BrooksUncensoredHolmgrenSept11Analysis

MANUFACTURED TERRORISM:THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11

By Gerard Holmgren holmgren@nettrade.com.au April 18 2004.

There's just one problem with the official story of Sept 11 - it isn't true.

This article presents a summary of the evidence that the entire event was planned and carried out
by the US govt and its agencies. The nature of a printed article means that references for the
research which backs up the following information can't be included here. However - unlike the
mainstream media which never provide any sources that one can verify - all of the information below
is based upon meticulously researched and referenced material that can be sent via email to any
who wish to view it. I encourage readers who have email to request the material by emailing
holmgren@nettrade.com.au or viewing it at http://911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=50 because I
never expect anybody to believe unsourced hearsay, and I don't make public claims unless I can
back them up with solid sources.

To start with, let's assume that the official story is basically true - that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes
and crashed three of them into buildings and one into a field. As I'll demonstate later, this is not what
happened, but even if it were true, there is solid proof that the govt must have had prior knowledge
and deliberately allowed it to happen. In order to understand this proof, one must first know the
basics of the official story.

American Airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767, tail number N334AA, with 92 people aboard,including the
hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arabs, while on route from Boston to LA. It was known to be hijacked by
8.25 AM or earlier, and hit the North (Nth) tower of the WTC at 8.46.

United Airlines flight 175, a Boeing 767, tail number N612UA, with 65 aboard, including the hijackers,
was hijacked by 5 Arabs while flying the same route as AA 11. It was known to be hijacked at about
8.55 AM and hit the South (Sth) Tower of the WTC at 9.03.

The towers later collapsed due to fire and /or impact damage.

American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, tail number N644AA, with 64 aboard, including the
hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arabs while on route from Dulles airport (DC) to LA. It was known to be
hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at 9.45.

United Airlines flight 93, a Boeing 757, tail number N591UA, with 45 aboard, including the hijackers,
on route from Newark (New Jersey) to SF , was hijacked by 4 Arabs. It was known to be hijacked
about 9.45, and crashed in PA at 10.10.

The incriminating anomaly in this timeline is that the US airforce did not scramble a single fighter jet
to intercept any of the hijacked planes. A little research into aviation regulations and historical
precedent demonstrates that every one of those planes should have been intercepted by jet fighters
before it got anywhere near its crash destination. The failure to launch any intercepts is only
explainable by a systematic nation-wide stand down of routine air defence procedures. FAA
regulations state that if any plane deviates from its flight path, and fails to respond to ATC
commands or communications, it is automatically declared an emergency. This is because is it has
become a hazard to other planes - even if no malicious intent is suspected. If ATC has any doubt as
to whether an emergency exists, it is to be considered as one.

Once ATC has detected an emergency, a request is put through to NORAD for an escort of fighter
jets to intercept the plane, investigate the problem, and guide it back to its correct course, via a set
of clearly stated procedures. Should the pilot prove uncooperative, the regulations provide the
fighter pilots with a graduated range of more aggressive responses, such as firing warning tracers,
flying one each side, to force it into the desired flight path - or even shooting down in extreme
circumstances. The fighter jets are either scrambled from nearby air bases or else by diverting pilots
on training flights to the intercept. It takes only a few minutes to scramble fighter jets, and the
process is so routine that in the year leading up to Sept 11, there was an average of 1.6 such
incidents weekly across the US. A study of the location of air bases in relation to the flight paths of
the hijacked planes, indicates that every plane should have been intercepted before impact. And yet
nothing was even scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.

The most spectacualr example is that of the Pentagon strike. Two planes had already hit the WTC
by 9.03 and yet this plane was allowed to fly for another 42 minutes off-course towards Washington,
untroubled by the world's most powerful air force. Only 10 miles from the Pentagon is Andrews
Airbase, a huge installation which is responsible for air defence around the DC area, and maintains
two squadrons of fighter jets on permanent standby for this very purpose, since the security of the
White House, State dept, Capitol and the City of DC are also at stake. This was not an unforseen
contingency. The Pentagon had twice in the last two years conducted drills specifically simulating a
plane strike, and for decades, US security services had been wrestling with the potential problem of
a hijacked airliner taking a suicide plunge into the White House.

