911 Consensus Points Contradict The Government Lies Part I

Video Rebel’s Blog

The 911 Consensus Project has developed a list of 37 questions that are designed to undo the lies the government and the media require us to believe to be admitted into polite society. Today I want to examine the first 18.

1) Osama bin Laden was responsible  for the 9/11 attacks.  

FBI spokesman Rex Tomb said the FBI had no evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 911. Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised to provide evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11.  But they failed to do so.

2) The 911 Commission said: “Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.”

A more comprehensive study, by professors at the Swiss Finance Institute and the Swiss Banking Institute, shows that 15 million dollars were likely obtained by insiders using put options for Boeing, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, and Bank of America stocks.

3) The Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts, jet fuel, and office fires.

Experience, based on physical observation and scientific knowledge, shows that office fires, even with the aid of jet fuel, could not have reached temperatures greater than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (982 degrees Celsius).

But multiple scientific reports show that metals in the Twin Towers melted. These metals included steel, iron, and molybdenum – which normally do not melt until they reach 2,700˚F (1482˚C), 2,800˚F (1538˚ C), and 4,753˚F (2,623˚C), respectively.

Notes: WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and had no jet fuel to aid the fires. Thermite was invented in 1895. It is a metal oxide used by welders to cut metals. Nanothermite is available only from military sources. Nano particles have a large surface area and small volumes. Nanothermite can be sprayed on a target. Its small size let’s it burn quickly. Try 5,200 degrees Fahrenheit (2,871 Celsius) burning through steel girders in 2 seconds.

4) The Twin Towers were destroyed by three and only three causes: the impacts of the airliners, the resulting fires, and gravity.

During the destruction of the Twin Towers, huge sections of the perimeter steel columns, weighing many tons, were ejected horizontally as far as 500 to 600 feet, as seen in multiple photographs and maps.

These high-speed ejections of heavy structural members cannot be explained by the fires, the pull of gravity, or the airplane impacts (which had occurred about an hour earlier).

Human bone fragments4 approximately 1 cm long were found in abundance on the roof of the Deutsche Bank following the Towers’ destruction, which further points to the use of explosives. Pancaking or tamping of floors from above would tend to trap bodies, not hurl splintered bones over 500 feet horizontally.

5) NIST wrote as if no one – including members of the Fire Department of New York – gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers.

Over 100 of the roughly 500 members of the FDNY who were at the site that day reported what they described as explosions in the Twin Towers. Similar reports were given by journalists, police officers, and WTC employees.

6) On 9/11, the Twin Towers came down because of damage produced by the impact of the planes combined with fires ignited by the jet fuel. After burning for 101 and 56 minutes, respectively, the north and south towers came down rapidly but without the aid of explosives.

The Twin Towers were built to withstand the impacts of airliners having approximately the size and speed of those that struck them. And office fires, even if fed by jet fuel (which is essentially kerosene), could not have weakened the steel structure of these buildings sufficiently to collapse as suddenly as they did.

Only the top sections of these buildings were damaged by the impacts and the resulting fires, whereas their steel structures, much heavier towards the base, were like pyramids in terms of strength. So the official account, which ruled out explosives, cannot explain why these buildings completely collapsed.

7) Although NIST did not perform any tests to determine whether there were incendiaries (such as thermite) or explosives (such as RDX and nanothermite) in the WTC dust, it claimed that such materials were not present.

Unreacted nanothermitic material, “which can be tailored to behave as an incendiary (like ordinary thermite), or as an explosive,” was found in four independently collected samples of the WTC dust (as reported in a multi-author paper in a peer-reviewed journal).

8) NIST originally suggested that WTC 7 was brought down by structural damage combined with a raging fire fed by diesel fuel. However, in its Final Report (of November 2008), NIST declared that neither diesel fuel nor structural damage played a role in this building’s collapse, and that this building, which was not struck by a plane, was brought down by fire alone.

Before or after 9/11, no steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire. If fire were to cause such a building to collapse, the onset would be gradual, whereas the videos show that WTC 7, after being completely stable, suddenly came down in virtual free fall. This building’s straight-down, symmetrical collapse, with the roofline remaining essentially horizontal, shows that all 82 of WTC 7’s support columns had been eliminated by the time the top started down.

