How To Make Uhf & Vhf Balun

Introductory Message

Since the rumors and conspiracy theories abound more or less serious about the attacks of Sept. 11, I thought I would assemble and present here a personal search based on two full years of analysis of media sources credible and verifiable, in the order to enable as many people to achieve a clearer view on the subject.

Thus, the following lines allow you to browse hundreds of excerpts from newspaper articles, reports or other official documents translated from English into French. Hoping that at least some people consider the exercise interesting and informative.

In return, those who wish to examine the official version of events can be accessed directly through the final report of the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, at:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/ 911Report.pdf .

Also, please note that you can send your comments to analysemedia911@hotmail.com .

Nepali Songs With Lyrics And Chords

September 11, 2001 is, not doubt, one of the cornerstones of our society today. The impact of these attacks are in fact very much alive in 2009, and at the scale International. In fact, this is already seven years since the war raging in the Middle East following the dramatic events that caused the deaths of nearly 3000 people. Very few

subtly succeeded this tragic loss of lives an undeniable phenomenon of alteration of the collective perception against the Arab peoples, especially Islamists. We want to admit it or not, doubt, or at least some form of injury, has moved in with a considerable proportion of the world population to the people of this religious allegiance. Antagonism of such magnitude, insidiously instilling distrust or antipathy between Islam, the second largest religion on Earth with its 1.4 billion followers, and the rest of the world, can only signal a major development in the evolution of human social and deserves the fact that we linger at its source. That is just one of many reasons for this book.

Moreover, few people today have never heard of these rumors revolving around September 11, to the effect that the U.S. government itself had ordered the attacks. This rumor, however, quickly becomes evasive by disinformation or simply by lack of adequate media coverage. So people respond by saying that as long as the facts do not end up on the cover of their local newspapers or television news bulletin in the evening, such ideas remain unfounded and are a form of unhealthy social phantasmagoria.

The idea, if it is threatening, it soon found dead in their tracks. And as the corporate media, the ultimate source of modern information does not seriously devote more airtime to this rumor subversive potential, a massive denial of the quest for truth will continue maintaining the status quo on these assumptions for what they are in the moment is to say a rumor.

Or were there not yet a proverb reminding that there is no smoke without fire?

In defense of the average citizen, the hectic pace that characterizes our age prevents to some extent by undertaking research itself sufficiently comprehensive to possibly hope to reach a satisfactory conclusion on a matter as serious and complex as this one. Such a task coupled with the current lifestyle may rightly appear insurmountable.

In this vein, the document is currently located in your hands was specially designed to collect vital information from the public domain, relating the events of September 11, 2001. Citing excerpts from hundreds of titles from all around the world, this book gathers an impressive amount of facts too often ignored, yet drawn from reliable and verifiable sources, and offers a whole strong and revealing perspective on the subject.

face an abundance of relevant information, some can not help wincing at the magnitude implications of a simple argument, which turns out your own reasoning, since the pages that await you were drafted primarily with a view to questioning.

The individual eager to accurate information on the subject, eager to form an opinion based on facts and not based on hearsay, must therefore offer a rare opportunity here to quench his thirst for knowledge. Having to spend the minimum time required for reading this document, the reader will travel moult portions of articles often surprising, published in recent years by various media recognized and presented through a synthesis of extensive research over more than two years.

In contrast, a person reluctant to question or to doubt his personal vision of September 11 and, by extension, society in general, is seen in turn advised to file this book, and relegate it to oblivion continue to blindly believe in the official version of events.

For others, begin without further delay.

Images Of Caravel Ship Labeled Parts

Preface Overview Implementation situation

Here first a simple reminder of the official version of the main events of the day on September 11, 2001.

8:46 - American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York.


9:02 - United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center.


9:37 - American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon in Washington.


9:59 - the south tower of World Trade Center collapses.

10:03 - United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

10:28 - North tower of World Trade Center collapses.

17:20 - little known fact: Top 47 stories, the World Trade Center Building 7 (or Salomon Brothers Building) collapsed without being hit by a plane.




***** Let us immediately in the thick of things with a seemingly simple question. This famous catastrophe is undoubtedly the largest terrorist attack in the history of mankind, therefore, does not she deserve to be subject to the most rigorous investigations? Of course.

Considering the likely consequences arising from the American reaction instantaneous divide the world into two groups distinct - we could not therefore be more than the U.S. or with the terrorists - was not it normal to open an immediate investigation into serious and credible international order to confirm or deny, of independently hasty conclusions by the U.S. authorities?

Probably. But history decided otherwise.

General Tommy Franks, who was head of Central Command United States during the attacks of Sept. 11, was ordered to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and capture Osama bin Laden within hours of the event (W84). And, as reported in CBS News, Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld, asked his assistants to provide plans to attack Iraq only five hours after the Pentagon was struck, despite the fact that no evidence linked the country from Saddam Hussein to attack (W156).

Then the following days became weeks, and turned into months without an official investigation is established. Strangely, the administration of George W. Bush resolutely opposed to a commission of inquiry be established to examine the attacks closer, even as American troops landed in Afghanistan. But why

fiercely oppose the establishment of a commission of inquiry? What could be the true interest of America's leaders want to avoid an investigation on this subject? Since one objective of this work is to probe the validity of rumors of government involvement in the United States in the Sept. 11 plot, perhaps we should ask directly if the fear of possible embarrassing revelations could located behind the administration's opposition Bush to make such an investigation.