On Sept 11, they had nearly an hour's warning of the Pentagon attack - and grounded the entire
airforce - in violation of standard operating proceedures that are automatically implemented even in
the case of a single plane accidentally deviating from its course with no obviously hostile intent.

On Sept 14, NORAD, after initially admitting that it failed to scramble anything - supposedly because
it simply hadn't imagined such a situation - suddenly changed the story, claiming that it had
scrambled fighters from Langley Airbase - 130 miles away - but they didn't get there in time. If
fighters were really scrambled from Langley, then how could NORAD - which issues the scramble
order - have been unaware of it until 3 days later? And according to the times given by NORAD on
Sept 14, they would have had to be flown at less than 260 mph to have not got there in time - when
the top speed of the fighters is about 1200mph. And why scramble from Langley, when Andrews had
two squadrons just 10 miles away - specifically dedicated to the DC area? Then they tried to say that
no fighters were available at Andrews that day, but failed to explain how the non-existent fighters
then miraculously appeared at Andrews to take to the skies a few minutes after the Pentagon was
hit, to start flying protective cover over DC - while still not bothering to chase UA 93, which was
supposedly heading for the White House by this time.

While the air force was doing nothing, the two officials most directly responsible for defence of the
nation - Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers and
President/Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush were displaying what can only be described as
cavalier indifference to the horror that was unfolding. Myers was about to start a routine meeting with
Senator Max Cleland when he heard that a plane had hit the WTC. He went ahead with the meeting
as if nothing had happened. 18 minutes later, when the second plane hit, and NORAD knew that at
least one more plane was hijacked, Myers and Cleland continued with the meeting. Then a plane hit
the Pentagon. And still they chatted on about routine matters.

Meanwhile, Bush was in Flordia, about to make a televised photo opportunity trip to an elementary
school, to listen to second graders read, after which he was to give a speech about the reading
program. Before he even got to the school, he knew about the first WTC crash, but continued with
his arrangement. And then, still, before he arrived at the school, NORAD knew about two more
hijackings,which means that Bush knew, but he continued to the school anyway - in spite of that fact
that the school was only 5 miles from an international airport, and his movements were public
knowledge in advance, which means that the school might have been a target - and then he
pretended to know nothing about the attacks when he got there. Before he went into the classroom,
it would have been clear to NORAD that a major terrorist attack was underway.

By 9.05 Bush was listening to a little girl read a story about her pet goat, and his Chief of staff,
Andrew card came into the classroom and whispered in his ear that a second plane had hit the WTC
and that "America was under attack." Bush nodded casually and continued with the reading class -
for another 25 minutes, smiling, joking and cheering about the reading skills of the children. A
reporter who suggested that he should be addressing himself to the situation in NY was sternly
rebuked by Bush, who said that now was not the time to be talking about it. And remember, that at
this time, Bush knew that there was at least one more plane at large - something which no-one else
in the class knew.

At 9.30, with AA 77 still flying unescorted towards DC, Bush finished the reading class (on schedule)
and then wasted more time with a pointless speech to the nation, already promising to "hunt down
and punish those responsible", while showing no interest in doing anything about the plane which
was still at large, a danger of which his audience was unaware. He left the school about the same
time that the Pentagon was hit.

Later, in an attempt to cover up the fact that he'd still gone to the school in spite of being aware of
the crisis, Bush lied about his movements on the morning, inventing a story that he was already at
the school when the first crash occurred. This lie has worked its way into the popular mythology in
the mainstream media. In the scramble to find a cover story for his movements that morning, Bush
also carelessly claimed that he'd seen the first crash live on TV at the school and had thought it was
an accident. This is also a lie because the first crash was never broadcast live. No footage appeared
until the following day.