9) Having denied for years that WTC 7 came down at free fall acceleration, NIST repeated this position in August 2008, when it issued a report1 on WTC 7 in the form of a Draft for Public Comment.

Scientific analysis by mathematician David Chandler shows that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for a period of about 2.25 seconds. In its Final Report, NIST provided a detailed analysis and graph that conceded that WTC 7 came down at free-fall acceleration for over 100 feet, or about 2.25 seconds, consistent with the findings of Chandler and Jones.

Note: Free fall speed in a building collapse means that all of the connections between the steel columns and the floors were severed at the same time which indicates a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers had 283 columns going from the foundation to the 110th floor. For all those supports to be severed within 2 seconds of each other you would need cutting charges. 110 floors times 283 columns times 2 buildings equals 62,260 floor-column-connections that must be severed simultaneously.

10)  In its Final Report on WTC 7, issued in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged that WTC 7 had entered into free fall for more than two seconds. NIST continued to say, however, that WTC 7 was brought down by fire, with no aid from explosives.

Scientific analysis shows that a free-fall collapse of a steel-framed building could not be produced by fire, that is, without explosives (a fact that NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder acknowledged3 in his discussions of NIST’s Draft Report for Public Comment in August 2008).

11) WTC 7 collapsed because of fire alone. Here are the central features of the collapse:

Intense heating on the 12th floor caused an overhead beam to lengthen, due to thermal expansion, and to push a 13th-floor girder off of the seat that had connected it to interior column #79.

This failure propagated for several floors, leaving column 79 unsupported, thereby causing it to buckle.  Nearby columns were unable to absorb the transfer of load. This inability initiated a progressive collapse, which led to catastrophic failure of the entire building.

This collapse of the building, which appeared to be sudden although in reality it was progressive, is shown to be plausible by computer simulations.

A building undergoing progressive collapse would come down in a sequential manner. Sections would be expected to fail as they lost support. However, from measurements of the collapse time, it could not have been progressive or sequential:

From the time of the collapse of the East Penthouse to the onset of global collapse, the building appeared, from all external signs, to retain its overall integrity. The transition from total support to freefall was sudden. The building fell with a horizontal roofline, implying that catastrophic failure across the entire width of the building (100 meters east to west) occurred virtually simultaneously within a fraction of a second.

2. In addition to the fact that the collapse of a steel-framed building entering into freefall in the absence of explosives to remove the steel supports is inherently implausible, the graphical output from NIST’s computer simulations does not match the actual observations at all.

12) The attack on the Pentagon by American 77 (under the control of al-Qaeda) could not have been prevented for four reasons.

First, although the FAA had received multiple signs before 9:00 AM that this plane was suffering an in-flight emergency, the FAA did not notify the military about this flight until 9:24 – at which time it reported that the flight, which may have been hijacked, appeared to be heading back toward Washington.

Second, although Andrews Air Force Base was only a few miles away, it had no fighters on alert.

Third, the only fighters on alert in the Eastern United States were two at Otis Air Force Base, which were already occupied protecting New York City against further attacks, and two fighters 130 miles away at Langley Air Force Base.

Fourth, the Langley fighters, which did not get airborne until 9:30, were still 105 miles away when the Pentagon was struck at 9:38.

Discrepancies in both time-lines and aircraft availability challenge the given reasons for the claim that the attack at the Pentagon could not have been prevented:

First, an FAA memorandum of May 21, 2003, to the 9/11 Commission said: “Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center at 8:46, the FAA immediately established . . . phone bridges [with the military]. . . . [T]he FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 AM, but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.” This statement was read into the 9/11 Commission’s record. Loss of communication with American 77 was reported by the FAA Indianapolis Center “[s]shortly after 9:00.”

Second, Colin Scoggins, the military specialist at the FAA’s Boston Center, stated that although the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) did not “have an intercept mission” – it was not one of the country‘s seven military bases that are ready to intercept flights every hour of the year – it did “fly every morning” and that under the circumstances NEADS “could have grabbed . . . those aircraft.”

