The 9/11 Inside Job

Rethinking September 11: A Closer Look at the Events That Shaped History

The events of September 11, 2001, represent one of the most tragic days in modern history, and the widely accepted account of these events has been endorsed by both the Bush administration and the findings of the Kean Commission. According to this official narrative, 19 terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda, acting on orders from Osama bin Laden, hijacked four commercial airliners. They crashed two planes into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, another into the Pentagon, and the fourth into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, following a passenger revolt. The Twin Towers burned for 56 and 103 minutes, respectively, before collapsing nearly at free-fall speed. World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by any plane, also fell later that day, purportedly due to fires and structural damage.

Despite its outward plausibility, this explanation has met skepticism upon closer examination. Let’s take a deeper look at the events that unfolded and explore the questions that continue to linger.

The Collapse of Steel-Framed Buildings: An Anomaly?

One notable aspect of the events of September 11 is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings marked the first recorded instance of steel-framed skyscrapers collapsing due to fire or an airplane crash. In past incidents, steel-framed buildings have withstood fires for up to 28 hours without collapsing, even when their interiors were completely burned. For example, when the Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber during World War II, the building did not collapse. The architect of the World Trade Center, Minoru Yamasaki, had designed the towers to withstand the impact of a large passenger aircraft. There was even a sign at the top of the towers stating this capability.

In contrast, the Twin Towers stood for over an hour after the impacts before collapsing. This raises the question: if the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact, why did they later collapse, seemingly without resistance?

The Official Explanation and Its Challenges

The official narrative claims that the fires ignited by burning jet fuel weakened the steel beams to the point of collapse. However, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) reported that the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F, while steel does not begin to melt until around 2,800°F. This discrepancy suggests that the fires should not have been hot enough to melt the steel beams. Despite this, three buildings collapsed that day—World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7—all supposedly due to fire, something that had never before happened in recorded history.

Even if we give the benefit of the doubt that the fires were sufficient to weaken the steel, the fact that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed presents another issue. According to Newton’s laws of motion, if each floor collapsed sequentially in a “pancake” effect, the collapse would have taken much longer due to the resistance of each floor. Yet, both towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, almost at the speed of gravity, implying minimal resistance from the intact lower sections of the buildings.

Evidence of Explosives?

Numerous witnesses, including firefighters, first responders, and news reporters, described hearing explosions both before and during the collapse of the towers. Footage shows “squibs”—small explosions—emanating from lower floors before the collapse reached them, a phenomenon often seen in controlled demolitions. Firefighters and workers at Ground Zero also reported observing molten metal flowing in the debris, and significant pools of molten metal were found in the basements of the towers weeks after the collapse. The temperatures needed to produce molten steel are far higher than those generated by jet fuel fires. This observation led physicist Steven Jones to hypothesize that thermite, a substance used in controlled demolitions, might have been used to weaken the structure.

Additionally, seismic data from the area showed significant spikes just as the buildings began to collapse, suggesting the possibility of underground explosions. Eyewitnesses, including first responders, reported hearing loud bangs and seeing flashes consistent with the use of explosives. Some firefighters described the collapses as resembling controlled demolitions they had seen in the past.

No Planes Theory: A Controversial Perspective

Another controversial theory that has gained attention is the claim that no planes were actually involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers. Proponents of this theory argue that the footage of planes hitting the buildings could have been doctored, and that what was witnessed on television was a sophisticated use of CGI (computer-generated imagery) or holographic technology. Some witnesses at the scene reported hearing explosions but did not see any planes, adding fuel to the theory that the attacks may have involved missile strikes or pre-planted explosives rather than hijacked airplanes.

This theory suggests that the supposed hijackers could have been fabricated as part of a larger plot to create a plausible cover story for the collapse of the towers. The absence of plane debris, such as significant engine parts or landing gear at both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, is often cited as evidence in support of this idea.

The Elite’s Use of the World Trade Center and Symbolic Meaning

Another angle that some researchers have explored is the possibility that the World Trade Center was used by powerful elites for clandestine purposes. The Twin Towers were not just commercial buildings; they housed numerous financial institutions, government offices, and entities that played significant roles in the global economy. The destruction of the towers may have been part of a larger plan to eliminate records, evidence, or data that could have exposed corruption or other nefarious activities involving powerful individuals or organizations.