Immediately after the attacks, US TV networks reported that investigators were looking into massive
insider trading on airline stocks in the last few days before the attacks - indicating that the terrorists
profited from foreknowledge of their actions. Then the story simply vanished from the mainstream
media. Investigative and regulatory authorities could easily find out who placed those trades, but
nearly three years later, there has been no investigation, no charges laid and deafening silence
about the trades from both govt and media.

Although the govt claimed to be completely taken by surprise, it somehow had no trouble in naming
the alleged perpetrator - Osama Bin Laden - within hours, and immediately threatened to invade
Afghanistan. What they neglected to mention was that the decision to invade Afghanistan had
already been made by July 2001, and the specific war plans arrived on Bush's desk on Sept 9.

It a common myth that Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the attacks but this simply isn't true.
He has vigorously denied any involvement and according to some reports has condemned the
attacks as un-Islamic. The myth of his confession is based entirely upon a video tape produced by
the Pentagon which claims to show the bearded fiend laughing about how many innocent people he
has killed. This tape is almost certainly a fake, and the Pentagon's translation has been attacked by
independent translators as misleading and incomplete. In response, the Pentagon effectively
admitted as much, saying "it is not a verbatim translation of every word spoken at the meeeting, but
it does convey the messages and the information flow." The Dept of defense defended the
translation thus: "The translation is what it is. We never said it was a literal translation."

Incriminating as all of this is, it only scratches the surface. The FBI managed to name the 19 Arabs
involved within a few days, and their names, faces and biographies were promptly splashed across
the mainstream media. Supposedly, their passports and suicide notes were found at the crash
scenes in spite of fiery crashes which completely incinerated the planes - including the normally
indestructible flight recorder boxes, and all the occupants. In another miraculous stroke of good luck
for the evidence hunters, the luggage of alleged ringleader, Mohammed Atta, was somehow left
behind at Logan airport and just happened to contain instructions to his fellow conspirators. And it
seems that they learned how to fly the giant Boeings at the last minute by reading flight manuals on
the way to the airport - because they conveniently left the manuals - in Arabic of course - in the cars
they had rented.

How embarrassing for the FBI when the alleged hijackers started turning up alive, protesting their
innocence! And even more embarrassing when the passenger lists provided by the airlines to CNN
did not contain a single Arabic name. And none of the names on the passenger lists are alleged to
be aliases for any of the Arabs. How did they get on the flights without being on the passenger lists,
and if they were using false names, how were these traced to their real ID's and why have none of
the other names on the lists ever been identified as hijackers' aliases ?

19 obviously Arabic men got on to planes with non-Arabic false ID, with a 100% success rate? And
why is there no airport security footage of them? Within a few weeks of "identifying" the hijackers, the
FBI was then forced to admit that they actually had no idea who the hijackers were. In spite of this,
the same 19 names and faces have been splashed across the mainstream media unchanged, as if
this admission had never been made. And in subsequent statements, the FBI buried this admission
with an avalanche of increasingly ridiculous spin about the sinister pre-Sept 11 activities of the 19
Arabs, seemingly forgetting that they admitted these IDs to be ficticious.

For example, the FBI rather stupidly claimed that 9 of the fictitious Arabs had actually been searched
before boarding because they looked suspicious. If they were using false names when they were
searched, then surely the FBI must know which of those 9 people on the passenger lists were
actually the hijackers incognito? Nope. And if they were not using false IDs, can we know why they're
not on the passenger lists? Nope. Clearly, the 19 Arabs are complete fiction.

Some critical thinking about how the hijacking is supposed to have taken place also reveals the story
as a bad cartoon script. In the event of a hijacking, the crew only has to punch in a four-digit
hijacking code - accessible from several different places - to alert ATC to a hijacking. So if 5 men
were to try to take over a plane by the crude method of theatening people with boxcutters, while it
might be possible for them to be able to gain control of the plane, to do so without ATC first receiving
a distress code is almost impossible. We are supposed to believe that they achieved the impossible
4 times out of 4.