Third, Scoggins said that fighters at Atlantic City, Burlington, Selfridge, Syracuse, and Toledo would also have also been ready to go. Shortly after the second tower was hit at 9:03, an ANG commander at Syracuse told NORAD: “Give me 10 minutes and I can give you hot guns.” If this request had been made at 9:10, this statement indicates, these fighters could have been in the air in time to protect the Pentagon.

Fourth, even if fighters had to be sent from Langley Air Force Base (as the official story claimed in bullets 3 and 4, above), they should have been airborne long before 9:30.

13)  The military could not have intercepted American 77, the 9/11 Commission reported, because it “never received notice that American 77 was hijacked.”

The truth of the 9/11 Commission’s second account may be questioned on two grounds:

First, the charge that the testimony of General Arnold and other military leaders was “incorrect” amounts to the charge that they lied.  But if the Commission’s new story were true, military leaders would not have invented the original story – which implies that the military was guilty of standing down, or at least of incompetence. This would have been an irrational fabrication.

Second, the Commission’s revised account contradicted several facts:

1. The FAA’s memo of May 21, 2003, said that the military was notified earlier than 9:24, not later.

2. The FAA memo was supported by a story published four days after 9/11, which said: “During the hour or so that American Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do.”

3. The Commission claimed that, although the FAA’s Command Center had known about American 77’s troubles since 9:20 AM, this knowledge did not get passed to the military. However, Ben Sliney, the operations manager at the FAA Command Center, said that the Command Center had a “military cell, which was our liaison with the military services. They were present at all of the events that occurred on 9/11. . . . [E]veryone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military.”

14) The 911 Commission Report holds that American Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was flown by al-Qaeda pilot Hani Hanjour into the Pentagon. After disengaging the autopilot, he executed a 330-degree downward spiral through 7000 feet in about three minutes, then flew into Wedge 1 of the Pentagon between the first and second floors at 530 mph.

Several former airliner pilots have stated that Hanjour could not possibly have maneuvered a large airliner through the trajectory allegedly taken by Flight 77 and then hit the Pentagon between the first and second floors without touching the lawn.

Russ Wittenberg, who flew large commercial airliners for 35 years after serving in Vietnam as a fighter pilot, says it would have been “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna” to have flown that downward spiral and then “crash into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”

“Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job,” Lewis News, January 8, 2006.

Ralph Omholt, a former 757 pilot, said: “The idea that an unskilled pilot could have flown this trajectory is simply too ridiculous to consider.”

Note: The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology did DNA tests of the remains and found no Arab DNA at the Pentagon crash site. Dulles had 300 video cameras. No hijackers were seen boarding the planes.

15) The 9/11 Commission Report holds that four airplanes (American Airlines flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 93 and 175) were hijacked on 9/11.

Pilots are trained to “squawk” the universal hijack code (7500) on a transponder if they receive evidence of an attempted hijacking, thereby notifying FAA controllers on the ground. But leading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified.

A CNN story said that pilots are trained to send the hijack code “if possible.” But entering the code takes only two or three seconds, whereas it took hijackers, according to the official story, more than 30 seconds to break into the pilots’ cabin of Flight 93.

The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story.

16) The 9/11 Commission reported that United Flight 93, having been taken over by an al-Qaeda pilot, was flown at a high speed and steep angle into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. In response to claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, the US military and the FBI said that United 93 was not shot down.

Residents, the mayor, and journalists near Shanksville reported that no airliner was visible at the designated crash site; that contents were found as far as eight miles from the designated crash site; and that parts – including a thousand-pound engine piece – were found over a mile away.

17) 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: Hijacked planes were used as weapons – a departure from predictable, traditional hijackings; The attacks originated, unpredictably, from within the country, rather than from outside.

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.”4

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.5

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.”

“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.”

Contrary to claims by The 9/11 Commission Report, US military exercises prior to 9/11 involved hijackings – within as well as outside US airspace – in which planes were used as weapons.

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.
18) Until September 11, 2001, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) conducted four major annual war exercises a year. These aerial practice drills, run cooperatively with the US Strategic Command and the US Space Command, simulated war situations for a period of one or two weeks.

The two largest, Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian, were command level (high level) exercises that ran together, involved all levels of command, and were designed to exercise most aspects of the NORAD mission.

Global Guardian also linked with other exercises sponsored by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Unified Commands — which included Amalgam Warrior, Apollo Warrior, and Crown Vigilance.2

These exercises, traditionally held in October or November, were all running on September 11, 2001.

