Massive List For Questionable 911 Evidence


September 11th was the day the United States prepared for war against radical Islam. They were supposedly unpreprared for the attacks, but once they occurred, the war was on. Within a month, Afghanistan was invaded and the suspected terrorist behind the attacks, Osama Bid Laden, and his Afghani government supporter, the Taliban, were crushed by the war machine. In 2003, the United States aimed its crosshairs at Saddam Hussein for suspect reasons. In the years to follow in the first decade of the new millenium, the U.S. invaded or supplied counterterrorist military troups to Pakistan, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Georgia, Yemen, Libya, Haiti 1), and others. They have consistently shown interest in invading Iran and ousting their elected leaders. In 2013, Syria experienced not one but two chemical attacks. After the first chemical attack, the U.S. began banging on the war drums and assumed Bashar Al-Assad, the president of Syria, was behind the attacks. That was later contested. A second attack killed over 1400 Syrians and this was almost successfully used by Secretary of State John Kerry to bring America into another war.

It has been shown that the U.S. has an agenda in the Middle East, there is no doubt about it. All of it was made possible by the United States being attacked on September 11th.

The following is a compiled wiki for evidence (with links) that show the United States not only was mostly responsible for the 911 attacks, one cannot ignore the evidence that they made it happen.

What we will see here is endless examples of how the official story (and its thousands of branches) have a better explanation. The more of these little events that you read and say “that doesn't make sense”, the more one realizes its because a theory has been fitted on a set of facts that don't match. One can bend your reasoning to make this so, but if one starts from the evidence and builds up, one does not get the official story.

Commentary On 911 Debunking Sites

The internet doesn't need yet another 911 evidence page that doesn't address common counterpoints. This author will scan and other debunking sources and the majority of items posted here will either be of things NOT covered on debunking websites or it will address those websites directly.


Able Danger

In 1998, The US military created an open source data mining operation called Able Danger, wherein the operation collected publicly available data about people suspected of being enemies of the state. It was successful in that Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and others were able to identify 911 terrorists like Mohammed Atta before they committed their atrocity.

Some interesting facts relating to Shaffer and Able Danger…

  • Shaffer identified a number of terrorist cells, including one that linked to the would be 911 terrorists all the way back in 1999. Shaffer, not knowing what was going to happen but still knowing that these guys were associating with terrorists according to the publicly available data, tried to contact the FBI and alert them to these findings. Military lawyers, for unknown reasons, stopped any meetings from happening. 2)
  • Shaffer was challenged by a 2 star general numerous times to drop any leads relating to Mohammed Atta. 3)
  • Shaffer wrote a book called Operation Dark Heart, which explained some of the details related to Able Danger. The Department of Defense bought 9,500 copies of the book and promptly **burned them**. The DoD claimed the book was a threat to national security. 4)
  • Shaffer and his editing team followed the guidelines provided by the military for producing written material for the public. The US Army vetted the book and initially signed off on its publication.
  • The Department of Defense has “allowed” a second edition of the book to be published, despite the fact that it didn't do anything wrong.
  • A comparison of the DoD censored first edition to the heavily redacted second edition reveals edits on 250 of the 320 pages (truthfully, many of the edits were completely unnecessary) 5)
  • Shaffer was in Afghanistan on duty and he met Philip Zelikow on an intelligene mission. He told Zelikow, who was the executive director of the 911 commission report, about what he learned from the Able Danger data mining operation, including the identification of the terrorists who pulled off 911. Zelikow recognizes the importance of the admission from Shaffer and requests to speak to him back on US soil. Later, Shaffer makes multiple attempts to contact Zelikow and he is brushed away. Finally, Zelikow's office reports to Shaffer that they have all the information they need about Able Danger and Shaffer's testimony would be not needed anymore. 6)
  • When Arlan Spector demanded that the Senate have a hearing about the possibility that Able Danger knew of terrorists in the U.S. like Mohammed Atta. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense blocked Shaffer and others from being able to testify. 7)
  • The government destroyed all documents relating to Able Danger becuase it was thought that the material violated citizen's right to privacy (laughable when you consider that the NSA was and is scooping up data all the time) 8)
  • The 911 commission report failed to even mention Able Danger and the terrorism discovery well before 911. In response, the committee claimed that there was no documentation proving the corrrect identification of Atta and others before 911. 9) This, despite the fact that the government had destroyed the evidence AND the fact that Athony Shaffer and others in Able Danger came forward and stated in no uncertain terms that Mohammed Atta was identified using the Able Danger materials 10)
  • 11 people worked under Able Danger directly and up to 80 people had peripheral connections to the program. Athony Shaffer, Scott Phillpott, James D. Smith, and 3 other unidentified people came forward to confirm **without question** that Mohammed Atta was identified as associating with a terrorist cell. None of these people's credibility were questionable and none of these testimonies would influence the 911 commission report. 11)

