush responded that “a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center and we’re going to … do the reading thing anyway.” 
- While Bush was seated in the classroom, his chief of staff, Andrew Card, came in (at about 9:05 ) and reportedly whispered in the President’s ear: “A second plane hit the second Tower. America is under attack.” 
- Bush remained in the classroom another five to seven minutes,  then made a statement to the nation from the school, after which he left the school at about 9:35. 
- The St. Petersburg Times asked “why the Secret Service did not immediately hustle Bush to a secure location.”  Likewise, the Family Steering Committee – which was instrumental in getting the 9/11 Commission created – asked: “Why was President Bush permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the Sarasota elementary school where he was reading to children?” 
- The 9/11 Commission explained: “The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.” 
- The Secret Service is charged with the protection of the president. In a book about the Secret Service, Philip Melanson wrote: “With an unfolding terrorist attack, the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” 
- The presidential visit had been highly publicized, and one journalist had written, in fact, that “Bush’s presence made … the planned reading event a perceived target,” because “the well-publicized event at the school assured Bush’s location that day was no secret.” 
- Given this fact, combined with evidence that many planes had been hijacked and that terrorists were going after high-value targets,  the Secret Service should have assumed that a hijacked airliner may have been bearing down on the school at that very moment, so the President should have been removed immediately. Indeed, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, the Marine carrying the President’s phone said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?” 
- However, this Marine’s instructions were evidently overridden: The head of the Secret Service detail allowed Bush to remain at the school 30 minutes longer to make his previously scheduled television address to the nation at 9:29, thereby letting any terrorists know that he was still at the school. 
This break in protocol indicates that the Secret Service, at some level, knew that the President was not in danger.
The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (W. W. Norton & Company, 2004) p. 39; The 9/11 Commission Report, (pdf), pdf-p. 56.
Mitch Stacy, “Florida School Where Bush Learned of the Attacks Reflects on Its Role in History,” Associated Press, 19 August 2002.
The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004, 38 (pdf: 55).
Ibid., p. 39 (pdf: 56)
“One of the many unanswered questions about that day is why the Secret Service did not immediately hustle Bush to a secure location, as it apparently did with Vice President Dick Cheney,” Susan Taylor Martin, “Of Fact, Fiction: Bush on 9/11,” St. Petersburg Times, 4 July 2004. This issue had been raised the day after 9/11 in one of Canada’s leading newspapers, which wrote: “For some reason, Secret Service agents did not bustle [Bush] away,” John Ibbitson, “Action, Not Overreaction, Prudent Course,” Globe and Mail, 12 September 2001.
Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, Knopf, 2006, 54.
The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004, 39.
Philip H. Melanson, Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Enigmatic Agency (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2002), as quoted in Susan Taylor Martin, “Of Fact, Fiction: Bush on 9/11.”
Mike Riopell, “” Arlington Heights Daily Herald, 11 September 2006.
The event had been known by county school officials since early August. Much preparation had been done. “George W. Bush at Booker Elementary School( 9/11/01)” (YouTube: Matty). Concern was expressed by Sarasota County Sheriff Colonel Steve Burns, who was in charge of security at Booker Elementary school that day and was working with the Secret Service; see “Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office – Behind the Scenes on 9/11” (YouTube: SarasotaSheriff) at 2:30).
Richard A. Clarke, “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror” (New York: Free Press, 2004), 4.
Tom Bayles, “The Day Before Everything Changed, President Bush Touched Locals’ Lives,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 10 September 2002; Blakewill’s statement was later quoted in Susan Taylor Martin, “Of Fact, Fiction: Bush on 9/11,” St. Petersburg Times, 4 July 2004.
Bush’s speech was reported live on CNN and is available as “Bush 911 Speech on CNN” (YouTube: slipstick99).
Evidence-Based Literature Sources Opposing
The Official Story of September 11
The literature of 9/11 can be divided into US government documents, which support the official account of 9/11, and the body of literature that has emerged from the professional research community through dissatisfaction with the official account.
Government Documents Advocating the Official Story of September 11
A 9/11 investigation was resisted by the White House  and was only granted under pressure from the surviving families nearly two years after the event. The 9/11 Commission was a low-budget affair (costing a fraction of the Monica Lewinsky investigation) and tightly controlled by a White House insider, Philip Zelikow. 
