Calistrat M. Atudorei: AMERICA’S PLANS FOR WORLD HEGEMONY (20)

09:55, 17 ianuarie 2020 | Actual | 286 vizualizări | Nu există niciun comentariu Autor:

We are continuing to publish on our site the fragments from the book AMERICA’S PLANS FOR WORLD HEGEMONY, by Romanian author Calistrat M. Atudorei which was published in English version very recently by printing house ”ePublishers” in Bucharest. 

Chapter 9/2. 9/11 and Offensive in the Middle East 

Relevance of the 9/11 Moment 

Undoubtedly, after 11 September 2001, not only the history of the United States took another course, but also the one the whole world. The 9/11 moment created an explosive momentum in the events’ development, both in the figurative and the literally sense. This was the event that triggered the start of the global War on Terror and the dramatic increase in security measures, particularly by the Washington government. Then, the new US President, George Bush, split the world into two, claiming categorically through the doctrine that bears his name that “Who is not with us, is against us,” which also implies that “Who shelters terrorists (or protects them) will be treated as a terrorist.”21 Under these circumstances, the issue of the legitimacy of the war against terror could hardly be questioned, as the subject became a kind of taboo. And the situation is pretty similar now, in the present context of the year 2019, even if priorities faced some changes and terrorism is no longer considered the threat no. 1 for planetary peace.

However, a very sensitive issue, which still raises great contro­versy, is the very substance of the triggering event: how did the World Trade Center towers collapse? Beyond the pressures of the 2001 events, many uncomfortable, yet very logical questions remain, to which officials cannot provide coherent explanations. And these uncomfortable questions are not formulated by simple naive followers of conspiracy theories, but by serious scholars and researchers who published scientific papers on the subject in specialized journals. There are thousands of experts from all over the world—engineers, architects, professors from countless universities, nuclear physics specialists, and in many other areas—who analyzed the reports and official explanations in a very competent manner and demonstrated that they are not satisfactory. More than 3,000 architects and engineers systematized their research and made them available on a site called Architects & Engineers for the Truth about 9/1122.

Given the consequences of challenging the official version, which cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2001 military campaign, the stake of truth is huge. That is why it is useful to update some key facts, highlighting the results of some new research.

So, on September 11, 2001, the most devastating terrorist attack in the history of the United States resulted in the death of 2,996 people and the collapse of three skyscrapers that were part of the World Trade Center (WTC) complex. These were the WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 buildings. The first two, twin, had 110 floors (416 meters) each, and WTC 7 had 47 floors (200 meters). The known facts are that WTC 1 & 2 were hit by a Boeing 767, followed by fires and multiple explosions, after which the towers collapsed. WTC Tower 7, about 106 meters far from the northern tower was not hit by any plane, but especially between floors 7 and 13 there were some powerful fires that spread, after which the tower collapsed too. The official version attributes the outbreak of the WTC 7 fires to the burning remains that would have been projected from the WTC 1 fire.

The entire attack was attributed to 19 Muslim fundamentalists who would have hijacked that morning four passenger planes. The third airplane is said to have hit the Pentagon (which resulted in 124 victims), and the fourth hijacked plane collapsed in the center of Pennsylvania. Since the biggest destruction occurred in the World Trade Center complex, I will only present some data related to this part of the attack.

In August 2002, the US National Institute for Standards and Technologies (NIST) launched an investigation to check precisely the causes of the collapse of the three buildings. An official release of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapse was published in October 2005, and the results of the WTC 7 building collapse investigation were made public on August 21, 2008. NIST concluded that the main reason why all three buildings collapsed was fire.

NIST indicated with respect to the twin towers that:

Fires played a major role in further reducing the structural capacity of the buildings, initiating collapse. While aircraft impact damage did not, by itself, initiate building collapse, it contributed greatly to the subsequent fires and the thermal response of the structure.23

So the fires represented the major factor, and the impact of the planes only constituted an aggravating factor. Regarding tower no. 7, NIST investigation chief, Shyam Sunder, said that “WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furniture and not because of explosives or fuel fires.”24

Of course, not being hit by any plane, the WTC 7 had no reason to catch fire from fuels or explosives, but even so, could a skyscraper collapse from the fire of office furniture? This is hard to believe, say many specialists, because there are much more intense and lasting fires than the one recorded at WTC 7, as a result of which the towers did not collapse.

In line with the official data from the NIST report25 about the twin towers, WTC1 collapsed 102 minutes after being hit by the first Boeing, and WTC 2 collapsed in 56 minutes after being hit by the second plane. As reported by a NIST synthesis26 on WTC 7, it collapsed about seven hours after the fires started inside it.