Demolition Evidence

First WTC Manager Says Buildings Were Designed For Multiple Impacts

Frank DeMartini was the manager of construction at the World Trade Center. In early 2001, Martini went on a Discovery channel documentary stating that the **World Trade Center towers were designed to withstand a fully loaded 707 impact** 12). Indeed, DeMartini continues and posits that the buildings **should** have been able to withstand **multiple** (i.e. two or MORE) impacts from jet liners.

For starters, this does not “prove” anything, but it is highly suggestive. The planes that struck the twoers were 767s, which means they were bigger and newer. However, the 767 AA flight 11 13) had left from Boston, flown through Massachusetts into northern New York state, and then flew down towards New York City. While the plane was bigger, the fuel tank was not full. One could say that the plane the struck the towers was more or less like the one DeMartini was talking about. So we have the head of construction management who never expected this to happen and it happened to TWO TOWERS with only one impact.

In addition, both towers fell at near free fall speed. This is incongruent with what DeMartini describes with the construction of the building, likening it to a screen door with a pencil punching through it; the structure itself is not compromised by that action. So to have two towers struck nearly at the very top and to have a near free fall collapse does not make much sense.

Frank DeMartini died on September 11th so we cannot ascertain further his opinion.

Random Demolition Expert Chimes In To Say There Were Explosives

On the day of the attack, something compelled Van Romero to speak. Romero was an expert in explosives and working at New Mexico Tech when 911 occurred 14). He went public that day to say that the collapse of both towers were “too methodical” for them to be solely caused by the plane.

As one is wont to happen during a conspiracy, Romero changed his tune and adjusted his perspective to that of the official story; the fire caused by the impact and resulting fuel burning must have melted the steel, which led to a pancake like effect, crushing each floor down to the ground. Unfortunately, after the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (or NIST) did their report, they debunked the pancake theory, so Romero had just switched his opinion to the wrong one. Was his first opinion correct?

Demolitions Expert Dewey Jowenko Says World Trade Center 7 Is A Controlled Demolition

Controversy has always surrounded the collapse of the first two towers, but many still do not know that a 3 building fell due to the attacks on September 11th, World Trade Center 7.

Dewey Jowenko was unaware of this fact when some 911 researchers sneakily showed him the collapse of a building from New York without telling him that it was on the same day as 911. He had seen the collapse of World Trade Center 1 and 2 and believed those to be without explosives. However, Jowenko watches the clip of World Trade Center 7 collapsing **and doesn't have a doubt in his mind that there were explosives involved**. He states it was “a hired job”. It's interesting to note how Jowenko almost refuses to believe that it could have been on the same day, but the researchers sitting with him confirm and reconfirm that WTC 7 fell in the afternoon of 911.

Jowenko takes a step back to consider this…**but he doesn't change his position that there were explosives**. He simply mutters in his native tongue “they were good”.

Now, do you think the Islamic extremists were that good as demolishing a 47 story building that housed the CIA, FBI, SEC, and other sensitive government agencies without them knowing there were explosives planted?

Okay, okay, so we have Romero who renigged on his perspective and Jowenko who never recants his World Trade Center 7 perspective (btw, Jowenko died in a car accident). Perhaps this is just a few random nuts, right?

Look below…

2,220 Architects And Engineers (and counting) Band Together To Challenge Official Story

Here is an organization that purports to be a collection of 2,200 professional architects and engineers who do not believe the official story is sufficient to explain the collapse of all the towers 15). It is headed by Richard Gage, architect from California.