The Official Account

The 9/11 Commission Report states that when Boston FAA Flight Center called NEADS (NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector) to report the hijacking of Flight 11, NEADS asked, “Is this real world or exercise?”

The Commission’s footnote to this question reported that the large-scale exercise Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union, had not compromised the military response. This statement reflected the claims of several military officers:

According to General Ralph Eberhart, Commander of NORAD at Peterson Air Force Base, “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation.

Although the 9/11 Commission mentioned only one military exercise – Vigilant Guardian – that was scheduled for 9/11, evidence shows that at least 12 exercises had been scheduled for that day:

Vigilant Guardian: An annual NORAD exercise held traditionally in October,8 often in conjunction with Global Guardian.9 On 9/11, all levels of command at NORAD Headquarters, including NEADS, were participating in this command-post exercise (CPX), “24/7”.

Global Guardian: A massive annual Command Post-Exercise (CPX) and Field Training Exercise (FTX), which was sponsored jointly by the U.S. Strategic Command, US Space Command, and NORAD, and was linked to Vigilant Guardian and Amalgam Warrior.Global Guardian is traditionally held in October or November each year. According to a military newspaper dated March 23, 2001, the over-arching Global Guardian exercise had indeed been originally scheduled for October, but was subsequently moved to early September.

Crown Vigilance was sponsored by Air Combat Command and was linked to Global Guardian.

Amalgam Warrior was also running — a large-scale live-fly exercise involving two or more NORAD regions, traditionally held twice a year in April and October.

Amalgam Virgo: NORAD officers told the 9/11 Commission Team 8: “On 9/11 there were two FDX exercises planned: Amalgam Virgo and Amalgam Warrior.“

Northern Vigilance: A large annual real-world NORAD operation that on 9/11 diverted much of the US air defense fleet to Canada and Alaska to counteract a Russian drill.20 This operation involved NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) in Colorado.

Apollo Guardian, linked to Global Guardian and run by the US Space Command, was also running on September 11, 2001. “Hijacks were included in these exercises to exercise transition in Rules of Engagement (ROE).”

W-105at Otis Air Force Base: Six F-15′s from Otis (out of a contingent of 18) took off on a routine ocean training exercise at 9:00 AM, eight minutes after two “alert” F-15′s on the same runway were scrambled in response to the first WTC attack. The six training jets were recalled at 9:25 AM to be armed and to join the response.

Andrews Air Force Base (outside Washington, DC): There were only seven pilots available in the AAFB 121st Fighter Squadron on 9/11 because many had not returned from the large-scale training exercise “Red Flag” in Las Vegas. Three F-16 fighter jets took off on a training exercise at 8:36 AM from Andrews AFB and did not return until 2:35 PM. Flight strips indicated that Andrews-based fighters were not scrambled in response to the hijackings until 11:12 AM.

New Jersey Air National Guard: When the World Trade Center was hit, two F-16 fighters from the 177th Fighter Wing based in Atlantic City were on a routine training mission eight minutes flying time away from New York, but the pilots were not informed of the hijackings until after the second Tower was hit at 9:03 AM. Two other fighters from this Wing were also on a routine training exercise. No jets took off from Atlantic City in response to the attacks until after the Pentagon was hit at approximately 9:37.

Washington DC Army Aviation Support Unit: Members of this Unit were attending annual weapons training, 90 minutes drive away. The Unit’s mission was to maintain “a readiness posture in support of contingency plans,” to exercise “operational control” of the Washington area airspace, and to provide “aviation support for the White House, US government officials, Department of Defense, Department of the Army, and other government agencies,” including the Pentagon.

National Reconnaissance Office: NRO, a large intelligence agency of the Department of Defense, had planned a 9:32 AM simulation of a small plane crashing into one its own towers near Washington’s Dulles Airport.

The rescheduling from October to early September of seven aerial drills — the two largest having been Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian, and the five related aerial drills that accompanied them — resulted in an unprecedented number of simultaneous drills that morning.

This was an enormous departure from other years.

These drills included at least two hijackings (a Boeing 747 flying from Tokyo to Anchorage, and a Korean Airlines Boeing 747 flight from Seoul to Anchorage), and one drill in which a plane was planned to simulate hitting a building (the National Reconnaissance Office).