In one of the phone calls allegedly made from AA 11, it was said that the crew locked themselves in
the cockpit, and the hijackers attempted to lure them out by shooting and stabbing passengers. This
is said to have gone on for 25 minutes. Why then, no distress code from AA 11? Furthermore, the
timeline of the alleged phone call indicates that the plane had already turned off course before the
hijackers got into the cockpit!

But it wasn't only the hijackers which were fiction. So were the hijackings. We all think that we saw a
big plane hit the WTC live on TV, so there must have been hijacked planes, right ? A closer look
reveals it as an elaborate illusion. First, lets take AA77, the plane which is supposed to have hit the
Pentagon. This is one of the most heavily surveillanced buildings in the world, and yet somehow they
can't come up with any footage of the crash. Because it never happened. Something hit the
Pentagon but it wasn't a Boeing 757 or anything anywhere near that size. There are numerous
photos of the aftermath and nowhere is to be seen any evidence of wreckage of such a plane.

A 757 has a wingspan of 125 ft, a tail height of 40 ft and a length of 155 ft. The hole in the Pentagon
wall was about 40 ft wide, 25 ft high and collapsed only the first ring of the building - about 40 ft
deep. There is no sign of any Boeing debris anywhere. No wings, no tail, no protruding fuselage.
The tail couldn't fit through the hole even if the plane was sliding along the ground. And because the
grass outside is smooth, green and undamaged, even that is impossible. And because the angle of
entry of the mystery object was about 45 degrees, a 125-ft wingspan would cause an impact about
180 ft wide. A giant aircraft has supposedly passed through a hole many times smaller than itself,
without breaking off any parts, and then totally vanished. Furthermore, official aviation records from
the US Bureau of Transportation say that the alleged AA 77 flight did not exist. The BT keeps a
record of details about every flight ever scheduled from a US airport - even cancelled flights. No
such record exists of AA 77 on Sept 11. Early reports said that the incident at the Pentagon was
caused by a truck bomb.

Now consider AA 11, the plane alleged to have hit the Sth tower at 8.45. This is not the plane shown
in the dramatic, often replayed crash video, but the less frequently shown crash. Whatever the
object is, it is certainly not a Boeing 767 or any kind of large passenger jet. When one views the
video at full speed, one can only see a brief flash and then the explosion. Since we are always being
told that it's AA 11, the natural tendency is to think that its just too fast to see on the video. However
a frame by frame analysis shows a fuzzy small, rather squat looking triangular shaped craft - nothing
like a Boeing 767 and way too small, which divebombs into the tower in a manner which would
appear to be impossible for a large airliner. Neither is there a single witness report to a large jet. All
early reports say that it was a small plane, and it only became a large plane, after American Airlines
issued a statement saying that it had lost AA11 in the crash. The BT database also says that there
was no such flight as AA 11 on Sept 11.

Now the Nth tower crash, the one shown live on TV. Surely this was a real Boeing 767 because we
saw it live, and at superficial viewing it certainly appears to be a large jet. However, a frame by frame
examination of the video reveals that it is not a 767 or any kind of conventional aircraft. The
anomalies are too many to go into in this article, but in summary it was definitely not UA 175.
Furthermore, aviation records from the FAA show that although UA 175 existed as a flight, unlike AA
77 or AA 11, the plane to which this flight was assigned - N612UA - is still registered and valid. In
other words, it never crashed. So we don't know where it went, but we do know that it didn't hit the
WTC.

And finally UA 93 - alleged to have crashed in PA. Like UA 175, this was a bona-fide flight, but the
plane - N591UA is also still registered as valid. Interestingly, FAA records do show the planes to
which AA11 and 77 were allegedly assigned - N334AA and N644AA as destroyed - but not until Jan
14 2002, when the FAA regulations state that the deregistration must be reported on the day that a
plane is totally destroyed. So most likely these planes were ready for retirement and were taken
away somewhere to be scrapped.