View the names of the professionals yourself by following the link 16). The list is impressive, but yet again, this is not “proof” of a conspiracy. One can also find experts who believe the collapse of the towers makes sense. However, the very fact there is there is considerable debate amongst the experts as to what actually happened, this area of question on 911 should be considered completely **unsolved**. To call the possiblity that explosives were used by someone to bring down the towers should not be considered conspiracy, it should be consisdered honest questioning.

Like Jowenko, many of the architects have a serious bone to pick with World Trade Center 7. Although there are less questioning the collapse of 1 and 2, they are also very present. It doesn't matter if all the experts can't agree on the same thing. What is important to understand is that if it can be determined that explosives were used in any of the buildings, but in particular World Trade Center 7, then there had to be serious foresight in the planning of their destruction. It would've involved contracting a demolition team to do the job. The U.S. government should be following evidence and tracking down WHOEVER did it, whether it was Islamic radicals or otherwise (one hardly suspects there are many controlled demolition teams out there that are Islamic extremists). Clearly, however, the concept of explosives in the buildings is off limits, which makes this a conspiracy theory. But if the evidence is there, should it be?

The Fires Were Weak

Part of the official theory to how the buildings collapsed is the hot fires that occurred after the structural damage. These fires slowly bent the steel and eventually initiated the collapse of the towers.

When looking at other buildings that have been **engulfed in flames** for waaay longer than the few floors of World Trade Center 1 and 2, however, we see that buildings can hold for quite awhile.

Take a look at the First Insterstate Bank Building, where a fire raged for around 4 hours on 5 floors 17). Crucially, the floors that the fire occurred on were near the bottom of the 62 story building, between the 12-16th floors 18).

One thing to definitely take notice of is that the fire was raging.


All 4 floors are completely engulfed and the the flames are flying out of the building…


It is worth noting that the World Trade Center buildings were all steel structures, as was the First Interstate Bank Building. This building not only survived once the fire was put out around 2:20 a.m., all reports indicate that the **structure of the building was in no way compromised by the raging fire**. As quoted from the owner of the building after having it spected,

“The structural pieces appear to be very much intact…if you look at the insulation on the major beams…most of the insulation is very much on there.” 19)

The building, now called the Aon center, still stands perfectly fine today, almost 25 years later, without structural problems 20).

Alternatively, one can look at the One Meridian Plaza fire that occurred in Philadelphia in 1991. The fire started innocuous enough around 8:20 p.m. on february 25th and quickly it ran out of control. The fire started in the **middle** of the building, on the 22nd floor of the 38 story building, and raged on upwards to the 30th floor before the buildings sprinkler system could effectively contain. That containment was not declared until 3:01 p.m. the next day 21), or around **18-19 hours of full on fire.**

i58.tinypic.com_104ok89.jpg 22)

What was the status of this building after nearly a day of an out of control fire? **The structural integrity was sound and in no danger of collapse**23). Indeed, the building sat in disrepair for years before insurance and the owners could come to a deal about what happened.

What do we see in the North and South towerr of the World Trade Centers?


Generally speaking the fire was contained on less floors and only burned for less than 2 hours 24). The North tower experienced an impact zone of around 8 floors 25). Some people described how eerie it was to leave the fire torn floors and to be below them, with electricity on and no sign of any problems above.

One would do well to watch a number of videos a few minutes before collapse (like here26)) in order to see that after the initial fireball, the fires themselves were **relatively tame in comparison to other buildings that have experienced fires without collapse**, such as the One Meridian diaster and the Insterstate Bank Building fire. The video above shows that the fire is producing mostly black smoke, which is a sign that the fire is starved of oxygen. Further images reveal that people were standing in the impact zone waving for someone to (somehow) help them.


For the case of towers one and two, the fires occurred for a brief amount of time and the impact zone was on the top 90% of the building. They would like us to believe that fires melted the steel (although it appears as though the fires were not that bad in comparison to other building fires that maintain their structural integrity) to weaken the structure, which initiated the collapse.

However, we have seen buildings collapse from the top and they do not implode onto themselves; they typically fall over from the point of weakness.

The Windsor Tower in Spain burned like fire breathing dragon for an entire day.