II. One would expect that having so many exercises would have caused some confusion, which might have slowed down the military response. Indeed, statements to this effect have been made:

According to a summary of a 9/11 Commission interview with Canadian Lt. Gen. Rick Findley, who was  at NORAD as the Battle Staff Director at Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) on September 11,2001, there was, following the second attack on the Twin Towers, “confusion as to how many, and which aircraft, were hijacked. There was no situational awareness that was directly credible, and CMOC was relying on the communications over the phone lines with its operations sectors. Findley opined that AA 11 was reported still airborne and headed towards Washington, D.C. because of the added confusion of many hijack reports.”

At Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, DC, FAA Air Traffic Controller James Ampey, stationed at Andrews Tower, reported in a 9/11 Commission interview that there were an unusually high number of aircraft taking-off and landing at Andrews that morning because previously scheduled military exercises were underway. The radar screens were showing “emergencies all over the place.”

General Larry Arnold, commander of NORAD’s Continental U.S. Region, said: “By the end of the day, we had 21 aircraft identified as possible hijackings.”

Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke: “There were lots of false signals out there. There were false hijack squawks, and a great part of the challenge was sorting through what was a legitimate threat and what wasn’t.”

FAA Deputy Administrator, Monte Belger, said:“Between 9:20-9:45 there were many confusing reports about various aircraft being unaccounted for.”

An independent study in 2011 gave detailed accounts of nine falsely reported hijackings on 9/11, plus nine other reported aircraft emergencies.

Because of the rescheduling of military exercises normally scheduled for different times, there were an extraordinary number of exercises underway the morning of September 11, 2001.

The Department of Defense and the 9/11 Commission failed to report all but one of the exercises that occurred that morning.

They also denied that such exercises slowed down military responses to the attacks.

Had the 9/11 Commission reported the full extent of the exceptional number of exercises it knew were operating that morning, the above-quoted statements by military officers such as Eberhart, Marr, and Myers – that the exercises did not, by causing confusion, slow down the military response – would have seemed implausible.

Any new investigation should probe the fact that, taken together, this evidence suggests that:

(1) the Pentagon, after creating conditions that confused the military response to the attacks, sought to cover up its creation of these conditions, and that

(2) the 9/11 Commission facilitated this cover-up by not making public the information held in its records cited above.

According to Robert Marr, “we found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise.”

General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concurred, saying in 2005 that the exercises “actually enhanced the response.”

Notes: Most of the military men in charge were out of the office that day or in two cases were new to their jobs. There were many computer generated false positives for hijacked airlines as part of the drills. Air controllers screamed demanding these simulations be removed from their screens. They were not. Eberhart refused to cancel the drills so they could respond to the threats. The planes returning from the drills did not have enough fuel to respond. There were only 4 planes left capable of flying in the sector under attack. Air National Guard planes which were available were not called up. Donald Rumsfeld who should have taken charge was running around on the lawn of the Pentagon.

11 years earlier on 9-11-1990 George H W Bush made a call for a New World Order under Global control. All Presidents since Bush have had records as CIA agents and assets.

The complete list of questions together with the notes and other research tools can be found here. I will post part 2 tomorrow.




2 thoughts on “911 Consensus Points Contradict The Government Lies Part I

  1. Also of interest, while I was working in NE Ohio a few years back, I happened into a small tavern at the edge of North Bloomfield. There were MANY people there who say they saw flt. 93 fly over town, gear down, flaps down, flying so slowly and low they thought it would crash in a very short distance and they could see the faces of people in the windows.

  2. Vigilant Guardian,hahahahahah thats a good one, HEADS SHOULD’VE ROLLED AFTER THIS CRIME BUT ALAS …NOTHING BUT “OPERATION SELL OUT”.Residents, the mayor, and journalists near Shanksville reported that no airliner was visible at the designated crash site; THE RESIDENTS JOURNALIST YOU CAN WRITE OFF AS NAIVE, BUT THE MAYOR ??? ALL ONE HAS TO DO IS WATCH G.W.B’S EYES AS HE FINISHES HIS DUTY READING THE GOAT STORY TO THE “KIDS”

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *