The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists”

- J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1923-1972

Working out how to start this post was pretty hard. As I am well aware, having been in the same position myself not too long ago, the idea that 9/11 was an inside job may seem too ludicrous to be countenanced. So let me start by saying 3 things: firstly, it is an idea that is now believed by 50 % of the 9/11 victim’s families
an extraordinary statistic when you consider the proportion that would just want to put the event, and ideas of complicity, behind them, and that this figure would have been zero not too long ago. Secondly, that none of what you will read here is theory; it is 100% documented fact, all of it verifiable from widely available sources, and much from mainstream media reports. These facts would appear to lead to an inevitable conclusion. And finally, to reiterate the above quote from Hoover. Don’t be handicapped; assess the facts, and make up your mind based on them. 9/11 will very probably turn out to be the defining event of our lives, and if we are responsible, we should take the time to look at the facts, because it is the facts that matter, when we like them as much as when we don’t.


“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.”

Lyman Lemnitzer, Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1962, from Operation Northwoods

The first barrier to clear in terms of 9/11 denial, is the idea that a US government would never plot to attach civilians on its own soil. Unfortunately, this is not true. In 2000, as is its legal obligation under the Freedom of Information Act, the CIA declassified the document entitled “Operation Northwoods” This was a plan, hatched in 1962 to commit, among other vile acts, staged terror campaigns against civilians in Washington and Miami, portray them as being done by pro-Castro communists, and use them as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. In the words of journalist/author James Bamford: “Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer (Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.”
Northwoods was vetoed by JFK, who was then shot a year later. I understand that this is not on the scale of 9/11. Nevertheless, it illustrates that there is a precedent, unthinkable to many, at high levels of US government for the conception of a terror campaign against their own citizens.


“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

A fact of which a startlingly small amount of the public is aware, is that in September 2000, the leading neo-conservative think tank in the US, comprising most of the senior figures who would be in charge of protecting the US up to and on 9/11, published a biennial white paper underlining the importance that a mass terrorist attack should happen on US soil for the benefit of US geo-political strategy. Don’t believe it? The matter runs as follows.

1997 saw the creation of the Project for the New American Century This was, at the time, the prime neo-conservative think tank, that was committed, in its own words, to the idea that “American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.” In September 2000, with members (~25) including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Scooter Libby, Jeb Bush, John Bolton, and Zalmay Khalilzad, they published their bi-annual paper, entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defences”

In short, this document addressed the fact that the Clinton Administration had cut the defence budget, instead of capitalising on the US’s position of unchallenged pre-eminence, and furthering US interests. They state the following:
- The US needs to greatly increase personnel numbers in the military
- They need to greatly increase defence spending, and radicalise their weaponry, including controlling space and cyberspace as defence tools. This is all referred to openly as “the arsenal of democracy”.
- They need to establish military bases in areas central to “American strategic interests”, such as the Persian Gulf.( This is referred to as “The American Security Perimeter”
- The need to prevent regimes such as Iran and Iraq from “undermining American leadership, or intimidating American allies”
The document details this transformation: where they are now, where they need to be, and how to get there. It goes on to state, in chapter 5: “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force” that all this transformation needs to be done as part of one coherent, strategic movement, aligned with domestic, security, military and defence policies (recognisable as the “War on Terror”). It then states the following:

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Although this statement is scandalous in itself, even worse, as you will soon read, is the fact that one of the first things that Bush did upon taking office, was to take the defence of the US out of the hands of many of the people who had been running it since pre-Clinton, and to put it in the hands of the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby and Zakheim; the very men who only months earlier had publicly stated the need in the US for a new Pearl Harbour.


