* Daily Mail: 911 skepticism goes mainstream! *


Richard Moore

Original source URL:

An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
Last updated at 22:07pm on 9th February 2007
 Comments (16)

The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American 
airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart
of the Western world on September 11, 2001.

Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A
third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in 
Washington D.C.

The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after 
a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery
was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93.

Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. 
President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the 
invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow.

Or that's how the official story goes.

Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 
9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for £1,500 on a 
cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 
million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet 

The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the 
fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and
another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on 
to Google Video to watch it on their computers.

Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from
the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And
it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.

A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four 
Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. 
This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they 
did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack.

The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally 
negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the 
startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible 
for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up.

Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned,
by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services.

Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse
about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a 
failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier.

Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in
America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael 
Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11.

Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the 
House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern
history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such 
mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis."

These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's 
bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy 
theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet 
in 1941, in order to force America into World War II).

Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School 
of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is 
capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally 
contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the 

Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a
carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to 
stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext 
for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro?

In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an
outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al 
Qaeda and Iraq?

This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on 
both sides of the Atlantic.

Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the
collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a 
rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so 
precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately 
betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed 
aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did?

An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on 
these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the 
catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent.

Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the 
attacks could have been an inside job.

It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American 
imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a
'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television 
accounts. It was then that he changed his mind.

And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the 
hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of
time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to
a suspected terrorist attack.

Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an 
air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 
67 times in America.

Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that 
it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes 
later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control 
stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been 

Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up 
from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the 
journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes.

But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 
miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead
of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the 
second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 
minutes too late.

And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the 
Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the 
hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews 
Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept 

Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles 
away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon.

So what of the fall of the Twin Towers?

The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns
were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes.

It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official 
inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost 
every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain.

But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by 
Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt 
until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - 
such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees.

Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers 
were deliberately blown up.

The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to 
loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off?

And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor 
Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all.

The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at 
flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his 
incompetence five times.

How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the 
building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft?

The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense 
heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, 
it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the 
crash scene.

"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could 
investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence 

Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of 
the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is
155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons.

"Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving 
any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the 
vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building?

"Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively.

"If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they 
would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. 
And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole."

And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering
the building?" asks Professor Griffin.

So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of 
all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is 
that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, 
several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft 
piercing the defence HQ.

Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger 

So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what 
happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio?

No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the
U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's 
national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded.

They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards 
Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney
and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places 
already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to 
be the target?

Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a 
minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour.

He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school
children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened.

The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the 
first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not?

He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the 
World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway."

Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American 
military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds.

He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an
aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers.

The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained 
completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion.

Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his 
country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different 
man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were 
to blame.

Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a 
rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national 
cathedral in Washington.

The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of 
Loose Change.

President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to 
answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the 
world of evil."

The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror.

Escaping the Matrix website        http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website               http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
subscribe cyberjournal list        mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives                   http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/