However, in the months following the sad events, a pressure of increasingly insistent from both victims' families, some media and from within the American body politic was felt from the Bush administration to a commission of inquiry be finally established. So finally, one year after the attacks and the invasion of Afghanistan, President Bush agreed to revise its position and allow the creation of a committee to investigate the attacks, as reported CNN Sept. 20, 2002.

"In a decision applauded by Democrats, President Bush has relented and agreed to the formation of an independent commission to conduct an investigation ˝ ˝ focused on the terrorist attacks of September 11 which will go beyond failures of intelligence agencies already examined. [...]

Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, Democrat Dick Gephardt of Missouri has welcomed the announcement from the White House.

˝ I am encouraged that the White House has ended its opposition to an independent commission to investigate all aspects of the terrorist attacks of September 11 ˝, "he said. [...]» M7

Announced loudly as independent, this inquiry first saw Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State of previous U.S. administrations, be appointed to the helm in December 2002.

Upon his appointment, however, the criticisms coming from all directions. Renowned for his involvement in several controversial stories, wars and other covert operations (Bangladesh, Chile, Vietnam, East Timor, Argentina, to name a few), Kissinger was also perceived as being too close to the Bush administration and some Arab interests in order to lead the investigation. The New York Times devotes an editorial to the case, arguing that Kissinger had "chosen to hold an investigation to which the administration has long opposed." M12

So that George W. Bush sees Kissinger quickly forced to withdraw from the project. He then turned to a former Republican governor of the State of New Jersey, Thomas H. Kean to head the Commission of Inquiry, which would be composed ten commissioners, all politicians representing fairly the Republican and Democratic allegiances. Thus, the fate was sealed it. The people could sleep in peace, investigating the worst terrorist attack in history is now found in safe hands, those of politicians.

But how to explain such a long delay before permitting the establishment of a commission of inquiry? He passed away exactly 441 days (one year, two months and 15 days) before they agreed to open the investigation. And it is only March 31, 2003, twelve days after the declaration of war against Iraq, that finally opened the first public meeting of the commission.

It is interesting in this regard, to compare these with 441 days elapsed reaction times to initiate investigations on various tragedies. For example, it took only seven days to open an inquiry into the death of John F. Kennedy, and many days to discuss the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger, while the initial investigation into the attack on Pearl Harbor was announced after only nine days. Following the sinking of the Titanic, it passed just six days before the announcement of the investigation. It therefore seems appropriate to again question: why wait 441 days before the introduction of a commission of inquiry into the worst terrorist attack in history?

budget side, the picture is hardly more reassuring. Three million dollars were originally allocated to the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. Then, finding themselves once again under pressure, the Bush administration caved and increased the budget to 11 million. This figure remains well below the $ 40 million allocated to the investigation of the Whitewater scandal / Monica Lewinsky, who had splashed former President Bill Clinton, exposing her sex life openly in the late 90s.

So where are the priorities? Is it not reasonable to say that the thin initial three million dollars poorer performing?

Let us then one of the official reaction of the most interesting, that of one of the main actors of the tragedy, Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda. Very few people remember that Sunday post 11 September, bin Laden denied any responsibility for the attacks. Indeed, here is an excerpt from CNN article published September 17, 2001.

"The Islamist militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man regarded by the United States as the prime suspect behind the terrorist attacks last week in New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the shares likely have claimed thousands of victims.

In a statement issued by the Arab satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said that "The United States government consistently blamed me for being behind each of the occasions when his enemies attacked. '

'I want to reassure the world I did not plan the recent attacks, which seem to have been planned by people with personal reasons', said the statement by bin Laden. [...]» P4

Asked that day about whether bin Laden was still responsible for the attacks, President George W. Bush replied "There is no doubt that he is the prime suspect. No doubt about it, "continued the article.

following days these statements marked a brief period of diplomatic negotiations for less riders from the United States to Afghanistan, a country supposed to house the alleged guilty. U.S. rhetoric was simple: deliver us Bin Laden or we'll go and look through force. Afghan reaction was not long coming, as indicated by including a section of the news service RTE: we required evidence that the leader of Al Qaeda was really behind the attacks before collaborating. However, the White House refused to provide such evidence and dismissed the complaint simply. Secretary of State at the time, Colin Powell, however, claimed that the U.S. had enough evidence to indict bin Laden and officially open his trial in U.S. court. I3

In that case, why not have simply provided the evidence requested in Afghanistan, and supposedly available in order to reach a peaceful agreement? The answer to this question we may well have reached a few days earlier in a BBC article dated September 18, 2001, in which a Pakistani diplomat said he had been informed two months earlier by U.S. officials that the United States already provided In July 2001 an attack against Afghanistan.

"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the U.S. planned military action against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban even before the attacks last week.

Niaz Naik, former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, was told in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would take place by mid-October.

Mr Naik said U.S. officials had told him about the plan at a meeting of international contacts, under the auspices of the United Nations, held in Berlin.

Mr Naik told the BBC that at this meeting, representatives of the United States had told him that unless Bin Laden is transferred them quickly, the U.S. military action to capture or kill bin Laden and Mullah Omar, Taliban leader. [...]

Mr Naik was told that if military action were to occur, it would take place before the first snow falling in Afghanistan in mid-October at the latest. [...]