Here it was it looked like at its worst…

i57.tinypic.com_2n7mkok.jpg 27)

…and here is the partial collapse that occurred


As you can see, the structure became severely comprised on the top and fell over…but only the top fell. Why would a much less catastrophic fire (which only burned for 56 minutes in the South Tower before collapse, mind you) take out the entire building? And lets not forget Frank DeMartini, contstruction and building manager for the World Trade Center, who said the buildings were designed to withstand plane impacts.

And consider the South Tower, that was struck on an angle. If there was structural damage enough to induce structural collapse, it would have collapse to the side…yet it collapsed straight down.




The White House Couldn't Imagine Planes Hitting Important Buildings, But There Intelligence Agencies Could

In the havoc after 9/11, Bush and all of his underfellows were seen on T.V. reiterating a common theme; **they never saw someone using planes to attack import buildings**.

Here is Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's transcript from a 9/11 commission, where she reiterated a phrase she state shortly after the attacks:

“No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon” – I'm paraphrasing now – “into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile.” 28)

So why couldn't Secretary of War, Donald Rumsfeld, correct her on this point? Because there is plenty of evidence the Pentagon was concerned planes could be slammed into the World Trade Center towers **and** the Pentagon.

Here is an example from merely 1 year before 911 were the Pentagon simulated a plane impact.



The Case Of John O'Neill

Michael Springman And The Bogus VISA Fiasco

The running theory by backers of the official story is that our intelligence network failed us. We had bits and pieces of evidence here and there; the FBI had some info about person A, the CIA had little info about person A but knew more about his connections to persons B, C, and D, and the NSA likely knew even more information but somehow they weren't able to share it with one another. The Michael Springman case shows this not to be the case at all; the government was purposely giving VISAs to people not only unqualified, but who were downright dangerous to the United States 29).

Springman began to deny a number of people VISAs who clearly had suspect agendas. In one instance, Springman denied a man trying to enter the United States to see a “trade show”. The applicant was unable to name the location of the show or the name of the show itself 30). Despite attempts by a CIA official to **convince** Springman that he should reverse his decision, Springman stands his ground and denies the VISA. It is later reversed without his approval 31). This happens “over 100 times” 32)33). , according to Springman, and while he continually denies VISAs, they are approved behind his back.

This is **not government incompetence**. Someone within the government has an agenda to get these people inside the US.

Springmann was fired from his department office, the consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in 1989. Some would point out that this is insignificant as it was so before 9/11. However, a key point to be made is that Springmann observed so many shady decisions and attempts to import suspect foreigners that he basically assumed the office was CIA-ridden. Indeed, many of the Mujahadeen that were hired by the U.S. to fight the Russians went through the Jeddah office 34).

One consulate worker signed off on 12 of the hijackers VISAs. She worked at the Jeddah VISA office.

Now, we have evidence via Springmann that the CIA had been using the Jeddah, Saudi Arabia VISA office for their own purposes. We shuffled numerous “freedom fighters”, aka Al-Qaeda, into our country with the support of the CIA. One has to look strongly at the fact that many of the hijackers got into the country through this one office, and that their applications were so pathetic (a few of them purportedly had answers to questions that make it seem like a joke) that one wonders how they could've gotten into the country UNLESS they were shuffled in the same manner that Springmann reported; a VISA officer probably denied them and then they were instructed by the CIA to let them in.

Shayna Steinger, the VISA official who signed off on 12 of the 19 hijackers' VISAs, has had testimony that continues to change and evolve as to why she allowed so many of these questionable VISAs to be allowed 35).

For instance, Steinger issued a VISA to Waleed and Wail Alshehri despite them not even knowing where they wanted to go. In the section for where they will be staying, they write “South City” 36) and “Wasantwn”. In other areas, the Alshehri's do not explain how they intend to make money and pay for themselves while in the United States; another suspicious flag that should make any VISA officer deny the request. While Steinger approves these applications, she does deny some and then reverse the decision later, in a manner that suggests something similar happened to her as did Springmann.


Khalid Almihdhar

In 1999, the CIA are attempting to monitor militants as they pass through the Dubai Airport. One person who turns up in their crosshairs is Khalid Almihdhar, future 9/11 hijacker. He was important enough they they allegedly broke into his hotel room and copied his passport 37). The CIA does not inform the FBI of Khalid and his US VISA.

Ziad Jarrah

Ziad Jarrah has an interesting history. For starters, his cousin is a known Israeli spy 38) and it appears his brother aided in the spying.

