Government and media obscure the evidence

The government and corporate media have done all in their power to censure, censor and suppress debate about 9/11, they have worked hard to confuse and obscure the evidence.

There exists an abundance of evidence that has been neither addressed nor explained by the official account of 9/11. This evidence, albeit ignored, discounted or denied, refutes the official story and permits the postulation of an alternative account.

Let us consider a sample of this evidence.

Indirect (circumstantial) evidence:

1) A preconceived grand narrative, a ready-made explanation, no investigation required; "Al Qaida terrorists hijacked four planes, crashed two of them into the WTC Twin Towers, causing three high rise buildings to collapse, crashed another into the Pentagon and the fourth into a field in Pennsylvania - because they hate our freedoms - an act of war demanding military response"

2) US air defenses failed to launch aircraft to intercept the hijacked airliners in a timely fashion, despite the military Command Post Exercises that were coincidentally conducted that morning and which, according to General Myers, actually enhanced the response. [GENERAL MYERS]

3) US air defenses failed to launch aircraft to intercept the hijacked airliners in a timely fashion, even though NORAD had conducted exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets prior to 9/11, exercises that included scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination. [USATODAY]

4) Much of the material evidence was quickly removed from the crime scene and destroyed, in violation of standard investigatory procedures. No investigation was undertaken, a violation of standard practice in response to a major crime. "The Administration opposed at every turn the creation of an independent commission to investigate the tragedy of 9/11." [SENATE COMMITTEE]

5) When the demand for an investigation became overwhelming, the Administration setup a commission of inquiry that lacked independence, was excessively limited in scope and poorly funded. [SENATE COMMITTEE]

6) The official inquiry into 9/11, which began 15 months after the event, sought evidence to confirm a preconceived conclusion and ignored evidence that did not support that conclusion. The official account of 9/11 is consequently riddled with incongruities, omissions and contradictions. The official version of events does not satisfactorily explain much of the evidence relating to the events of 9/11.

7) The Pentagon deliberately mislead the official inquiry. [WASHINGTON POST]

8) US intelligence had the names and photos of all 19 hijackers within hours of the hijackings, yet the Administration claimed it had no prior knowledge or forewarning of the attacks. Some of the alleged hijackers had received training at U.S. military installations. Others have since turned up alive and well. [NEWSWEEK] [BBC]

9) Bush received a PDB (President's Daily Brief) from CIA on August 6, titled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US", which warned specifically of terrorists training for possible hijacking attempts. [TRANSCRIPT]

10) Also in August, senior FBI officials blocked investigations into a suspected terrorist hijacker, Zacharia Musawi, whose suspicious behaviour in seeking flight lessons led to his arrest on August 20. [TIME] [LATIMES] [JUDICIAL WATCH]

11) The alleged hijackers' behaviour prior to 9/11 did not exemplify a high degree of skill, competence or sophistication.

12) According to DCI Tenet, the CIA had been infiltrating Al Qaida and recruiting terrorist operatives for several years prior to 9/11. [TENET]

What can we deduce from this sample of circumstantial evidence?

a) The Administration had a predetermined response to the attacks - the global war on terror, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, abductions, assassinations, detention without charge and torture in secret prisons, beyond the reach of law.

b) The Administration had forewarning of possible hijacking attempts, but apparently gave no warning to FAA, NORAD or any other agency, did nothing to prepare for such eventualities and then denied that they had any forewarning.

c) The Administration attempted to first prevent, then obstruct the course of the investigation into 9/11. Government and military officials have deliberately lied and misled the public in order to cover up ... something.

d) Senior FBI officials systematically and deliberately obstructed investigations into suspected terrorist activities prior to 9/11.

e) Government officials assisted and protected known terrorist operatives for supposedly "intelligence" purposes.

Direct evidence:

1) The WTC towers disintegrated at near free fall acceleration, physically impossible due to gravity alone. [PDF] [PDF]

2) All the concrete in the towers was pulverized, physically impossible due to gravity alone.

3) Molten metal remained in the rubble pile for weeks after the collapse, not possible due to fire and gravity alone. [PDF]

4) Iron-rich microspheres found in the dust, evidence of vapourised molten metal, not possible due to fire alone.

5) Bone fragments found on the roof tops of neighbouring buildings, not possible due to gravity collapse alone.

6) Unexploded energetic thermitic material found in the WTC dust, not officially admitted or explained. [PDF]

What can we deduce from this sample of direct evidence?

a) The towers could not have fallen the way the government claims - a gravity driven collapse caused by structural damage and fire alone, is not a plausible explanation for the observed event.

b) The WTC buildings 1, 2 & 7 were necessarily brought down by planned explosive demolition.

c) The demolition was necessarily conducted by a highly skilled, professional demolition team, in conjunction with the aircraft strikes, so as to give the impression that the buildings collapsed due to a terrorist attack.

d) The operation must have been planned over many months or years, involving highly skilled demolition experts and senior government, military and intelligence officials.

Note: the evidence cited above does not establish the actual sponsors of the operation, but supports the proposition that senior government and military officials must have been involved, at some level, in the planning, facilitation and/or execution of the operation.