Are We Boiling Frogs?
Page 17
the terrorists took advantage of. How far can the rest of us
stretch ‘coincidence’ as a plausible explanation?
In the decade prior to 9/11, research shows, the FAA and
NORAD had trained for the 'unthinkable' scenario of
hijacked planes being used as weapons on a number of
occasions.[46]
For example, on October 16th 2000, NORAD (NEADS)
simulated a hijacked Fed-Ex plane being used to hit the UN
Building. Only a few days later, the Pentagon ran its
MASCAL exercise, preparing for the possibility of a
136
A Dangerous Ideology
commercial flight striking the Pentagon. Similarly, the FAA
ran preparedness drills and exercises. In December 2000
they simulated a flight turning its transponder off. In a larger
2001 exercise, they ran scenarios surrounding the fictional
hijacking of a Boeing 767 over Florida.
Other New York based agencies, such as the FBI, FEMA and
the NYPD, were also prepared, having specifically trained for
a variety of terrorist scenarios. Police Commissioner Bernard
Kerik testified to the 9/11 Commission that preparedness
was tested frequently to ensure an effective response to
"building collapses" and "plane crashes."
NORAD stated, prior to 9/11, numerous training exercises
modelled potential attacks using hijacked aircraft. Feasible
targets included the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
[183] In May 2001 the Arlington Tri-Service DiLorenzo
Health Care Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic,
trained for a scenario involving a hijacked 757 airliner being
crashed into the Pentagon. Furthermore, longstanding
director of the FBI Louis Freeh told the 9/11 Commission
that training frequently considered the possible us of "planes
as weapons." He confirmed:
"The use of airplanes, either packed with
explosives or otherwise, in suicide
missions [was] part of the planning"
So conspiracy theorists utterly reject the statement made by
the Bush administration’s National Security Advisor (and
future Secretary of State) Condoleeza Rice, in May 2002,
when she said:
“I don't think that 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.”
Clearly, not only did the administration and its agencies
predict the possibility, they actively trained for the precise
scenario.
137
A Dangerous Ideology
So, why was the air traffic and air defence picture unusually
convoluted that morning? Firstly, counter terrorism
resources and first responders (the joint FBI - CIA Anti-
Terrorism Task Force), responsible for defending the North
Eastern United States, were, coincidentally, on a training
exercise in California. Also purely by chance, the National
Reconnaissance Office in Chantilly, Virginia were running
simulations of planes striking high rise buildings, causing
confusion when identical events simultaneously occurred in
reality.
Coincidentally, many of the planes that would normally be
available to defend the Skies over New York, Boston and
Washington were otherwise engaged.
Operation 'Southern Watch' placed the 174th Fighter Wing of
the New York Air National Guard in a training exercise in
Saudi Arabia; Operation 'Northern Watch' dispatched 6
interceptors from Langley to the Turkish skies; Operation
'Northern Guardian' had more Langley interceptors chasing
fictitious Russian bombers around Iceland; F15's from
Langley and the 121st Fighter Squadron from Andrews AFB
were in Nevada participating in 'Red flag;' Operation
'Northern Vigilance' diverted more fighters and support
crews to Alaska to monitor a scheduled Russian bombing
drill.
Coincidentally, communication systems were also simulating
cyber and infrastructure attacks as the terrorists struck.
Operation 'Global Guardian' was busy simulating a
computer network attack by hostile hackers. Coincidentally,
just as the real world horror was unfolding, NORAD, NEADS
(including ATCs and FAA personnel) were engaged in
Operation 'Vigilant Guardian.' This training exercise
simulated the multiple hijacking of aircraft in the NEADS
sector.
Understandably this was a cause of considerable confusion
for people who were trying to deal with a real world situation
which precisely coincided with an identical, fictitious
incident, occurring at exactly the same moment. A
remarkable coincidence.[47]
138
A Dangerous Ideology
The official explanation for all this is that it was extremely
unfortunate that these calamitous coincidences perfectly
coalesced to leave the NEADS defences unusually
unprepared. This, they add, was especially unfortunate as it
was the exact moment when the multibillion dollar air
defences (built from U.S. tax payers’ enormous investment)
were actually required to deploy their staggering capability.
The stupid conspiracy theorists don't agree that 'shit
happens' rationally accounts for all these highly improbable
coincidences. In fact, they claim the 9/11 Commission
Report, other than providing a record of the official story,
isn't worth the paper it's written on.
