The title of this article alone is enough to shock most people. However; to believe the title of this article, one must accept the fact that Sept. 11, 2001 was an “inside job”. A whole movement has been built around this belief, it is called the “9-11 Truth Movement”, and its members are called “Truthers”. 

In order to believe that members of the Federal Government, specifically the Bush administration, could pull off something as horrific as the attacks on September 11, 2001, a motive for such an attack must be provided. Enter the Project For a New American Century. 

According to an article entitled, “America Pearl Harbored” that was published in the April 12, 2004 edition of the American Free Press Newspaper:

“The huge increases in U.S. military spending that have occurred since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were planned before President George W. Bush was elected by the same men who are pushing the administration’s “war on terrorism” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Billions of dollars in additional defense spending are but the first step in the group’s long-term plan to transform the U.S. military into a global army enforcing a terroristic and bloody Pax Americana around the world.

A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power.

One of the organization’s documents clearly shows that Bush and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on Iraq before he took power in January 2001.

The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as “a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.”

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush’s “war cabinet.”

Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush administration.

The group’s essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. “We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future,” the statement’s first principle reads.

The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: “to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values” and “to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”

A subsequent PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” reveals that the current members of Bush’s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.

The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

“Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”

A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.

The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.”1

On September 11, 2001, the Project for a New American Century, whose members were now in the “catbird” seat of the Bush administration, finally got their wish.

The official story is that four planes were hi-jacked by Muslim terrorist and carried out attacks on the Pentagon, as well as both World Trade Center buildings in New York between the hours of 8:46 – 10:28 am. According to Wikipedia.Com, an online encyclopedia:

“The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist  suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America.

That morning, nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a trained pilot. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners (United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC), resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and irreparable damage to nearby buildings. The hijackers crashed a third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania”2

While questions remain unanswered about many of the events that happened that day, the most disputed aspect of the attacks have to do with the explanation about why both Trade Center buildings collapsed, as well as the collapse of Building #7 , which was not hit by any planes.

As Morgan Reynolds wrote in an article entitled, “Why did the Trade Center Sky Scrapers Collapse?”, which was published in 2005 on Lew Rockwell.Com:

“To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12–18) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.”3

Reynolds continues:

“Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it:

• Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94^th floor).
• By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes.
• The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires.
• FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
• Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.

Griffin (pp. 25–7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts:

1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself" (p. 44). In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.

1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said").
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse.
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350^o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).

Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush’s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.

A related point is that demolition companies go to considerable expense to wire steel-framed skyscrapers with explosives to produce safe implosions, and they would love to do it more cheaply by simply setting two small fires like those that (allegedly) caved in building 7. Apparently, the terrorist-inventors have kept this new technology secret.

Why would the killers destroy WTC-7, especially since a collapse would arouse suspicion in some quarters? A logical if unproven theory is that the perpetrators used Mayor Giuliani’s sealed OEM "bunker" on the 23d story of WTC-7 to conduct the twin tower implosions and then destroyed the building and evidence to cover up their crimes, just as a murderer might set his victim’s dwelling ablaze to cover up the crime (one in four fires is arson). Giuliani’s "undisclosed secret location" was perfect because it had been evacuated by 9:45 a.m. on 9/11, it enabled unmolested work, provided a ringside seat, was bullet- and bomb-resistant, had its own secure air and water supply, and could withstand winds of 160 mph, necessary protection from the wind blasts generated by collapsing skyscrapers.

There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s²). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.”4

There is also the testimony of William Rodriguez and Jose Sanchez who were both employed at the World Trade Center as janitors. In an article written by reporter Greg Szymanski entitled, “Second WTC Janitor Comes Forward With Eye-Witness Testimony Of 'Bomb-Like' Explosion in North Tower Basement”, and published July 12, 2005. In it Szymanski writes:

“A second WTC maintenance worker has now come forward with eye-witness testimony that a massive explosion erupted in the lower levels of the north tower at approximately the same time the jetliner struck the tower’s top floors. 

Jose Sanchez, 45, of New Jersey in a never-released tape recorded statement made in early 2002 to William Rodriguez, the first WTC maintenance man to claim a bomb exploded in the north tower basement, said he heard what sounded like a “huge bomb,” causing lights to flicker on and off, while he worked in a small sub-level 4 workshop”5 

Szymanski continues: 

“Sanchez’s explosive comments, shooting another large hole in the government story, now adds even more credibility to Rodriguez’s recent statements that he heard a massive explosion in the WTC basement just seconds prior to the jetliner striking above while working in a sub-level 1 office along side 14 others, all who heard and felt the very same thing as Rodriguez.”6 

Statements made by firefighters and paramedics who witnessed the fall of the towers confirm the stories of Sanchez and Rodriguez. In an article entitled, “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories”, written by David Ray Griffin and published on the 911 Truth. Org website on July 18^th, 2006 contains the following statements by firefighters and paramedics:

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera”7

Surely there will be those who will say that our government would never attack its own people.  Those people might be interested in learning about “Operation Northwoods”.  In an article entitled, “ U.S. Wanted to Provoke War with Cuba” which was posted on the ABC News website on May 1’st, 2001 (ironically before the September 11, 2001 attacks), we learn that:

“In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities…The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.” 8

If the previous facts have startled you, then the following facts should scare you.