Let us make a brief comparison with fires that occurred in other similar buildings. The 9–11 Research site provides some useful examples in the article Other Skyscraper Fires.27

New York Plaza is a 50-storey office tower located less than a mile from the World Trade Center complex. It faced severe fire and an explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire ignited around 6 pm and lasted more than six hours, but the building still exists.

On May 4, 1988, a 62-storey skyscraper in Los Angeles, called First Interstate Bank Building, was hit by fire for three and a half hours. The building did not collapse.

On February 23, 1991, inside a 38-storey building in Philadelphia, built in 1973 and called One Meridian Plaza, a fire broke out. The fire lasted for more than 18 hours without the edifice collapsing.

On October 17, 2004, in a 56-storey building in Caracas, Venezuela, built in 1976, fire spread over 26 floors, lasting more than 17 hours. The building did not collapse, though the fire reached the roof.

On February 12, 2005, the 32-storey building Madrid-based Windsor,28 made of reinforced concrete (not steel beams that are incomparably more resistant), had been flaming for more than 24 hours. Being built in 1979, the building was not equipped with automatic fire-fighting systems. Although the last 10 floors of the building crumbled, the rest of the building kept standing.

In China, on 9 February 2009, Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Beijing lit the night sky for hours. Again, without collapsing.

According to a newspaper29 in Dubai, a 34-storey building burned for several hours on December 6, 2012, however, with its basic structure unaffected.

The Collective Evolution30 website announced on April 4, 2013 that the 40-storey Olympus luxury hotel—the tallest building in the capital Grozny in Chechnya—burned continuously for 29 hours. The building did not collapse, and the city’s residents are determined to fix it as soon as possible.

Examples could go on, but the amazing conclusion is that in all the history31 of modern buildings, from 1885 to this day only three skyscrapers collapsed due to fire: WTC 1, 2 and 7. All three collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001. Isn’t it really bizarre?

The strangest crash is that of the tower no. 7, which was not hit by any plane. If in the case of the other two, there is no precedent of a building struck by a plane to compare, the collapse of WTC 7 is strikingly different from the aforementioned cases. Moreover, what is abnormal is not just that it collapsed, but also how the event occurred. This 47-storey block (200 meters tall) collapsed completely, uniformly, perfectly vertically in just six seconds, with almost no resistance to free fall. The speed of collapse was roughly the same as the fall of a steel ball from the roof of the building, as if the 47 floors of construction had suddenly ceased to exist! NIST was unable to explain at all what is seen in the numerous video recordings: the collapse began suddenly, moving from static position to near free fall! The fact that the whole building collapsed perfectly evenly and symmetrically, in a single continuous motion and only within its perimeter shows that all columns completely lost their resistance exactly at the same time. If that had not been the case, the building would tilt, overturning.

The NIST explanation for the collapse of the WTC 7 tower consists in the thermal expansion of the resistance columns, which would have led to the damage of a main column:

A girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79. (…) The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building’s east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures.32

That is detachment of a single column would have generated the sudden and total collapse of all the other columns, just like a castle of playing cards. Let us remember, however, that not all steel columns were equally exposed to fire; videos show that at some floors fire did not reach at all. It should also be taken into account that WTC 7 was not designed as Twin Towers but had a console structure consisting of a network of cross-girders of steel. Besides, if we consider that WTC7 had a total of 81 columns and only one main column (not the only one of this kind) would have been seriously damaged (according to NIST), it is quite difficult to understand how it was possible that the whole edifice collapsed suddenly, as if all the supporting columns disappeared at once. Interestingly, NIST’s 2004 first report did not even mention an investigation of WTC 7 collapse. Although it had 600 pages of analysis, the matter had been postponed until 2008.

A very competent study, which contradicts the NIST version of the WTC 7 collapse, is the one conducted by a team at Fairbanks University in Alaska. The leader of the study, Professor PhD J. Leroy Hulsey—internationally renowned expert in mechanical, structural and civil engineering, former UN expert—emphasizes that the result he obtained is based on particularly rigorous calculations that definitely lead to the conclusion that WTC 7 did not crash due to fires. After completing the preliminary stage of the study in 2016, PhD Hulsey was asked in a lawyer’s committee: “On a scale of 1 to 100, which do you think is the possibility that this building collapsed due to fire?” PhD Leroy Hulsey’s answer was crystal clear: “Zero. Fire did not bring this building down.”33 PhD Hulsey also said he did not think there was any possibility that the WTC 7 caught fire and collapsed due to the burning remains projected in it from the WTC 1 fire.