And he said he doubted that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden was given to them immediately by the Taliban. "I2

A prediction that would actually be realized with the U.S. invasion in early October 2001.

Yet even today, Osama bin Laden is still blamed for the attacks of September 11 Official Site of the FBI. Here is rather what is mentioned.

"[...] Osama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the bombings of August 7, 1998 on U.S. embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks around the world. [...]» P6

In other words, even seven years later, U.S. intelligence does not have enough evidence to formally accuse bin Laden of being behind the attacks of Sept. 11, but this does not prevent them from giving the go Green to an international war against Al Qaeda and terrorism in general.

First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq, through Somalia and Lebanon, then he is now talking to Iran and Pakistan, to name a few. Note also that statements similar to the Pakistani diplomat, quoted above, came later, Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary on Iraq. Indeed, an article from Reuters news service in January 2004 revealed that upon taking office, nine months before September 11, George W. Bush showed the intention to invade the country of Saddam Hussein and he was looking for a way to get there.

"Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed in a new book that President George W. Bush came to power in January 2001 with the intent to invade Iraq and was looking for a way to get there.

O'Neill, fired in December 2002 during an overhaul of the economic team of Bush, became the first major insider in the Bush administration to launch an attack on the president. [...]

To go to war, Bush used the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and should be put out of harm's way in a post-September 11, 2001. The weapons were never found. [...]

Former Treasury Secretary and other White House insiders have given to [Ron] Suskind documents revealing that in the first three months of 2001, the Bush administration was examining military options to get rid of Saddam Hussein, CBS said. "I4

Former Treasury Secretary further revealed the existence of memos dating first three months of the Bush presidency, one of them entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" while another was titled "Foreign applicants for contracts Iraqi oil fields."

Is it possible that the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction that served as the basic argument in favor of the war in Iraq has been an excuse of convenience to allow the Bush administration to achieve its purpose?

After all, some of the potential motives for invading one of the five richest countries in the world oil resources appear rather obvious. The global economy is based on oil, the first superpower in the world could she not be willing to get their hands on this coveted resource?

Praktica B Mount Nikon

Manhattan

Let us now in the thick of it with one of the most revealing articles to be published in the field, and at multiple levels. Published by AFP (American Free Press), it revealed that the seismological observatory Lamont-Doherty had recorded the morning of September 11, 2001 two huge seismic changes of very short duration just before the collapse each of the twin towers in Manhattan, before the debris hit the ground.

"The seismographs of Lamont-Doherty, Columbia University in Palisades, in the State of New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that remains unexplained.

While aircraft impact caused minimal vibration of the ground, major earthquakes with peaks of unusual activity occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

The Palisades seismic data recorded an earthquake with a magnitude of 2.1 during the fall of ten seconds of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a tremor of 2.3 during the collapse of eight seconds of the North Tower at 10:28:31. [...]» A8

noted in passing the importance of this information. The fact that the two skyscrapers, high of about 415 meters (1362 and 1368 feet), were reduced to dust respectively ten and eight seconds each is indeed disturbing when one learns that a falling body is approximately eight seconds to travel the same distance without any resistance other than air.

Does this mean that the dozens of floors below the area intact Impact of the North Tower will offer virtually no resistance?

continue with the rest of the article.

"[...] However, seismic data show that Palisades - while the collapses beginning - a huge seismic ˝ ˝ peak indicated the time at which the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest shock were all recorded at the beginning of the collapses clearly falling debris before touching the ground. These

˝ ˝ unexplained peaks in the seismic data give credence to the theory that powerful explosions in the base of the towers caused the collapses.

˝ A pronounced peak of short duration ˝ is what looks like an underground nuclear explosion on a seismograph, told AFP seismologist Thorne Lay of UC Santa Cruz, California.

Both are unexplained peaks over 20 times higher than the amplitude of other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to crumble.

Experts can not explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground. [...]

While steel is often tested for traces of explosives, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in relating the towers, the engineers involved in the assessment of buildings managed by FEMA did not lead any kind of test . [...]» A8

Article then continued by revealing the discovery by crews cleaning up the site, large pools of molten steel at the base of the rubble of the towers, more than a month after the tragedy. Same amazing finds, moreover, under the debris of Building 7, which was struck by any plane, but which collapsed anyway in the late afternoon the same day.

"[...] In the basements of buildings in ruins, where the 47 central support columns were connecting with the founding of hot spots ˝ literally molten steel were discovered more ˝ one month after the collapse. Such waste heat so intense and persistent, to 70 feet [21 meters] below the surface in a sub-supplied with oxygen, could explain how the structure could give crucial support. [...]»

article then quotes Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc.. (CDI) of Phoenix, a company that calls itself ˝ innovator and leader in the global field of controlled demolition and implosion of structures ˝. This same Loizeaux who cleaned including the site of the federal building Alfred P. Murrah to Oklahama City after the terrorist attack of 1995.

"[...] AFP asked Loizeaux about the reports of molten steel on the site.

˝ ˝ Yes, he said, ˝ in some places was on the hot molten steel in the basements ˝. These places incredibly

were localized hot ˝ three, four and five weeks later, what were then removed debris ˝, said Loizeaux. He added that the molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which had mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538 degrees Celsius]. [...]

Experts do not believe that the aviation fuel or paper could have generated such heat.