“No warnings”

Ex- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

Contrary to what the current administration maintains, not only were there warnings, but the sheer mass of them prior to 9/11 is truly startling. The lack of any response whatsoever from Bush and his “Pearl Harbour Brigade”, is perhaps less so. What’s more, all of this has been reported in the mainstream media. In short, there were about 150 warnings to the Bush administration in the 9 months prior to 9/11, of a huge terrorist attack against the US by Al Qaeda. You can view all these articles here:

There are clearly too many to mention, but to give just a random selection (please note that if you click on the above link, you will find all these articles sourced back to the original):

- May- July 2001: Over a two-month period, the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.”
- May 16-17, 2001: US Warned Bin Laden Supporters inside US and Planning an Attack
- May 29, 2001: Clarke (ex US Head of Counter Terrorism) Asks for More to Be Done to Stop Expected Al-Qaeda Attacks
- May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City
- June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
- June 2001: US Intelligence Warns of Spectacular Attacks by al-Qaeda Associates
- June-July 2001: Terrorist Threat Reports Surge, Frustration with White House Grows
- Summer 2001: Threat Alerts Increase to Record High
- Summer 2001: Israel Warns US of ‘Big Attack’
- Summer 2001: Al-Qaeda Plot Described as Upcoming ‘Hiroshima’ on US Soil
- June 21, 2001: Senior Al-Qaeda Officials Say Important Surprises Coming Soon
- June 22, 2001: CIA Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack
- June 23, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent’
- June 25, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice That Pattern of Warnings Indicates an Upcoming Attack
- June 28, 2001: Tenet (ex CIA Director) Warns of Imminent Al-Qaeda Attack
- June 28, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice That Threat Level Has Reached a Peak
- Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
- July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
- July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
- July 5, 2001: Ashcroft (ex US Attorney General) Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
- July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
- July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
- July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning That Inordinate Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona
- July 10, 2001: CIA Director Gives Urgent Warning to White House of Imminent, Multiple, Simultaneous Al-Qaeda Attacks, Possibly Within US
- July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
- Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
- Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
- Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
- Late July 2001: CIA Director Believes Warnings Could Not ‘Get Any Worse’
- August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
- Early August 2001: Government Informant Warns Congressmen of Plan to Attack the WTC
- Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
- August 6, 2001: Bush Briefing Titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’
- August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
- August 15, 2001: CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon
- August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters
- August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
- August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
- September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
- September 10, 2001: NSA Intercepts: ‘The Match Begins Tomorrow’ and ‘Tomorrow Is Zero Hour’
- September 10, 2001: US Intercepts: ‘Watch the News’ and ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Great Day for Us’
- September 10, 2001: US Generals Warned Not to Fly on Morning of 9/11

What is important here, is not just that there were so many specific warnings, but that in response, NOTHING was done. Reaction was hampered by the fact that as mentioned earlier, one of the 1st things Bush did upon taking office, was to demote the current counter-terrorist infrastructure, headed up by Dick Clarke, and replace it with the Pearl Harbour Brigade. In the words of Clarke, this retarded any counter terrorist action “by months”. But despite all of this, there was not one cabinet level meeting on the threat of Al Qaeda before 9/11, according to the 9/11 Commission. None of the elementary responses that one would expect to be taken tightening airport security, border security, hardening cockpit doors, even following up leads, nothing was done at all. You can find more out about that here, nicely summarised by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.

So what we have here at the very least, is a clear instance of criminal negligence. But what makes things much clearer (and murkier) is the fact that the people who would be guilty of such neglect in ignoring this mass of warnings of a large scale attack, had only months earlier advocated the importance of such an attack happening. The threat of a new Pearl Harbour, one that would allow the Neo Cons to create their “arsenal of democracy”, and the geo-political order so explicitly outlined in “Rebuilding America’s Defences”, was in front of their very eyes from the day they took office. But it was actively and consciously ignored, and led to the desired results- a new Pearl Harbour, and an invasion and occupation of countries central to US interests.


There is such a chasm between the facts of this day, and what has been reported in the mainstream media, that the majority of people are not even aware of the most rudimentary facts of the day, one of the most newsworthy days any of our lives. I will address 2 smoking guns.

William Rodriguez et al

Another fact that has not seen a speck of daylight in the mainstream media, is the multiple, identical reports, of a bomb going off in the basement of the North Tower seconds before the 1st plane had hit. This bomb injured and hospitalised civilians, yet was completely ignored by the authorities, not investigated anywhere, and whitewashed from the 9/11 Commission Report.