After other four years of researching, at the beginning of September 2019, the team led by Professor Hulsey finished the study, which is actually the first scientific investigation of the collapse of the WTC 7 building. The conclusion is very eloquent, stressing not only that it is not the fire the one which triggered the crash, but also that the structural columns lost their resistance almost simultaneously:

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.34

On September 3, 2019, Phd Hulsey also made a public presen­tation of research results at a conference35 held at the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus. Therefore, it is a scientific fact that it was not the fire the cause that generated the WTC 7 collapse and the structural failure did not start from a single column, but from all of them, nearly at the same time. This is clear evidence that the American authorities are hiding the real cause of the WTC 7 collapse!

The collapse of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers is very strange too. The data of NIST report indicate that “WTC towers crashed in just 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) respectively.”36 A simple calculation of the length of time a body reaches the ground through free fall at a height of 416 meters (the height of the two towers) shows that this value is 9.1627 seconds, i.e. there is virtually no difference between the crash rate of towers and the free fall speed! We have the same situation: steel structures of tens of floors simply seem to volatilize, they suddenly no longer opose any resistance, as if they turned to air. This is more difficult to explain as many of the floors under critical areas, starting from the base (for each of the three towers) were not affected by either fire or impact. Shouldn’t these unaffected areas at least opose a minimum braking of the fall?

Another noteworthy study is the one published in 2016 by the Review of the European Scientific Institute, Europhysics News. The study focused on the scientific analysis of WTC 1, 2 and 7 building crash causes and was carried out by four renowned experts: Professor Steven Jones of Birmingham Young University; emeritus Professor Robert Korol of McMaster Univesity; Anthony Szamboti, expert in aerospace engineering; and Ted Walter, AE9/11Truth analyst and public relations director. Their conclusion, based on concrete evidence on calculations and computer simulations was that “the evidence overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”37

As for Lynn Margulis, member of the National Academy of Sciences and professor at the University of Massachusetts, collabo­rated with another scientist, David Griffin, and wrote an article on the causes that led to the collapse of the New York towers. The two scientists’ opinion is that “building fire temperatures, even if fed by jet-fuel, could not have risen beyond 1,800°F (982° C), and hence they would be nowhere close to the of 2,800°F (1,537° C) needed to melt iron or molybdenum, that melts at 4,753°F (2,622° C).”38 In addition, the two scholars indicate that in the remains of the collapsed buildings (all three) more than conclusive quantities of an explosive material called nanothermite were identified.

Actually, many other experts and researchers examined this type of evidence and confirmed the presence of nanothermite. Their testimonies are available in the video recording “Architects and engineers: Solving the mystery of building No. 7.”39 According to them, in the debris and dust of the collapsed buildings were identified iron micro­spheres that could only be formed at extremely high temperatures, specific to reactions generated by nanothermite explo­sives. This is an explosive secretly developed by some professionals that receive governamental support from the US Army. The nanothermite involves a very advanced technology of particle physics (called nanotechnology) and is an explosive currently used to destroy buildings by controlled demolition. From the public discussion transcript related to its final report, NIST had not even investigated the use of the nanothermite because “it is not sufficiently credible to justify investigation.”40 The most probable working hypothesis was NIST’s vision of fires, and this led the official investigators to conclude that—in a way that was not previously encountered (neither after)—fires caused collapse in free fall of three skyscrapers. The request for consultation of details of the NIST Final Report, based on the Freedom of Information Act, was refused on the grounds that it could jeopardize public safety. But how could public safety be jeopardized by something fair and true, that would have nothing to hide?

I do not intend to formulate conclusions and interpretations about who wanted the destruction of the towers in the WTC complex. The present analysis only highlights the existence of very solid arguments indicating that things are far from clear regarding the officially expressed version.

In search of possible answers, I will mention some other interesting facts.

For instance, a conclusion published in September 2000 in the PNAC programmatic document entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defense: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century” draws our attention. It is underlined that in order to create a world order structured on firm American leadership it must be taken into account that

the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, in the absence of some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.41

The transparent meaning is that the PNAC group was aware exactly one year before 9/11 what could “catalyse” America’s transformation into the undisputed world leader. We may also remark that the PNAC evinced that

[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges, (…) a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad (…) to shape circumstances, (…) to embrace the cause of American leadership.42

Indeed, the 9/11 event, whoever caused it, greatly accelerated the ascendancy of America to a global leadership role. Was it just a coincidence that 9/11 was a kind of Pearl Harbour type event, exactly what American foreign policy needed, as PNAC admitted one year before?