This is impossible, they say, since the maximum temperature which be reached by hydrocarbons like jet fuel burning in air is 1520 degrees F [827 degrees Celsius]. WTC fires are fuel rich, as was demonstrated by the thick black smoke, they argue that they did not reach this upper limit.

The warmest areas of debris on the surface, where oxygen was plentiful, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basement. [...]» A8

As reported this article, the presence of molten steel under the debris (see Annex Photos - PH-5.16) becomes confusing for the simple reason that the steel has a melting point of about 2800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538 degrees Celsius], and begins to weaken significantly beyond that of 1292 degrees Fahrenheit [700 degrees Celsius] (W169). The official version says it is kerosene, the fuel for airliners, which weakened the steel structure on burning.

To give a benchmark, consider the picture of another fire, the Windsor Building in Madrid. According to CNN, the highest temperature reached during the fire was 800 degrees Celsius (or 1472 degrees F) (W157) (see photos attached - PH-7.4 to 7.9). Is a comparison of photos of the fire with those of the World Trade Center allows us to believe that a similar or higher temperature was reached in New York?


Furthermore, kerosene reached during combustion maximum temperature of 1517 F, and only when conditions are optimal, that is to say when it is fully oxygenated. Moreover, it is important to note that almost all the tanks of kerosene has been consumed during the brief but intense initial explosion in the form of huge fireballs that we all have observed in horror, live on television (see Appendix Photos - PH-2.1 to 2.7).


So why is it that we have solved the molten steel in the ruins?

Several other sources have also reported the presence of molten steel on the site of the World Trade Center. For example, Waste Age magazine, which targets professionals waste management, recycling and refilling, reported this.

"[...] But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to his regular duties, the NYDS [Department Health of the City of New York] has played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams up human remains - ensuring the comings and goings of trucks between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to receive debris. [...]» W170

Meanwhile, GCN (Government Computer News) reported a year to the day after the attacks that "for six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 and 1500 degrees Fahrenheit degrees [between 315 and 815 degrees Celsius], sometimes more.

˝ In the first weeks, when worker raised at a steel beam of debris, molten steel dripping at the end ˝ said [Greg] Fuchek [president of sales at LinksPoint Inc.. who worked jointly with the Fire Department of New York]. [...]» W171

Even the chaplain at Ground Zero, Herb Trimpe, testified to the presence of molten steel in an interview with the Times Herald-Record of Middletown, NY, published on September 8, 2002.

"[...] I realized that it was warmer on the site. The fires have burnt up 2000 degrees [Celsius 1093] to the basement for a long time before they come to these places and they cool.

I spoke with several contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal at the bottom, the beams were simply completely melted due to heat. [...]» W172

also mention a publication of the NEHA (National Environmental Health Association), quoting Ron Burger, a public health consultant of the National Center for Environmental Health.

"[...] A veteran of disasters from flooding of the Mississippi River and Mount St. Helens Burger testified that he remembered the volcano, he forgot that he was at the heart of Manhattan. ˝ To feel the warmth, seeing the molten steel, layers over layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mount St. Helens and the thousands of [people] who fled that disaster. [...]» W173


also quote an excerpt published by the PAIL (Structural Engineers Association of Utah) in October 2001.

"[...] Twenty-one days after the attacks, fires were still burning and molten steel was still flowing. [...]» W174

But do it anyway, abstraction, for a moment, the shortfall of at least 1000 degrees F [538 degrees Celsius] for the steel can be melted, and examine the logic of the thing. North and South towers had collapsed after burning for respectively 102 and 56 minutes, is it not natural to assume that the temperature reached the upper floors of the hardest hit have peaked in the moments before the collapse, since c is at this point that the steel yielded? Otherwise, why the towers would collapse if they fire the temperature was actually in decline?

However, an article The New York Times reveals the latest radio communications firefighters reached the 78th floor of the south tower at 9:56, just seconds before it collapsed on them. Far from describing the hellish temperatures which one would expect, the Chief Orio Palmer transmits a voice without fear that two water lines would be sufficient to attack two isolated pockets of fire.

Here is an excerpt of the article published November 9, 2002.

"The voices, captured on a recording of radio transmissions from the Fire Department, betray no fear. The words are pragmatic. Two hose

Fire is needed, Chief Orio Palmer says from one of the top floors of the south tower seriously damaged the World Trade Center. Only two hoses to attack two isolated pockets of fire. ˝ We should be able to come to grips with two hoses ˝ he said firefighters from the 15th Division who followed him climbing the stairs of the doomed tower. [...]» A1

Two pockets of fire isolated, can be contained with two simple casings. Could this be the cause of the collapse of this gigantic skyscrapers 110 stories? Yet, against all odds, at 9:59, the south tower collapsed into dust. But

push the reasoning of the official version still further and assume that the fire, despite the laws of science, has actually reached temperatures high enough to have weakened the steel structures. Forget also the vibrations received by the seismographs at the beginning of the collapses. Just imagine a fire so hot, so devastating to the upper floors that could weaken the steel structure at this level. This structure must be remembered, consisted of 47 steel pillars in the center. Is it conceivable that the physically weakened core columns at the top of the skyscraper is could cause the collapse of all the sections below, still intact as they had no way been weakened by fire, in a manner as symmetrical?

not forget that the impact of the plane could affect the stability of the building, some say? Who better than Leslie Robertson, structural engineer in chief during the construction of the World Trade Center, to enlighten us on this. In an interview on the BBC, Mr Robertson said the towers have specifically designed for them to survive such an impact.