Now to the question of the collpase of the WTC towers.The official story that they collapsed from fire
and/or impact damge is a physical impossibility. Video of the event shows that the towers did not
collapse - they exploded in mid-air, and one can see clear evidence of explosive charges running
down the buildings. There are numerous scientific studies which demonstrate that it's impossible for
them to have collapsed in the pancaking manner cited in the official story.

Firstly, all of the concrete in the towers was totally pulverized into fine dust. The amount of energy
needed to achieve this task is quantifiable, and so is the amount of potential energy available in a
gravitational collapse. It's insufficient to acheive this pulverization, which means that only an added
input of energy (such as explosives) can balance the energy equation.

Secondly, a simple application of the laws of gravity demonstrate that the towers collapsed in a time
which was impossible had the top floors been smashing through the lower floors. Excluding air
resistance, any object free falls at 9.81m/s sq, regardless of weight. An object dropped from the top
of the WTC would have hit the ground in 9.2 secs (a little longer for air resistance). The towers
supposedly collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors, meaning
that at each stage of the 110-story collapse, the falling rubble would have its acceleration
significantly slowed by this resistance. But the towers collpased in 11 secs, virtually a free fall.
Although there are too many variables to calculate the exact minimum time possible for a pancake
collpase, it would have to be more than 20 seconds. A pancake collapse in 11 seconds is impossible
under the law of gravity.

This proves that the entire structure was suddenly and simultaneously converted into a free falling
collection of disconnected rubble, something only achieveable through the co-ordinated use of
demolition explosives. There are also witness reports from firefighters who say that they heard
bombs going off in the buildings. Furthermore, the media likes to gloss over the similarly neat,
vertical, and lightening quick collapse of WTC building 7, a 47- story building which was not hit by
anything but also disappeared in a manner identical to that of a classic controlled demolition.

Apart from Sept 11, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever totally collapsed from fire - and then we
allegedly get 3 in one day. On Sept 14, a demolition expert who works for the Pentagon, professor
Van Romero, obviously unaware of the political minefield into which he was stepping, said that upon
his viewing of the collapse videos, he believed that it was a controlled demolition. Prof Romero later
retracted his statement in mysterious circumstances, refusing to say why and refusing to offer any
alternative scenario, simply saying that he wasn't prepared to say what did or didn't happen, and
didn't want to talk about it anymore.

The early spin from the media was that the ferocious heat of the burning jet fuel melted the structural
steel of the skyscraper. Unfortunately, jet fuel, which is basically kerosene, typically burns at at about
450 degrees C, and steel melts at about 1500C.

Scientific calculations of the maximum amount of heat which could have been even theoretically
generated by the maximum amount of fuel that the mythical planes could have been carrying show
that it could not have contributed more than 280C to the temperature - even if all the fuel was
confined to one floor. Each floor of the WTC was about 4,000 sq metres. The maximum amount of
fuel which the plane could have carried was about 8000 gallons. So even claiming that all of this fuel
burnt within one floor, thats about 2 gallons per sq metre - supposedly melting steel construction
beams.

Neither does the myth of a ferocious fire in the WTC stand up to the scrutiny of witness or video
evidence. Firefighter tapes describe some "isolated pockets of fire" which they could "knock out" with
two hoses. And the black smoke drifting from the building indicates an oxygen-starved fire.

Even if the mythical inferno were true, far more ferocious fires have been experienced in other
skyscrapers - sometimes burning out of control for as long as 20 hours, and never has one of these
buildings collapsed.

Why would they want to demolish the WTC? It had been losing money for years. It's the most
valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the buildings themselves were a disaster. Under-
tenanted, beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the NY Port Authority, had received warnings that
it was sittting on a legal and financial timebomb. And of course, they couldn't be demolished because
of all the asbestos dust that would go into the air of NY.