It took 441 days of public pressure and a Congressional
mandate to get the Bush administration to agree to a public
inquiry into the largest mass murder on American soil since
'the 500-Year War' (the American Indian Holocaust[184].)
Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the Chair and Vice-Chair of
the 9/11 Commission, stated their opinion that the inquiry
was “set up to fail” in their book 'Without Precedent – The
Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.'
Poorly funded and facing considerable establishment
opposition, the Commission struggled from the outset.
Initially the Bush administration chose Henry Kissinger and
former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell to
head the National Commission. Both men soon resigned.
Kissinger felt an inquiry into 9/11 represented a personal
conflict of interest and stepped down in order to avoid any
potential disclosure of his private consulting firm's client list.
Mitchell cited his reluctance to abandon his law firm, DLA
Piper, as his reason for resignation.[91]
Other problems included the withholding of security
clearances for Commission members, unnecessary and
unusual time limits set on the report stages and restricted
access to information.[90]
In December 2003 former Senator Max Cleland also resigned
from the Commission. Cleland had been critical of the Bush
administrations seeming reluctance for disclosure. He
alleged the government had prior knowledge about the
attacks but weren't forthcoming with the in
telligence. He left
139
A Dangerous Ideology
following the Bush administration's setting of tight
restrictions upon the Commissions access to documentation.
He said:
“I, as a member of the commission, cannot
look any American in the eye, especially
family members of victims, and say the
commission had full access. This
investigation is now compromised.”
In a later interview he added:
“One of these days we will have to get the
full story because the 9-11 issue is so
important to America. But this White House
wants to cover it up.” [92]
Richard A. Clarke, counter terrorism chief, stated the
Executive Director of the Commission, Philip Zelikow, had
been briefed on a suspected al Qaeda attack plan, prior to
9/11, by the White House. Clarke questioned his impartiality
and willingness to disclose information.
Zelikow was widely criticised by Commission members,
victim's families and others when it was revealed that he had
agreed a skeleton outline of the final report, with the Chair
and vice chair, soon after it began. The trio decided to keep
this concealed from other commission members and the
public because they wanted to avoid accusations of a
predetermined outcome. Although, they had written one.
According to the eventual Commissions chair, Thomas Kean,
NORAD gave false testimony to the investigation. He and
other commission members were so concerned they
convened a secret panel in the summer of 2004. Many
believed senior officials had broken the law when they gave
misleading statements to both Congress and the
Commission. Speaking in 2006 Kean said:
“We to this day don't know why NORAD told
us what they told us. It was just so far from
the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends
that never got tied.”
The Commission also relied upon CIA testimony, extracted
140
A Dangerous Ideology
under torture, from suspected terrorist detainees.[93] The
Commission were refused access to the detainees or their
interrogators, despite frequent requests to speak to them.
Instead, they were forced to rely upon third hand testimony.
The Commission also requested to see the video tapes of the
interrogations but the CIA testified there weren't any. This
was a lie. In 2007 the CIA admitted that they had destroyed
the tapes, rather than hand them over to the Commission.
[94]
Consequently, if we accept the 9/11 Commission Report
represents the official narrative of events (and there isn't
another one,) do you think there is any reason to question its
findings?
Is it tenable to discount all of this because it's just a
'conspiracy theory?'
************************
141
A Dangerous Ideology
Chapter 8
The Col apsing Hypothesis.
Like most of us alive to see it, I distinctly remember
watching the towers collapse on TV. A few days later, after
the initial shock subsided, I had some questions.
I couldn't understand how aircraft strikes, and the ensuing
fires, could possibly cause one, let alone three, gargantuan,
steel constructed skyscrapers to completely crumble to little
more than dust. Especially seeing as the third one didn't
even get hit by a plane.
Almost from the point of impact the mainstream media
(MSM) was reporting this as a terrorist attack. So I
concluded, based upon little or no knowledge, that somehow
the terrorists had also set charges inside the buildings. That
flimsy, hollow aluminium planes and fires cannot completely
destroy approximately 500,000 metric tons of steel and
concrete[48] seemed obvious to me. I thought I had
witnessed something which looked very similar to the
numerous controlled demolitions I'd seen on TV before.