Witnesses to this include William Rodriguez, Felipe David, Jose Sanchez, Salvatore Giambanco, Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli. Rodriguez is the foremost proponent of this in the public eye, having gained a measure of celebrity post 9/11- he was the last man out of the North Tower, being in fact pulled from the rubble. He was the master janitor in the building, having worked there for 20 years, and as such he had the master key. When the attacks happened, he was helping the firefighters, running up and down the stairs, unlocking doors, and helping people get out, until the towers collapsed. After 9/11, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honour, and the Republicans wanted him to be their poster boy for the War on Terror. One problem though- he was urging an investigation into the bombs that went off in the basement, and that he claimed were going of all over the building as he was running around (he assumed at the time that they had been planted by the terrorists). He was soon ditched by the GOP, and every reference he has made to bombs has been edited out by the MSM, as you will all be able to testify. You can hear his story yourself here:
and here

To read the testimony of the other witnesses, just Google them

To see footage of Felipe David, one of those badly injured in the blast, in hospital:
Of Marlene Cruz, also hospitalised:

Bear 2 things in mind here:
1. The testimony of explosions going off in the building is one echoed by firefighters, EMT’s, and members of the media reporting on the day. For detailed reports, read the 9/11 oral histories document:
(a collection of interviews with firefighters and EMT’s after 9/11 that was suppressed by the New York Bloomberg administration until public pressure made them relent in 2005). For more concise viewing of compelling testimony, watch this short clip (from 3 mins)

2. The reports of bombs in the building fits in hand in glove with the fact that bomb sniffer dogs were removed from the towers on the 4th September,,0,3192994.story
the fact that there were power downs reported prior to 9/11, with “engineers” running in and out of the buildings to repair the cabling:
and finally the fact that the firm that was in charge of security for the Twin Towers, and presumably ordered the removal of the dogs, despite the high security threat, was Securacom, whose CEO was Bush’s cousin, (Wirt Walker III),
and one of whose directors was Bush’s brother Marvin

And finally, Rodriguez, having gained a measure of celebrity for his heroics, was asked to testify before the 9/11 Commission. All other witnesses did this openly (i.e. transcripts provided, video recorded, as you will have seen Condaleeza Rice and Richard Clarke doing in the earlier Keith Olbermann video). But Rodriguez is, to my knowledge, one of only 3 people who were not allowed to testify publicly. The other 2 were Bush and Cheney. All reference to bombs in his account was edited out, and his requests for the other janitors to be interviewed were rejected.

Even for those still in the pit of denial over 9/11, please name 1 instance in history, in an advanced society, where there has been multiple, independent testimony, in addition to injury and hospitalisation of civilians, of a bomb in an important and populous location (the North Tower, rather than the basement), that has not been investigated by authorities, and has indeed been actively whitewashed from mainstream public record (e.g. the 9/11 Commission Report) by the government/mainstream media- and which has not involved government conspiracy. The proper avenue to proceed would be a forensic criminal investigation, but the government has, incredibly, tellingly, destroyed the evidence, by shipping off the metal from the scene before it could be forensicated- a very serious crime in itself.
This is clear guilt by implication, as it would clearly be nonsense to state that their hands are clean, since no independent investigation has proved otherwise, when it is they who are preventing such from happening


Another indication of how little the public knows about 9/11 can be gauged from the fact that the vast majority of people in this country are not even aware how many buildings fell on 9/11. And those that are will most likely never have seen the 3rd and final building to fall that day, World Trade Centre 7, collapse It is unprecedented, that in an age where information travels so freely, that so many people are unaware of one of the most rudimentary facts of the most newsworthy day of our lives.