Moreover, some argue that the collapse of the Twin Towers had deep symbolic meaning. The two towers have been compared to the two hemispheres of the human brain, and their destruction has been interpreted as a symbolic “killing of God” or a blow to humanity’s consciousness. The imagery of the Twin Towers collapsing has been seen as an attack on the very essence of human unity and enlightenment. The fact that the towers were reduced to rubble, with minimal resistance, has been described as a ritualistic act, orchestrated to convey power and control over the masses.

Building 7: The Overlooked Collapse

While much attention has been given to the Twin Towers, the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 also raises questions. Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that housed offices of the CIA, IRS, and the Secret Service. It was not struck by any aircraft, and it only had isolated fires on a few floors. Nonetheless, it collapsed in six seconds, symmetrically into its own footprint—a hallmark of controlled demolition. Building owner Larry Silverstein later remarked that the decision was made to “pull it,” a term commonly used in demolition. Although Silverstein later clarified that he meant pulling the firefighters out, the comment raised further suspicions.

Furthermore, video footage of Building 7’s collapse shows a “kink” forming in the center of the building before it fell, another characteristic of controlled demolition. Many demolition experts have pointed out that the way Building 7 collapsed is consistent with the standard method used to bring down buildings intentionally. The fact that Building 7 housed sensitive government offices has led some to speculate that the building’s collapse was part of an effort to destroy key evidence.

The Pentagon and Flight 93

The official story states that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, yet early footage of the crash site showed a relatively small impact hole, with minimal wreckage visible. The lack of bodies, luggage, and plane debris raised questions about what actually hit the building. Additionally, 80 CCTV cameras were monitoring the Pentagon area, but their footage remains classified, except for a few frames that do not clearly show a plane.

Several eyewitnesses also reported seeing a smaller aircraft or even a missile-like object rather than a commercial airliner. The trajectory and maneuver required to hit the Pentagon in the way described has been called into question by experienced pilots, who have stated that the complex turn and descent would have been nearly impossible for an amateur pilot to execute.

As for United Airlines Flight 93, which supposedly crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, witnesses described seeing a small hole in the ground with no significant wreckage or bodies. The coroner, Wally Miller, described it as “like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch, and dumped trash into it.” This description adds to the ongoing doubts about what really happened to Flight 93.

Additionally, reports of debris being scattered over a wide area, and even miles away from the main crash site, have led some to theorize that Flight 93 may have been shot down by the military to prevent it from reaching its intended target. This theory is further supported by witnesses who reported seeing a military jet in the vicinity before the crash.

Foreknowledge and Warnings

There is also evidence suggesting that the attacks may not have been a complete surprise. Multiple countries, including Germany, Russia, and Israel, had warned the U.S. government about the possibility of hijackings and imminent attacks. Additionally, some high-profile figures, such as San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and author Salman Rushdie, received warnings not to fly on September 11. The fact that no significant action was taken to prevent the attacks, despite these warnings, continues to perplex many observers.

Reports have also emerged about unusual stock market activity in the days leading up to September 11. There were significant “put options” placed on the stocks of airlines involved in the attacks, suggesting that certain individuals may have had foreknowledge of the events and were attempting to profit from the impending disaster. The identity of those who placed these bets remains unknown, and the investigation into this suspicious trading was never fully pursued.

A Call for Re-Evaluation

While the official narrative is widely accepted, these questions and anomalies have led many to reconsider the events of that fateful day. Countless engineers, architects, and physicists have come forward with alternate theories that challenge the government’s version of events. Whether it was a tragic failure of intelligence or something more deliberate, the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 deserve attention and thoughtful analysis.

Furthermore, many family members of 9/11 victims have called for a more thorough investigation, expressing dissatisfaction with the official 9/11 Commission Report. They argue that critical evidence was ignored, and key witnesses were not adequately interviewed. The lack of transparency and the speed with which the investigation was conducted have only fueled suspicions of a cover-up.

As we reflect on September 11, it is crucial to remain open to different perspectives and to question the official account, not out of disrespect for those who lost their lives, but in search of truth and accountability. Only by addressing these lingering doubts can we truly understand the complexities of that day and prevent such tragedies in the future.