The NYPA had been trying to sell the buildings for years, and understandably, nobody was
interested. In early 2001, the NYPA went to court in a test case, and tried to get its insurance
company to pay for asbestos renovations. The case was thrown out. This should have made the
buildings even more unsaleable. However, immediately after this, Manhattan property developer
Larry Silverstein, who sits on the board of Westfield America, stepped in with a consortium worth
$US3.2 billion for a 99-year lease on the site.

Westfield Australia directly contributed $A840 million for control of the shopping plaza. Silverstein
insured himself for $US3.5 billion per terrorist attack, and Westfield fully insured itself against
terrorism and loss of rental income. Immediately upon signing the deal, Westfield announced that it
would double the rents, causing much scratching of heads in financial circles, since the buildings
were already so under-tenanted.

Silverstein, and Peter Lowy from Westfield were handed the keys in a take-over ceremony on Sept
10, and the very next day, the troublesome things conveniently disappeared in a terrorist attack -
along with building 7 of the complex - solving the asbestos problem, leaving Silverstein with a clean
building site on the best real estate in the world, and Westfield with a rental income which would
have been unsustainable in a real trading environment, and no law suits over all the asbestos dust
released into the air of Manhattan. Silverstein's insurer has agreed to the $3.5 billion pay out, but
Silverstein is claiming that it was two terrorist attacks and wants $7 billion, which is currently the
subject of a court case.

Very early media reports had the two fictitious AA flights as the planes to hit the WTC. AA 77 was
only switched to being the Pentagon plane hours later. UA 175 was the last plane to be "confirmed"
as involved. At 9.17, the FAA started diverting all flights. Early reports show wild discrepancies in
terms of which allegedly hijacked plane went where. The ficticious AA77 is particularly volatile from
one report to another, at one stage saying that it hit the WTC, then that it didn't even take off for a
half hour after the second crash, then that after taking off at 9.33, it somehow flew 700 miles out to
Ohio and back, in just 5 minutes, to hit the Pentagon. One report had UA 93 landing at Cleveland
due to a bomb scare. What is clear is that they were making it up as they went along, and the final
cover story about which planes crashed where, didn't settle down for hours.

In summary, this is most likely how the morning of Sept 11 really played out. There was no need to
issue an order for the air force to stand down routine intercept proceedures, because it appears that
there actually weren't any hijackings.

Two unconventional objects were fired into the WTC. The impacts were blamed on the two fictitious
AA flights. At this time UA 93 and 175 were flying normally.Then the FAA begins diverting flights -
including the two UA flights. The BT database tells us of any flights which are diverted, but doesn't
tell us where they are divereted to. So we don't have an official record of where the two UA flights
landed. Later, AA 77 becomes the Pentagon plane, and UA 175 becomes the Sth tower plane as the
official cover story settles down. Thus of the four allegedly hijacked planes, two didn't exist, and the
other two were diverted to safe landings somehow, while another fake plane crash was
manufactured at the Pentagon. Most likely the PA crash was a drone craft of some kind, and there is
evidence that the substitute craft was shot down.

This is only a brief summary of the evidence. Much material had to be left out due to space
contraints. I encourage all readers to request by email, or read on line the documentation and full
evidence kit for this summary.

URL for this article is
http://911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51

Evidence Kit
Evidence Kit - Important Links
Flight 11
No Hijackings
Media Published Fake Passenger Lists
Pentagon Analysis
Did F77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined
INTRODUCTION
PLANE SPECIFICATIONS
ESTIMATIONS OF HOLE DIMENSIONS
ENTRY CALCULATIONS
ENTRY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
EXPLOSION ANALYSIS
FUEL LOAD ANALYSIS
Laws of Physics
'BUT WRECKAGE WAS FOUND.'
DNA TESTING
THE HOLE IN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL
WHAT ABOUT THE EYEWITNESSES?
SUMMARY
Salter Debates
SALTER DEBATES -- Part 1
SALTER DEBATES -- Part 2
SALTER DEBATES -- Part 3