142
A Dangerous Ideology
However, according to the official 2005 report[49] offered by
the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST,)
my eyes and mind had deceived me. Like most people, I
accepted this. I don't remember ever having studied
structural engineering. Therefore, in keeping with the vast
majority, my opinion was reliant upon information given to
me by people who claimed they knew far more about it than I
did.
Being 'told' was crucial for my understanding. With a job,
family and bills to pay, I didn't have either the time or,
frankly, sufficient intrigue to do any research myself. Like
most people I watched the news, read the papers and
listened to the broadcasts. I was interested to know more but
also content to rely upon knowledgeable 'experts' to tell me
why the buildings disappeared as they did. I believed the
analysis I was given. Why wouldn't I?
Apparently my acceptance evidences the banal, brain-dead
obsequiousness despised by the most arrogant conspiracy
theorists. Some, I have spoken to, consider anyone who
believes the buildings collapsed as a result of fire to be
hopeless cretins. However, most don't see that way.
The common emotion expressed towards those who accept
the official narrative is sadness. There is a notable sense of
loss amongst the conspiracy theory community. Not only for
those murdered and their loved ones, but also for the
majorities lack of, what they consider to be, critical thinking.
We too easily allow ourselves to be 'told' what to think. So
pervasive is our unconditional acceptance, we will believe
any old claptrap, no matter how far removed from reality, as
long as it comes from 'official sources.' This indoctrination
runs so deep, they claim, we can even be convinced to reject
the evidence of our own eyes. By degrees, we have been
successfully brainwashed into unhesitating belief. Like those
who couldn't see the emperor had no clothes. It's a faith.
Does this opinion evidence the supposed underlying sense of
intellectual superiority? Maybe so, but it would be foolhardy
of us to simply dismiss this concern. Perhaps we are too
eager to have our thinking done for us. Perhaps conspiracy
theorists’ disquiet is warranted.
143
A Dangerous Ideology
In summary, NIST stated that WTC 2 (the South Tower)
collapsed due to some limited structural damage and fires
which burned for 56 minutes. For similar reasons WTC 1
(the North Tower) collapsed 102 minutes after being struck.
[50] Initially NIST didn't comment on the collapse of WTC 7
but later reported that WTC 7 was ignited by debris from the
earlier collapses. The resulting fires caused its total
destruction approximately 7hrs after they began.[51]
In order for investigators to understand why a building
collapsed it is standard procedure to catalogue and examine
the debris. This is crucial to discover the tell-tale signs
which co
uld reveal structural failings or possible criminal
culpability.
The WTC building were of steel constructions, so remaining
girders, trusses and beams were particularly significant for
investigators. Considering the awful loss of life it is truly
unfathomable why, prior to any investigation, the vast bulk
of WTC steel was seized by the New York Port Authority and
rapidly dispatched to New Jersey salvage yards before being
hastily cut up and shipped off to China and India, at way
below market value, for ‘recycling.’[185] Some 150 pieces of
steel, out of hundreds of thousands, were preserved for
‘examination.’ No one knows who the investigating, qualified
structural engineer was who deemed these few the most
relevant. In the absence of physical evidence NIST were
almost completely reliant upon computer models.
In the case of WTC 1 and 2 NIST found the building would
have withstood both the plane impacts and the initial
structural damage. This only contributed to the collapse
once they had begun to fail due to fire. Both Towers were
designed to withstand plane strikes from aircraft. Speaking
in 1993 the lead structural engineer for the WTC twin towers
(John Skilling) stated:[57]
“We looked at every possible thing we could
think of that could happen to the buildings,
even to the extent of an airplane hitting the
side… Our analysis indicated the biggest
problem would be the fact that all the fuel
(from the airplane) would dump into the
144
A Dangerous Ideology
building. There would be a horrendous fire.
A lot of people would be killed. [But] the
building structure would still be there.”
Similarly, in 2001, the WTC site construction manager Frank
A. Demartini said:
“The building was designed to have a fully
loaded 707 crash into it. That was the
largest plane at the time. I believe that the
building probably could sustain multiple
impacts of jet-liners because this structure is
like the mosquito netting on your screen door
—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just
a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It
really does nothing to the screen netting.”
Conspiracists often point out that the towers did not collapse
because of structural damage caused by the plane impacts.
If you believe NIST (and they don't) they collapsed