On July 12, 2005 the Capitol Hill Blue website reported that:

"A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people… The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow."9

On June 4^th , 2007, the Prison Planet.Com website reported that:

“Comments by the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, that America needs another terror attack for President Bush to regain popular approval, echo a 2005 GOP memo which touted new terrorist attacks as a means of validating Bush's leadership and the war on terror…At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,"10

Milligan’s yearning for another terrorist attack so that President Bush’s legacy might be restored was also echoed by former Senator Rick Santorum. An article which appeared on the Prison Planet.Com website on July 7, 2007 stated that:

“In an alarming display of fearmongering, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum has suggested that a series of "unfortunate events," namely terrorist attacks, will occur within the next year and change American citizen's perception of the war.

Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Santorum also hyped the necessity of "confronting Iran in the Middle East," and predicted that Giuliani, Romney and Tommy Thompson would be the three surviving Republican candidates who would go head to head in the race for the nomination.

Santorum went on to clearly imply that terror attacks will occur inside America which will alter the body politic and lead to a reversal of the anti-war sentiment now dominating the country…"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view," said the former senator from Pennsylvania.”11

The article continues by asking the question:

“Is Santorum expressing foreknowledge of some coming atrocity or is he merely using a tactic familiar to the leadership of his party - exploiting the fear of terror for the purposes of political rhetoric?”12

On July 10, 2007 Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune that he:

“had a "gut feeling" about a new period of increased risk.”13

Even with so much public disapproval about the War in Iraq, President Bush insists that he will not discuss the matter until September when Gen. David Petraeus is to issue his troop surge report. However CBS News is reporting that:

“a military official who spoke with Mr. Bush recently says the president told him no matter what the final report in September contains, if the top U.S. commander in Iraq recommends the surge should continue, it will”14

Is it a coincidence that Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and President Bush both made these statements on the same day? Is President Bush refusing to talk about pulling out of Iraq because he is awaiting General Petraeus’ report in September? Or is he waiting for something else to occur in September?

Meanwhile the Associated Press is reporting that:

“the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces.

Squadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet. The air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq”.15

Is this latest “ Air Force Surge” really for support in the Iraq theatre, or have they been sent to use Iraq as a forward base to attack Iran?  A June 29, 2007 report that appeared on the Debka.com website states there has also been an ongoing ‘naval surge’ in the Persian Gulf as well:

“According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the US naval build-up off the shores of Iran marks rising military tensions in the region, accentuated by last week’s Hamas victory which has endowed Iran with a military foothold on Israel’s southwestern border. The USS Enterprise CVN 65-Big E Strike Group will join the USS Stennis and the USS Nimitz carriers, building up the largest sea, air, marine concentration the United States has ever deployed opposite Iran. This goes towards making good on the assurances of four carriers US Vice President Dick Cheney offered the Gulf and Middle East nations during his May tour of the region.” 16

It appears that the Bush administration is preparing for another war in the Persian Gulf, this time against Iran. Now all they need is another staged terror attack. In the words of the new Chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, (previously cited in this article):

“America needs another terror attack for President Bush to regain popular approval”

The writing is on the wall and it doesn’t look good. Our only hope is for you the reader to help expose this plan to the public.

Bibliography:

1.      “America Pear Harbored”, The American Free Press , April 12, 2004 http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html

2. “September 11, 2001 Attacks”, Wikipedia.Com , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
3. “Why Did the Trade Center Sky Scrapers Collapse?”, article by Morgan Reynolds, published on the Lew Rockwell.Com website, in 2005:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. “Second WTC Janitor Comes Forward With Eye-Witness Testimony Of 'Bomb-Like' Explosion in North Tower Basement”, article by Greg Szymanski, published on the Artic Beacon website,  July 12, 2005 :  http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/29079.htm
6. Ibid.
7. “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories”, written by David Ray Griffin and published on the 911 Truth. Org website on July 18^th, 2006  http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
8. “U.S. Wanted to Provoke War with Cuba”, published May 1, 2001 on the ABC News website, http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
9. “GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline”, Doug Thompson  published November 10, 2005 on the Capitol Hill Blue Website  http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7639.shtml
10. “Yearning for Terror is a GOP Strategy”, written by Paul Joseph Watson and published June 4^th, 2007 on the Prison Planet. Com website,  http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/040607yearningforterror.htm
11. “Santorum Suggests New Terror Attacks Will Change View Of War”, written by Paul Joseph Watson and published on July 7, 2007 on the Prison Planet.Com website, http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/070707changeview.htm
12. Ibid.
13. “Officials Worry of Summer Terror Attack”, Yahoo News published July 10, 2007  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/summer_terror_threats_8
14. “Bush Rejects Calls for Change in Iraq”, posted on July 10^th, 2007 on the CBS News Website, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/10/politics/main3039221.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3039221
15. “Air Force Mounts ‘Quiet’ Surge”, written by Charles J. Hangley for the Associated Press and published on July 14, 2007 on the Press Telegram.Com website,  http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_6378319?source=most_viewed
16. “A third US carrier, the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise Strike Group is speeding towards the Persian Gulf” , published in a June 29,2007 report on the Debka.Com website, http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4334