" [...] ˝ We designed the project to withstand the impact of the largest aircraft of its time, either the Boeing 707. That meant taking the airliner, do hit the building, destroying a large section of its structure and it takes the shot. ˝ [...] »A6

then go back to February 1993, following the first attack against the World Trade Center during which a bomb had exploded in the underground parking lot and see what the Seattle Times reported.

"The engineers had to consider all the imaginary risks when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, this time the twin towers were an unprecedented format for structures made of steel and glass.

'We thought about everything you could imagine that could happen with the buildings, even including the possibility that a plane hit his side,' said John Skilling, head structural engineer. [...]

Worried by a case where a plane had crashed into the Empire State Building, Skilling's team had presented an analysis showing that the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

'Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem is the fact that kerosene (aircraft) flowed into the building. There would be a horrible fire. Many people would be killed, 'he said. 'But the structure is still there. " [...]

The support columns are closely spaced, and although several of them were destroyed, others bear the weight. [...]

While Skilling is not an explosives expert, he claims that there are people who know enough to demolish buildings to cause the collapse of a structure similar to that of the World Trade Center.

'I guess if you take the most competent expert in this type of job and if you give the task to build these buildings to the ground, I would bet that he would succeed. " "W188

Observe also the words that kept Frank A. DeMartini, head of the supervision and construction of the World Trade Center on the History Channel's airwaves Jan. 25, 2001.


"The building was designed for a [Boeing] 707 filled to capacity crashes on him. It was the largest aircraft that existed at that time. I think the building could probably withstand multiple impacts of commercial aircraft because its structure is like the mosquito net to your door. This intense grilling versus the airplane is the equivalent of a pencil that pierces the net. It really does nothing to the screen. "W229

And as we know, both towers survived, in fact, the respective impact of the planes. The official report of the inquiry do not blame indeed these impacts for the collapses. Only the fire would be responsible for structural failure of buildings, which goes against statements made by John Skilling, who said that even if several support columns were destroyed, the other would be sufficient to support the weight of the building.

It is also important to realize that not a skyscraper built on a steel structure has suffered the same fate after a fire, either before or after September 11, 2001 (A7). So what are the odds that the only three occasions in our history - including Building 7 - where a skyscraper collapsed due to fire are grouped in the same day?

Many major fires yet attempted to overcome other skyscrapers in the past. Include only a few examples.

October 17, 2004, in Caracas, Venezuela, the tallest building in the city was engulfed in flames. Its 56 floors, 16 burned for 17 hours without causing its collapse (see photos attached - PH-7.10 to 7.14).


February 23, 1991, eight of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia for 18 hours were ravaged by a fire described as the most important of the century by the officials. It did not collapse (see photos attached - PH-7.3).


May 4, 1988 in Los Angeles, the building of 62 floors of the First Interstate Bank burned for three and a half hours over four floors and survived as well (see photos attached - PH-7.1 and 7.2).


We have already mentioned the case of Windsor Building, Madrid in Spain, which caught fire Feb. 12, 2005. This 32-storey tower has seen its top ten floors literally be engulfed by a blaze raging for nearly a full day. One section of wall collapsed, but the main structure survived the tragedy.


same time, we remember these disturbing images broadcast on television, showing survivors clinging to the windows of the World Trade Center in the areas hardest hit, waving a piece of cloth and begging them to come to their assistance (see photos attached - PH-5.9 and 5.10). Is it logical to believe that the fire may have been sufficiently intense that it melts the steel columns, but have both been possible for these people to remain in the windows without burning bright?


Moreover, it is surprising to know that from 1995 to 2001, collection of fire-resistant structure on some specific floors of the twin towers was improved. Indeed, as explains one of the official documents of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology - a U.S. federal agency which was responsible for submitting an extensive report and detailed on the technicalities of the collapse of World Trade Center), 18 of 110 floors of the north tower and 13 of the 110 floors of the South Tower had their fire protection to be strengthened in the years preceding September 11, 2001.

Taking into account that the zone of impact of Flight 11 against the north tower extended from 92nd to 99th floor, and that Flight 175 destroyed floors 78-84 of the South Tower, consider this excerpt from the report of the NIST.

"[...] From 1995 to 2001, thermal protection was improved in a number of floors affected by fire September 11, 2001. Specifically, in the WTC1 [north tower], the floors 92 to 100 and the 102nd had been improved, and in WTC 2 [South Tower], the floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97 had been improved. [...] According

Port Authority [of New York City], 18 floors of WTC1 and 13 floors of WTC 2 were improved. The Port Authority also said: 'The whole area Impact of Tower 1 (92-99) had been improved with a fire retardant spray due to a thickness of an inch and a half. Only the 78th floor had been enhanced with a fire retardant spray, and half an inch thick in the impact zone of the tower 2 (78-84) '. [...]

Data analysis indicates that the thickness measurements of [retardant] of the two towers were similarly distributed and the data were therefore combined. [...]