Also of note is that Ziad Jarrah as pulled over and questioned in an airport before 911. It is not sure whether he was on a specific US list, but we do know the CIA specifically asked airport security to **investigate anyone coming from Afghanistan** in 1999 39). Ziad is obviously let go.

Double Ziad?

Jarrah also has a paper trail that suggests there was a double Ziad. We don't know what this means, but it could mean that they used a patsy Jarrah in order to fulfill the necessary background “evidence” they wanted to create.

Jarrah is known to have flied out of the United States on December 26, 2000, and then again on December 28th, 2000 without evidence of Jarrah ever coming back into the United States 40).

There is another bizarre moment in 1995-6 where a Ziad Jarrah lives in Brooklyn, NY. Yet at the same time, his family believes he is attending Catholic school in Egypt. Indeed, they are in contact and see the Egyptian Jarrah but do not learn of the second Jarrah until after 911 41). The family suspects a patsy Jarrah was afoot, planting an evidence trail.

One may say that their could be many Zaid Jarrah's in this world, just as there are plenty of Joe Brown's. However, the building owner who rented to a Ziad Jarrah (and he had a roommate who was also a Jarrah) looked at the 911 photo provided for the Ziad Jarrah who purportedly was a 911 hijacker and identified the photograph as the Ziad that he knew as well 42). At the very least, the Ziad in Brooklyn looked remarkably like the Ziad in Beirut, but they couldn't be the same because they occupied two places at the same time. It's reasonable to assume the one in contact with the family is the real one…right? So who is the other Ziad?

Jarrah also leaves the U.S. on July 25, 2001 two times via the airport. He flies from Atlanta to Amsterdam and also from Newark to Dusseldorf 43). With a pattern of these occurring, it becomes increasingly unlikely that this is coincidental and more likely that someone is travelling as though they are Ziad. But why?

Mohammed Atta

Hani Hanjour

American Airlines flight 77 flew into the Pentagon after towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were already struck. Hani Hanjour is the person officially quoted as flying this plane into the pentagon. Other hijackers on board included Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar, and 3 other men, but all seem to agree it was Hanjour who piloted the plane 44).

But the evidence does not suggest this at all.

For starters, Hanjour trained in a United States pilot course just before the attacks in 1999 45). Before training in Arizona he had failed his pilot training in other locations 46). He was so subpar as a pilot that even with additional help from his superiors, he failed the Arizona course but continued to retake it.

One person who worked at the pilot training facility who knew Hanjour said after 911…“I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.” 47).

Hanjour attempted to renta single engine cessna in August 2001, but the owners of the plane observed his lack of skills behind the plane and refused to rent it to him 48).

Hanjour mostly trained inside of flight simulators 49). American Airlines flight 77 was his first large jet he flew.

Skeptics, or rather defenders of the official story, point out that he didn't need to be a good flyer of a plane. When trainers of Hanjour furrow their brow at their student's indifference to learning how to fly and land a plane, they point this out as evidence that he was going to crash it anyway. So why would he need to be a good pilot?

Because the move he pulled off showed a high degree of skill.

Indeed, when American Airlines flight 77 was hijacked and was known to be hijacked by air control, the moves being pulled off by the flight suggested to professionals that it was a military craft of some sort 50).

(Note: Unfortunately, it seems the Washington Post is hiding this fact. You can see on the wikipedia page that someone edited the main AA flight 77 article with a sentence regarding the flight's impressive moves that made some believe it was a professional pilot on board.

One can see that the Washington Post article was used to cite the quote by hovering your mouse over the number citation.

When one follows the link, it appears broken as it takes you the front page of the Washington Post today.

The actual web adress is visible in the bottom left hand corner of the page. Entering that into, a website that allows anyone to digitally store pages as they exist in the moment, reveals that the Washington Post has web parameters that block this sort of archiving.)

One air traffic controller said this in regards to what they saw on radar: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, **all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane**. You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.” 51)

Another air traffic controller who witnessed AA flight 77 from the radar room said this: “[N]obody knew that was a commercial flight at the time. Nobody knew that was American 77.… I thought it was a military flight. I thought that Langley [Air Force Base] had scrambled some fighters and maybe one of them got up there.… It was moving very fast, like a military aircraft might move at a low altitude.” 52)

The aerial view of the flight path looked something like this…


Almost anyone who sees this flight path (and looks at the aeronautical data showing the speed, height, and rate of descent) agrees that this maneuver was very difficult to pull off.

