Twin Towers Of The World Trade Center
Photo Source: Me

The attack of 9/11/2001, was the worst attack on American soil. Up until that time, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was considered the worst. Both attacks came without warning and both attacks caused a massive amount of deaths. One attack had been planned by the military of a country and the other was said to have been planned by terrorists. We have had some time to form opinions on what really happened, but first lets review what we thought we saw and what we had been told at the time.

There is no denying that two planes crashed into the twin towers. Terrorists had taken them over and slammed them into the towers. We all saw this on television. The devastation was incredible. We saw the towers eventually collapse and other buildings that were at the World Trade Center also go down. Who could forget that pile of twisted metal, with the piece of facade on top, or all those brave New York City firemen and policemen who lost their lives trying to save those that were trapped in the buildings. While this was going on, a plane was said to have rammed into the Pentagon. No one saw the plane, just the damage that was caused. We were told that the plane disintegrated upon impact and there were no parts visible on the ground. The damage to the Pentagon was serious and many lives were lost, but it was not on the scale of the twin towers. Lastly we were told that another plane was hijacked at was headed toward the White House and that the passengers had managed to overpower the terrorists and crashed the plane into the ground rather than allow it to continue on its deadly journey. I think that I have just about stated the case as we were told it.

Today we have access to a little more information. I have a question to ask you. What if the attack on the U.S. was not really a terrorist attack but was used to cover up a crime? What if it was a terrorist attack but someone found out that it was going to happen and then used it to cover up a super crime? Do these two scenarios seem so outrageous? I have thought about this from time to time and as I have learned more about the attacks, these ideas began to come into to mind. Lets look at the first scenario, someone convinces terrorists that they are doing God's will, but is really using them, but they don't realize it. What possible gain could someone get from this? I understand that there were two very valuable things under the world trade center. The first was said to be up to 160 billion in gold and the second was said to be evidence in a vault that was going to be used against a rich prominent person to convict him of a major crime. Lets look at the gold first. There was a tunnel under the World Trade Centers. It is said that two trucks full of gold got buried in the rubble, but the rest of the gold was missing. Do you think that this amount of gold might tempt someone to pull off such a vicious attack, I do? Worse than that however, would be if someone in the government found out about the impending attack and used it to enrich themselves. Maybe both crimes were combines, because the evidence from the safe was said to have gone missing. I don't think that two crimes were committed by different parties at once, that would be rather more far fetched then even what we are talking about now.

Remember how the buildings looked as they came down. They both fell straight down, just as building do when they are demolished by explosives. Molten metal was found in the basement of the World Trade Centers. Some experts claim that it could only have come from explosives that were planted in strategic locations in the buildings to bring the buildings down. Perhaps they were allowed to stand for awhile so that the gold could be taken and then the buildings were detonated to cover any tracks. I truly hate to think that something like this could have happened, but it is starting to look that way. Some experts have said that the burning fuel onboard the planes that collided with the buildings didn't burn hot enough to bring these structures down. I would like to know why neither building fell over. As metal melts from the heat, it doesn't melt evenly because there are hotter and colder spots, but if you detonate a controlled explosion you get a straight fall, and that is just what happened.

After the collision, one plane was still heading for the White House. Is it possible that when the terrorists were flying the plane, that they could have locked themselves into the cockpit, just leaving a couple of terrorists outside the door? This seems logical as civilian pilots don't leave the cockpit door open. If this was the case, would it have been possible for the passengers to break into the cockpit? Maybe and maybe not. It just might turn out that the U.S. government gave the order to shoot that plane down. So why were we told about how the passengers retook the plane and crashed it, to avoid hitting the White House? This is simple really, if you were the government, would you want to admit that you shot down a plane containing passengers, I don't think so? Since there were no survivors on the plane, it would be easy to make up a story about what really happened.