The average thickness of 256 individual measurements was taken into account assessed at 2 ½ inches [...]. Thus, the average thickness of [retardant] found on the upper floors improved seems more important than that assessed from photographs taken on the lower floors improved. [...]» W198

Thus we learn that in the case of the north tower, recovering anti-fire of all of the area hardest hit by the fire had been recently improved. Moreover, the beams of upper floors, so those in the impact area, had received a protection of at least two inches and a half thick of flame retardants, such as the extract explains. The NIST report then went on revealing that during the construction of the World Trade Center, the original thickness of fire-recovery was three quarters of an inch.

is why it is particularly surprising to discover the following passage in the same report.

"[...] In February 1975 a fire broke out in the WTC1 [north tower], spreading the 9th to the 19th floor. After the fire, the Port Authority has contacted Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson (SHCR) structural engineers behind the design of the World Trade Center, to assess structural damage incurred and to report, in general, the fire resistance of the bearing system. In his report dated 1 April 1975 SHCR imparted to the Port Authority that the fire did not cause structural damage, but he had some upper sections of curved beams connected to the main beams, curved beams joints, and altered the angles of support stages. [...]» W198

chained report citing that despite the curvature of some stringers beams and joints, SHCR engineers had concluded in April 1975 that a thermal protection thereof was not necessary since they were not part of the structural system itself.

Thus, the fire had spread over ten floors from the 9th to the 19th floor of the north tower, then had caused any structural damage, thanks to a fire protection with a thickness of three quarters of an inch. Therefore it seems curious that in 2001, when equipped with a fire protection with a thickness greater than two and a half inches at the point of impact, structure of the north tower caved in within two hours.

*****

then examine this controversial issue affecting one of the materials used in building the World Trade Center, asbestos is known for its carcinogenic properties. It is interesting to know that a political debate, economic and social issues surrounding the complex for several years before the terrible events. Indeed, the presence of asbestos in large quantities in these buildings regularly raised concerns for public health. The need for a process of elimination full of asbestos in the towers was seen as urgent and essential by many.

From an economic perspective, however, this possibility posed a major problem. The cost of the work of sanitizing being assessed in billions of dollars, these astronomical amounts undoubtedly weighed heavier than the public safety in the balance. That is why the World Trade Center was a real embarrassment for the State and the U.S. government, which had obviously no intention to fund such work.

What a coincidence, so beneficial to the authorities when the two towers disappeared into dust, taking away the same time this thorn from the side. But the presence of asbestos and other materials in the rubble of the towers quickly became a new source of concern from the earliest moments. A thin gray dust that covered everything on a perimeter spanning several hundred meters per round (see photos attached - PH-11.1 to 11.6), fears and rumors of foul air and toxic even were quick to spread.


Despite the danger, up to 40,000 people participated in relief efforts and cleaning during the weeks that followed the tragedy. Of these, nearly 70% still suffer from respiratory problems, according to a study by Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan. Many of the complications caused by exposure to this toxic air, moreover, are permanent.

"There should no longer be any doubt about the effects [of the fall of the] World Trade Center on the health of people. Our patients are sick, "said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of the study, in an article in The New York Times on September 6, 2006 (W97).

In connection with this aspect of the tragedy, it would be difficult to ignore the revelations bumper published in two consecutive reports of the U.S. television network CBS. These exposed to light, less than a week before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, the documents of the Department of Health of the City of New York and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showing that the authorities had to elements indicating the toxicity of air around the World Trade Center, and despite this information, they declared that the area was safe for the public.

"An overwhelming evidence that the government knowingly endangered New Yorkers after Sept. 11 was discovered.

CBS 2 News has obtained documents revealing that Lower Manhattan was reopened a few weeks after the attack even if the air was not safe.

The two devastating memos, composed by local and federal governments, show they knew. They were aware that the toxic soup created at Ground Zero was a deadly danger to health. They still sent field workers and referred people to their homes.

˝ Not only did they know that it was not safe, they do not pay attention the opinions of experienced people working for the city and EPA ˝, said Joel Kupferman, of the group Environmental Justice Project. U1 [...]»

An explosive memo from the Division of Preventive EPA, dated October 5, 2001, and explained that "... the site poses threats to workers potentially exposed to hazardous substances . U2

Citing including asbestos, refrigerants, hazardous wastes and substances such as ethylene and harmful to the health of workers, the memo from the EPA was directed in particular to the administration of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, two days after the agency has publicly stated that air quality was deemed safe. The authorities nevertheless decided to maintain their position during the subsequent weeks.

That should let these people who support perplexed that the government can not be behind the terrorist attacks because it would never endanger its own citizens.


*****

now flying over one of the key aspects of 11 September, the Building 7 World Trade Center. As mentioned earlier, unlike the twin towers, this skyscraper of 47 floors built in 1985 was not hit by any airplane. Located at the north end of the site (see attached map - PH-1.1 to 1.8), the official version says it was damaged by debris during the collapse of the north tower, which would have caused fire intense enough to cause its collapse at 17:20 the same day.

However, images taken at different times of day reveal only a few minor pockets of fire. They do not support the theory blaming the fire intensity for the total destruction of the building. Can be seen at the height of the fire to 15h with a maximum of three non-contiguous floors affected by fire alone (see photos attached - PH-6.1 to 6.12), whereas during the final collapse, late afternoon, the blaze seemed almost extinguished. In fact, even experts in building mean the collapse of Building 7 as one of the greatest mysteries that their profession has ever known.