NIkki Lauda is an aviation entrepreneur 53) who is more famously known as a formula 1 driver. He commented on the September 11 attacks, specifically referring to flight 77 as it descended into the Pentagon… “…[T]hese had to be fully trained 767 or 757 pilots, because otherwise they would have missed. It certainly could not be the case that some half-trained pilot tries it somehow, because then he will not hit it. That’s not so easy, coming out of a curve….If he’s coming out of a curve, then he has to know precisely the turning radius that derives from the speed of the plane in order to be able to calculate it, so that he will hit right there.” 54)

Lauda goes on to note that the Pentagon building was much harder to hit than the World Trade Center (and the WTC wasn't “easy”) 55). The short height of the building made the likelihood of flying over the Pentagon and missing the target altogether, or on the flip side, kareeming into the ground and exploding before hitting the Pentagon, both of which would be failures. This is another indication that the flight maneuver was impressive and not to be taken lightly.

Jere Longman wrote a book on 9/11 in 2002 which quoted Hank Krakowski, an professional pilot, in regards to that American Airlines flight. He stated in no uncertain terms that a professional **would be able** to pull off the maneuver that flight 77 did. And it still wasn't a guarantee. He also said “If he was an occasional pilot, it would have been a pretty big challenge.” 56). What would we call Hanjour at this point? He is obviously not a professional, as he has flunked out of numerous pilot schools and stumbled through some basic courses. It would be a stretch to call him an occasional pilot because he rarely ever flew a real plane; when he tried the owners of the plane wouldn't allow it due to his lack of skills. If anything , Hanjour is below what Krakowski is willing to describe, which means this strike against the Pentgaon, if pulled off by Hanjour, was like getting a hole in one on the golf course; it ain't happening any time soon and when it does, consider yourself lucky enough to win the lottery.

In a Washington Times article dated September 10th, 2002, a law enforcement officer was quoted as saying the turn conducted by flight 77 (and presumably Hanjour at the helm) just before impact was “virtually a textbook turn and landing” (something that Hanjour basically refused to learn). This official, who remained unnamed in the article, also stated that the maneuver took “great talent” 57).

This is problematic for the skeptics who wish to point out that the purposeful “non” learning of how to take off and fly as indicative of the plan to simply hijack the planes. This analysis suggests, again, that the move took great skill and they even reference the fact that it was a landing maneuver. How would Hanjour learn how to do a “textbook” landing maneuver if he failed and ignored those instructions?

One may wonder if Hanjour indeed did not carry out the attacks. But according to the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacharias Moussaui, in testimony dated February 2004, Khalid S. Mohammed chose Hanjour to be the pilot to ram into the Pentagon because he was the most experienced pilot out of the entire group.58)

Indeed, we have reports of the other hijackers on board with Hanjour, and those reports sound even worse. See al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar where they are referred to as “Dumb and Dumber” in the skies by their pilot teachers 59).

See also the coincidence that the failing Hanjour would make a professional, “virtually textbook” maneuver to spin around the Pentagon…only to hit the recently reinforced side.

See also the coincidence that this aircraft entered the most secure airspace in the world around the Pentagon and there was no missile defense or scrambled jets to stop it.

If the story doesn't make sense, don't use it. There is no indication that the evidence regarding Hanjour's piloting skills before 911 sucked horribly. He was terribad. So why would we look at a professional, very difficult maneuver around the Pentagon to hit the reinforced wall as the most logical conclusion? It would make more sense if a criminal element inside the government wanted to damage the Pentagon but do the least damage possible, they would have the plane hit the reinforced part of the Pentagon wall. It would make sense why the Pentagon only reinforced one side instead of all five. If they used remote control technology, which provably existed at that time (SOURCE NEEDED), it would explain the highly technical maneuver at the end. In this one scenario, a conspiracy makes more sense than the official story.