Another interesting point is that in June 2001, the US Department of Defense, headed by Donald Rumsfeld, first modified a 50-year old North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) regulation on hunting jets’ intervention in the occurrence of an emergency in the airspace. Normally, hunting planes intercept any suspicious or troubled aircraft in less than 15 minutes. The manage­ment of this department was transferred from the General Staff to the vice-president Dick Cheney, PNAC member, who needed to agree if interception is allowed or not. On September 11, hijacked planes ranged between 47 minutes and 81 minutes without being inter­cepted. As reported by Associated Press, quoted by NBCNews, “military pilots did not get Cheney’s order to intercept and shoot down any planes until the last of the four planes crashed.”43

Even stranger is that exactly in the morning of September 11, 2001, the Pentagon’s governing structures were scheduled to have a record number of military exercises simulating airplane hijackings. The government investigation committee (Committee 9/11) claims that only one such exercise was conducted and it did not delay the defense departments’ response to the real cases of hijacking that actually occurred that day. There is, however, very conclusive evi­dence that this is not the case. A rigorous documentation on this issue was made public by a research group named Consensus 9/11. The group is made up of over 20 academics or experts in different fields from several countries. They created a database considering scientific criteria and available online to the public, media, universities, or any research institution. Consensus 9/11 proves that for the morning of September 11, 2001 at least 12 military exercises were scheduled, whose dates had been changed and clustered on that day, which “resulted in an unprecedented number of simultaneous drills that morning. This was an enormous departure from other years.”44

Regarding the Pentagon and the official investigators’ statements that army simulations would not have been confused air traffic controllers, Consensus 9/11 quotes some counter-examples, grounded even on army documents (including transcripts of records) that the official Committee had at hand. Thus, General Larry Arnold, commander of NORAD throughout continental US region said that “By the end of the day, we had 21 aircrafts identified as possible hijackings.”45 Similarly, Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke said about the September 11 monitoring that “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.”46

The Consensus 9/11 expert group issued two conclusions to this evidence, which represents at the same time very serious accusation against authorities. The first is that “The Pentagon, after creating conditions that confused the military response to the attacks, sought to cover up its creation of these conditions.” And the second: “The 9/11 Commission (the inquiry committee of the government) facilitated this cover-up by not making public the information held in its records cited above.”47

Indeed, the numerous evidence — which everybody can check from Consensus 9/11 database — highlights the general confusion of US airspace control structures of that day. Scheduling an abnormally high number of simulations at that time and the powerful knock-on effect of air traffic controllers virtually eliminated the possibility that the attack could be stopped.

Another situation that the US authorities failed to explain and which was buried after September 11, 2001 is that since 1999 from Pentagon it had been reported a disappearance of over two trillion dollars. The huge (we can say) fraud was publicly announced several times before the attacks. Just the day before, on September 10, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 trillion of the Pentagon funds could not be “tracked,” meaning that these budget deficits cannot be justified. Rumsfeld said that the situation is grave, that would be a matter of “life and death”48 for which he “declares war” to the Pentagon bureaucracy. But the following day, the Pentagon was hit by the terrorist attack and precisely the most important accounting documents were allegedly destroyed. Of the 45 people in charge of keeping and analyzing documents, 34 were killed in the attack… Thus, the “war against bureaucracy” was overshadowed by the “war on terror.”

The loss of over two trillion dollars is far from being a simple conspiracy legend. The sums were confirmed49 on 11 January 2001 in the Senate Confirmation Hearing by Senator Robert Byrd, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre (at that time Defense Comptroller), Senator Charles Grassley, Senior Carl Levin (chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee) or Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (in March 11th 2005). And last but not least, by CBS News.50

The accounting records can also be found in the audit of report No. D-2000-179 published in August 18, 2000. It is a report of the Department of Defense General Inspectorate for the fiscal year 1999, which says textually “Of the $7.6 trillion, $3.5 trillion were supported; $ 2.3 trillion were unsupported or posted to invalid general ledger accounts.”51

The easy explanation given by Donald Rumsfeld in the Congress hearings was that the money did not actually disappear, but could not be identified in accounting records. Due to deficiencies in the computer system… However, we are not talking about change, but about 2.3 trillion dollars! How much is 2.3 trillion dollars? A trillion of dollars means a thousand billions of dollars, one million of millions! Who can believe that the Pentagon simply does not know what they did with a sum of money nearly seven times as much as the US defense budget for 2001?

It is at least difficult that the entire chain of dubious events and flagrant inconsistencies surrounding the September 11th attack can be overlooked. In any case, no matter how many arguments and whoever brought them, in order to provide another interpretation of the causes and factors involved, nothing mattered. The detente effect occurred and the entire responsibility of the odious attack was attributed to Muslim terrorists. The anger storm had been triggered, and many states, more or less Muslim, were to pay.

 

(To be continued)