From the first moments of the collapse of this building, video images rarely released later by the media can see clearly the center of the building engulfed initially, then followed the rest of the structure, so similar to the implosion of a typical demolition using explosives.

repeatedly in interviews on major television stations, members of the movement "9-11 Truth" or various organizations demanding a reopening of the investigation into the attacks asked the stations to broadcast these images This strangely they refused to do. These activists saw themselves rather generally ridiculed publicly, despite the fact that ever-growing proportion of Americans doubt that their government now conceals the truth behind the attacks.

A survey of the New York Times dated October 14, 2006 also indicated that 81% of Americans do not believe their government is telling the whole truth on the subject (W44). Moreover, according to a Zogby International poll dated 30 August 2004, half of New York at that time believed that U.S. officials were aware in advance of the attack but they have left to occur (V7).

But back on the Building 7 and let us to situate the building compared to the World Trade Center complex (see maps attached - PH1.1 to 1.6). The Building 7 was actually the only one of seven buildings to be located outside the main quadrangle were erected where the other six buildings, including the twin towers. Between the North Tower and Building 7 was the Building 6, an eight-storey building that survived the tragedy even though he was one of the hardest hit by the fires and debris.

Nearby, the Building 5, the top nine floors and also along the two towers, was the victim of a huge blaze in a intensity well above that achieved in the North and South towers, and in Building 7. The fire lasted all day, but this building also refused to crumble.

A question arises naturally. Why Building 7 collapsed there when he was the farthest of the two towers, it was hit by isolated pockets of fire and it was at least five times more massive than Buildings 5 and 6?


Consider then an article published in the December 4, 2001 The New York Times, which tells us that a building 24-story, built in 1907 and located near the World Trade Center was severely damaged by the collapse of the South Tower on the day of the attacks. This building was engulfed in flames for nearly two days. Yet it does not collapse.

"It was an indescribable moment in an endless night, the fire that had raged for almost two days in the skyscraper at 90 West Street racket and still sparkled when Derek Trelstad, a structural engineer, entered in the building and began cautiously to ascend the stairs, the double filter of his wheezing in smoke.

charred debris hanging from the ceiling and piled on floors projected strange shadows in the light of emergency equipment from the outside, passing through the smashed windows of the north facade of the building. September 11, flaming steel debris from the south tower crashed against the thick terra cotta facade and had caused the fire inside.

˝ It was like a haunted house Supreme ˝, said Mr. Trelstad, Chief Project Officer at LZA / Thornton Tomasetti in Manhattan, a firm that helps the City to assess the structural soundness of buildings around the disaster site.

But Mr. Trelstad soon made remarkable discoveries when he looked behind the burned debris, examining the steel structure's original building materials and fire resistant tiles that protected archaic largely.

He found that with the exception of a few places where the columns of the structure had been bent slightly to the upper floors, the building, a landmark building from 1907 designed by Cass Gilbert, had battled the fire and essentially won.

The building has avoided the fate of the World Trade Center 7, this skyscraper of 47 floors located at the north end of ˝ ˝ ground zero whose collapse after a fire Sept. 11 proved to be a mystery. In addition, the skyscrapers of 1907 will be renovated and inhabited. [...]

Lessons surrounding ˝ ˝ ground zero go well beyond protecting against fire. At the structural level, debris from the South Tower had struck the front of the Bankers Trust building, a skyscraper of 40 floors built in the 70, and destroyed a steel column to a height of 11 storeys on its facade. But even the portions of floors immediately above the hole does not collapse.

Similarly, the steel components of one of the towers were violently propelled westward like spears and are encased in a corner of the American Express Tower, destroying a column of three-storey structure without producing any secondary collapses. Debris from WTC Building 7 were carved sections of two adjacent buildings, the Verizon Building, an edifice of the University of New York City, which also remained standing. [...]

When the South Tower collapsed, said Mr. Trelstad, the engineer, some of its huge columns fell and tore several steel beams, or cons-pillars between the windows on the north facade of 90 West Street. A series of beams, the 11th to the 3rd floor of the east side of its facade, was destroyed as if a giant claw had ripped the front of the building. [...]

[M. Trelstad] was first struck by the degree of devastation and the strangeness of the scenery. Fires ignited by debris from the South Tower had ravaged the 2nd, 3rd, 10th and 23rd floors, and most sections of North 4th, 5th, 8th and 21st floors. [...]

engineers argue that any direct comparison between the WTC Building 7, which was also set on fire by falling debris but then collapsed, and 90 West Street is proving difficult. Initially, the conditions under which the two buildings initially faced on Sept. 11 are not clear.

Then the recent discovery that WTC7 housed tens of thousands of gallons of diesel to power generators in the event of power outages caused a debate among engineers on whether extremely high temperatures could have softened the steel and leads to the collapse.

But before this debate is not resolved, say the engineers, the collapse remains one of the deepest mysteries that their profession has ever known. No other modern skyscraper steel structure has never collapsed in a fire, with the exception of the twin towers.

addition, the floors of WTC 7 were not supported by these lightweight steel beams that may have been the first elements to weaken and give in the twin towers. Instead, said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president of Cantor Seinuk Group and structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, the floors were supported by sturdy I-beams

Irwin Cantor, one of the structural engineers at the original design of the building is no longer affiliated with Cantor Seinuk, said ˝ Something does not make sense.