WTC 7 was a 47 storey building, 100m north of the North Tower that housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Mayor’s Emergency Management Office, the IRS, and the SEC. At 5.20 pm on 9/11, it was taken down in a manner that raised eyebrows. In the words of top Dutch implosion expert Danny Jowenko: “This is controlled demolition. Absolutely certain. This is a hired job done by a team of experts.” Or to quote emeritus Professor in structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Hugo Bachmann: “In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts". Also, emeritus Professor in structural analysis and construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Joerg Schneider: "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives". The reason for doing this is quite simple. Under the Freedom of Information Act, all federal documents have to be declassified after a certain period of time. This has been the case no matter how incriminating the document; examples include Operation Northwoods as detailed at the top, or some of the Presidential Briefings that form part of my “Foreknowledge” section. Since there would most likely have been a considerable amount of such documents, the simplest thing to do would have been to implode the building where these documents would be (the offices of the CIA, Secret Service etc) on 9/11, and blame the collapse on the falling debris. Along with a media shut out, it would be a storm easy to ride.

In this manner, the official government story is that the tower was damaged by falling debris, and so fell in a manner that just looked like an implosion, but it was actually structural failure. Any doubts as to this can be put to bed by the testimony of firefighters both at the time, and subsequently, who state they were told to get away from the building, because it was about to be imploded:

In line with this notion of foreknowledge as to the collapse of WTC7, is the astonishing recent revelation that the BBC and CNN both reported the collapse of the building while it was still standing, and in the case of the BBC, while the reporter was standing in front of it:

Incidentally, another interesting fact about 9/11 is that the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, had his offices on the 88th floor of the North Tower. But by a surprising coincidence, on this day, Larry didn’t make it in, as he had a doctor’s appointment, and his 2 kids, Lisa and Roger, who worked with him, didn’t make it either- they were running late.


I hope that having read all of this you will be able to come to your own conclusions about the events of that day, a day that will probably define the rest of our lives. Whether you come to the same conclusions as myself, or that you have concrete refutations alibis for the facts presents above, do let me know especially in the case of the latter. Let me just deal with some of the most common counters to what I have presented:

- With such a huge plot, surely someone would have squealed by now/ Bush can’t be that bad a guy/ This administration isn’t smart enough to pull something like this off.

I group all of these together, since they all appear to have the same flaw. In assessing the validity of a conclusion, you should assess the validity of the propositions that lead to the conclusions, ensure that they do lead inexorably to that conclusion, and then you know that your conclusion is valid. What you shouldn’t do, as all the above statements do, is look past the propositions at the conclusion, and then refute it based on any deductions that might get drawn from it. No one has squealed yet, so well done to them. Bush would I’m afraid, appear to be such a bad guy (maybe not so hard to believe); and as should be clear, this was not well executed - as I hope to have shown, this could not be much more of a blatant, and bunglingly executed inside job.

- Surely the anti-Bush press would be all over this if it was credible

As well as falling foul of the problems I listed above, as has been shown compelling by Chomsky and Herman, the mainstream media, certainly in the US, functions as a tool of government propaganda; there is little reason to believe the UK press functions otherwise. I may write another post on this later, I think it’s pretty important, but should you wish to find out more about it, please read “Manufacturing Consent” by the aforementioned authors; it is generally recognised as one of Chomsky’s most important works. 9/11 could not be a stronger instance of the self censoring function of the mass media at work- 2 startling examples have already been listed in the William Rodriguez testimony and the WTC 7 story.

And finally…

If one day this ever does come to trial, and Bush was in the dock, how he would react to an accusation of complicity?

What now?

If this post has interested you, forward it on. Clearly everyone needs to know about this. Look into it yourself; although Loose Change
is the most watched of all the 9/11 docs, by its producer’s own admission, 9/11 Press for Truth
is by far the superior film, and it has lots if detail about the post 9/11 cover up, in particular the sham of the 9/11 Commission.
You may also like to watch the speech given by William Rodriguez at the 9/11 Scholars Symposium:


That was pretty good. It is good from time to time to re-fresh ourselves on the glaring facts that make the case to keep digging, keep going.

Well done - thank you

I wonder if you have seen this follow-up to Brzezinki's statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he suggested that a terrorist attack in the U.S. might be blamed on Iran as justification for a "defensive war":

Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation [for war with Iran] might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?

A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.

Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility [the provocation] could originate within the US government itself?

A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.

I take this as a "Yes."