Introduction To Sigils

The following is based on the principles of magic. Some of you do not believe in magic, but regardless, magic as a religion exists and there is a theory and practice to it. Perhaps it's real, perhaps it's not, but when you look at what a “sigil” is in magic and consider what the United States Dollar Bills fold and represent, one must at least call this a an eerie coincidence, and at worst the magical evidence of conniving Fabian world rulers.

A sigil is a symbol or picture that one uses in a magickal ritual. One can put a lot of focus into creating the sigil beforehand, making sure each line has importance if they so chose. Many times a sigil is created with the express of purpose of it looking like a bunch of squiggly lines. Part of the reason for this is to keep people from looking into the sigil for a meaning behind it.


an example of a sigil

They can also fashion a sigil from previously existing symbols or even a collection of symbols not before assembled together. For example, an eagle, a toilet paper roll, and a bullet are all symbols readily recognizeable to someone, but together they can create an entirely new image, which is your sigil 61)

While the creation stage of the sigil can invovle intense and intentional focus on the symbols and meaning behind them, a key compoment in the magickal creation of sigils is to **create them far enough in advance** that the purpose and meaning behind it can slip from the front of your conscious mind 62).

Looking at the United States dollar bills, we can fashion a series of folded images that **could** act as sigils for the 911 event. How so, you ask? Take a look at the United States bills from the denominations 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100.


Hani Hanjour Makes Incredible Move (Despite Sucking) To Hit Reinforced Pentagon side

Richard Grove

Meet Richard Grove. Grove worked for Silverstream Software, a company that was, among other things, producing software at the turn of the century to help large organizations and corporations seemlessly move their information from a paper based system to a computer based system. Grove was paid a commission for the work his company did for Marsh and McClennan in the World Trade Center, who occupied the very floors where the first plane would hit 63).

Grove help create and initiate a software package for Marsh and McClennan, but he discovered that Marsh had been billed $7 million more than they should have 64). Initially out of self interest (his contract included receiving a percentage of the cost of the services, and therefore it was possible his bosses were trying to keep him out of the loop about how much he really should have earned), Grove spoke to his superiors and they waved him off. He then let Marsh and McClennan know of the overbilling, at which point Marsh told him to forget it. After being pesky in the coming days and weeks, Grove was fired.

(It wasn't until later that Grove realized this was an off-the-books deal to **provide** the back door in the software with the overbilling as the fee. Marsh wanted the illegal software and they were willing to pay for it, but they didn't want the books to show it. Marsh would be able to make transactions and hide them from anyone ever knowing.)

Confused, he walked away and began to assemble a case and prepare for blowing the whistle. He convinced his boss and the boss of Marsh to provide their board with the evidence for malfeasance. The boss (whom Richard leaves unnamed for legal purposes as he was in litigation with them) arranged a meeting with those Marsh higher ups that were willing to hear the evidence. The meeting was placed for the morning of September 11th, just as the towers were to be hit on that fateful day.

The boss who was about to be exposed for conducting fraudulent activity conveniently couldn't make it to work that day. Everyone who Grove was going to present to did arrive at the top of the World Trade Center for this meeting, and they all perished in the events. Marsh and McClennan had some of the worst casualties of all the businesses operating in the World Trade Center that day, as the first plane actually struck their office floors, between the 93-100 floors. Also coincedentially, Grove was stuck in traffic and at the base of the towers when the first one hit.

The boss got away with it, but Richard lived to tell the tale.

(Ironically, Richard has outgrown his humble 911 whistleblowing roots and has made it his mission to educate the masses on educating themselves. This is ironic because the focal point of his instruction is for people to learn the Trivium, or the three subjects of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. The biggest complaint coming the from the defenders of the 9/11 official story is that the conspiracy theorists live in a world devoid of logic and rhetoric. At least Grove is providing a common ground for future discussions.

These subjects, once comprehended, are tools for the individual that allows them to find and understand other sources of information. Consider the addage, “Give a man some fish, and he has food for a day. Teach a man to fish and he has food forever.” In this case, learning and using the Trivium is learning how to fish for your thinking apparatus, something conspiracists and skeptics can jump in joy for together (even if we disagree).

see and and to see what Richard Grove is up to most recently.


17) see general time frame from 10:20 p.m. to 2:19 a.m.
see above

QR Code
QR Code collection_of_the_best_evidence_for_a_911_conspiracy (generated for current page)