Ground Zero
Photo Source: U.S. Coast Guard

There were a lot of things that happened that were connected to 9/11 that seem strange. The first that comes to my mind is the grounding of all aircraft on that day, except for the Bin Ladin family plane which was allowed to fly away through the skies that were forbidden to everyone else. How do we know that a terrorist or two didn't get away on it? That was also the day when the Bin Ladin website was closed. The procedure for requesting air support from the government had been changed a few months before and it had to be gotten from Donald Rumnsfeld after passing up a chain of command, yet he had claimed at a commission hearing that was held previously, that it was not his responsibility. "On Sept. 11, the normal scramble-approval procedure was for an FAA official to contact the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and request Pentagon air support. Someone in the NMCC would call Norad's command center and ask about availability of aircraft, then seek approval from the Defense Secretary--Donald H. Rumsfeld--to launch fighters." This quote is attributed to Aviation Week. OK, so why were there no fighters available when we needed them?

Why was it that Mohamed Atta's luggage didn't make it to the plane and was left with damaging evidence in it, where it would be found?. Was this a plant to get us to believe that either he was a terrorist, or that someone wanted to prove that 9/11 was only a terrorist plot? How could the terrorists have known that NORAD was conducting a military exercise that would effect the deployment of planes and cause some of the participants to think that the hijacked planes were part of such an exercise? Osama Bin Laden's brother was a guest of the Carlyle Group in Washington D.C. on that date. Why were three jets flown 180 miles away from the Pentagon, was this just a coincidence or were they manipulated in some way by unknown parties? Why were the fire alarms placed on test mode for 8 hours in the World Trade Center on 9/11? Speaking of strange coincidences, how come 5 Raytheon employees were on three of the hijacked planes? I wonder how many people know that a janitor, who was working at the World Trade Center, heard an explosion in the basement BEFORE the attack and then heard explosions coming from the floors below him? The explosions took place from the 20th floor through the 30th floor. He had rescued another worker who was burnt from the blast. I could go on with other facts, but I think that you get the idea. As we say in Brooklyn, all was not Kosher here.

Speaking of the Pentagon, an inexperienced Navy Captain was asked the day before 9/11 to take command of the National Military Command Center inside the Pentagon and was on duty when the supposed plane hit the building. When the Pentagon was hit, Donald Rumsfeld was in his office there and was predicting a terrorist attack. The building has a battery of surface to air missiles to fend off such an attack, yet there is no indication that they were ever fired. It is said that the plane would have had to make a turn that was beyond the capabilities of a Boeing 757 to hit the Pentagon, even with an experienced pilot at the controls, which it certainly didn't have. Evidence, or rather lack of it, seems to indicate that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. A 757 would have made a wider path because of the wind size and certainly would have left debris. We have only been shown a few frames of a video that shows only the explosion coming from the impact, there is no plane in the video, why?

So how does all this tie together? To tell the truth, I am a bit baffled by the Pentagon attack. Could it have taken place to convince our government that we needed to go to war? This would have and did, provide riches to many different contractors. If we assume that however, then we have to assume that they were the same people behind the entire 9/11 attack and this doesn't seem to make much sense. If they were and had gotten all that gold, why bother about anything else? This is very baffling. There are some pieces of information missing here that make it impossible to connect the two attacks. About the only reason I can think of for the attack on the Pentagon is to show that a massive terrorist attack against the U.S. was occurring. I would like to add this, as impossible as it sounds, could a missile have been smuggled on to the aircraft? At the time of the attacks, the security for baggage was pretty lax and if several baggage handlers were terrorists, might they have been able to smuggle a missile aboard the plane in several parts and assemble it onboard and fire it at the Pentagon, but then what happened to the plane? Some say the plane was found empty at an airfield. Others say it landed and was then painted over. Who really knows, we certainly don't?

Were terrorists really played like a fiddle so that criminals of the worst kind could get a fortune in gold, or did we have some people in government that took advantage of the situation and helped it along, so that they could become ultra rich without regard for human life or limb? Will this incident be debated for years to come like the Kennedy assassination? In these types of cases, time is our worst enemy. It erases the minds of those who were there and confuses the facts. I am afraid that as time does its dirty work, we will lose the ability to ever figure this one out.