Co-Chair Lee Hamilton said the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” and Former commissioner Max Cleland resigned, calling it a “national scandal.” 
The 9/11 Commission Report ignored dozens of facts,  including the sudden, straight-down collapse at 5:21 PM of World Trade Center 7, a 47-story steel-framed building that was two blocks from the Twin Towers and was not hit by an airplane.
The Report, which is incomplete and lacks peer review, can hardly be viewed as an evidence-based study.
The other central documents in the official account were prepared over a seven-year period by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in an attempt to explain the strange vertical, nearly free-fall collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7.  There was no consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis, although the attending firefighters and TV anchors (including CBS anchor Dan Rather and ABC anchor Peter Jennings  suggested the uncanny similarity at the time.
Like The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST reports were not peer-reviewed. Sixty days were given for public comment on the first draft, but the comments, and many serious concerns that were raised, were almost entirely ignored in writing the final report. 
As the NIST reports were not peer-reviewed, they cannot be judged as evidence-based.
Independent Scientific Research Opposing the Official Story of September 11
Most of the best evidence challenging the official story has been reported in ten highly documented books by Dr. David Ray Griffin, who had taught philosophy of religion, with a heavy focus on the relation between religion and science, for 35 years. His books, videotaped lectures, and online essays are available on a website. 
Published articles in the scientific literature include:
- a paper reporting the presence of nanothermite in the dust from the destruction of the World Trade Center; 
- six papers in the February 2010 American Behavioral Scientist, indexed by 67 databases, and published as a whole issue on State Crimes Against Democracy, with 9/11 used as a primary example; 
- an article in The Environmentalist, “Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials;” 
- a paper, “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction;” 
- a science article countering popular myths about the WTC collapses; 
- 59 peer-reviewed papers on the physics of 9/11 events, published since 2006 in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and 67 letters between members of the academic community; 
- 9 scholarly papers published as a compendium in 2006 by Elsevier Science Press, suggesting US complicity in a false flag operation.  The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 was never reviewed in the mainstream press.
Other resources include Morgan and Henshall’s 9/11 Revealed  and Flight 93 Revealed;  two books by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, America’s War on Terrorism,  and War and Globalisation: The Truth Behind September 11;  and the Complete 9/11 Timeline investigative project. 
Although the foregoing evidence against the official story has not been distilled into the systematic reviews and practice guidelines that are the products of evidence-based medicine, each claim has been either multiply peer-reviewed or substantially documented. All claims are based on continually updated and ongoing research.
This qualifies the independent research cited above as the best available evidence concerning the events of September 11.
Note: This summary has been excerpted and slightly revised from a paper published in the journal, Information for Social Change, August, 2010. 
- About us ↓
- What is “Best Evidence?”
- The 9/11 Consensus Points ↓
- General Points ↓
- Twin Towers ↓
- Point TT-1
- Point TT-2
- Point TT-3
- Point TT-4
- Point TT-5
- Point TT-6
- Point TT-7
- Point TT-8
- Point TT-9
- Building WTC 7 ↓
- Point WTC7-1
- Point WTC7-2
- Point WTC7-3
- Point WTC7-4
- Point WTC7-5
- Point WTC7-6
- Point WTC7-7
- Point WTC7-8
- Pentagon ↓
- Point Pent-1
- Point Pent-2
- Point Pent-3
- Point Pent-4
- Flights ↓
- Military Exercises ↓
- Military and Political Commands ↓
- Point MC-Intro
- Point MC-1
- Point MC-2
- Point MC-3
- Point MC-4
- Point MC-5
- Point MC-6
- Point MC-7
- Point MC-8
- Point MC-9
- Point MC-10
- Hijackers ↓
- Point H-1
- Point H-2
- Point H-3
- Point H-4
- Phone Calls ↓
- Point PC-1
- Point PC-1A
- Point PC-2
- Point PC-3
- Point PC-4
- Video Evidence ↓
- Archived News
- Press Releases
- References, Evidence-Based
search in current language:
Donate to Consensus 911