˝ ˝ It why to this day, the engineering community is ready to say 'I know what caused the collapse of this building' said Mr. Cantor, who is now a consultant engineer and commissioner in the Department of City Planning.

Although Mr. Cantor said he believed that diesel has played a role in the collapse, he says he is also likely that the anti-fire in WTC7, which was completed in 1987, was damaged by impact of falling debris.

This type of fire-resistant coating was the same type as that used in virtually all modern buildings with steel structure [...]» B1

Several elements are worth noting in this extract. First recall that the 90 West Street, this old building in 1907, was located closer to the twin towers than Building 7 was on. However, according to the article, experts have warned against comparisons between the two buildings, citing two main reasons. The first, ˝ the conditions under which two buildings initially faced on Sept. 11 are not clear ˝. Is it possible to be more vague?

After all, the two buildings did not they both been hit by debris from the towers fall, 90 West Street seems to have been much more severely affected? And then the two buildings did not they were both engulfed in flames, Building 7 for about seven hours by isolated pockets of fire and the second for nearly 48 hours, in a much less benign?

However, we learn that a large quantity of diesel was in Building 7. Let us first emphasize that anyone who has ever tried to burn this type of gas known as diesel is not readily flammable. We can also assume that such a reasonable amount of diesel would be kept in a safe place. Moreover, if 'tens of thousands of gallons of diesel, had actually caught fire, a fire of a rare intensity would then spread to the building over an area much greater than what the photos show and the videos.

Therefore it seems unlikely, especially in view of available images, tens of thousands of gallons of diesel have caught fire Sept. 11 in Building 7. In this regard, here is an excerpt from the official report of the Agency for Crisis Management Federal (FEMA) entitled 'World Trade Center Building Performance Study' published in May 2002.

"[...] The characteristics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the collapse of the building remain unknown to date. Although the total diesel gas on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability that this happened. [...]» W68

Thus, even the government agency FEMA considers unlikely that the diesel is ignited. But back to the article in The New York Times cited above. He explained that debris from the collapse of the south tower had possibly damaged the lining of fireproof steel columns. Is it necessary to emphasize coating and coating that protects each independently of the pillars of the building? Therefore, it appears not unlikely that the debris has been divesting each of their protection, or enough of them to cause the collapse of the symmetrical building?

course, this does not constitute definitive proof of an explosive demolition of Building 7, or inability to collapse solely due to fire, but is purely logical reasoning to put into perspective the likelihood of these assumptions.

*****

Between then directed Larry Silverstein, a powerful real estate mogul in New York.

was he who in 1980 won the bidding to construct the Building 7. This is also the man who also acquire property rights over most of the World Trade Center, including North and South towers. Interestingly, Mr. Silverstein completed the major transaction less than two weeks before the attacks, despite the difficult context due to the presence of asbestos. Cost: $ 3.2 billion. Of this amount, only $ 14 million provinrent his own personal fortune.

It was then the first time in 31 years of history since its construction, as the World Trade Center changed hands. At the time of the transaction, Silverstein soon munissait a solid insurance policy protecting against such terrorist attacks. Here's what the Financial Times reported September 15, 2001.

"The owners of the destroyed World Trade Center in lower Manhattan acquired the buildings just two months ago under a lease of 99 years, allowing them to withdraw their investment in the event of a terrorist act ˝ ˝.

Owners Silverstein Properties and Westfield America - a specialist in shopping malls - have bought buildings at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for $ 3.2 billion in July and completed financing transactions there are only two weeks ago. [...]» W76

Following the Sept. 11, Larry Silverstein obviously exploited the clause on terrorism, claiming to have suffered two separate attacks since two planes had crashed into the towers, in order, one suspects, to double its premium. The court decided otherwise and ruled that insurance matters, the attacks were to be interpreted as a single attack. Then came various twists in the case, and Mr. Silverstein ultimately touched nearly five billion dollars in insurance payments (W77). Apparently, this amount was not enough as Silverstein then decided to pursue airlines and airports involved. Let's see what the New York Times reported in its edition of March 27, 2008.

"Larry A. Silverstein, who won nearly $ 4.6 billion in insurance premiums to cover its losses and help to rebuild on the site of the World Trade Center, calls for 12.3 billion dollars in damages to companies airlines and airport security following the attacks of 11 September. [...]

But in seeking 12.3 billion dollars, it is by far the biggest claimant in the proceedings. [...]

A lawyer for the airlines, Desmond Barry, said that if Mr. Silverstein won his case, it could push the total claims beyond the amount of insurance available to airlines and security . 'There is no such assurance,' said Mr. Barry. [...]

Mr. Silverstein, through his company - World Trade Center Properties - owns the rights to lease a period of 99 years, worth of 3.2 billion, four buildings on the site, including the twin towers destroyed. He signed his lease in July 2001, just six weeks before the attacks.

Mr. Barry, who spoke on behalf of airlines, disputed that Mr. Silverstein had been more than compensated by the insurance payment of nearly $ 4.6 billion, obtained after nearly six years of litigation. [...]» W232

noted that a year after the attacks in September 2002, Larry Silverstein even triggered an outcry in recalling the historic day as part of a anniversary of the documentary TV channel PBS. By using the term 'pull it', a term commonly used in the demolition of buildings, he described his recollection of the last moments before the collapse of Building 7 (the full text follows for purposes of authenticity) .

"[...] I remember receiving a call from, uh, fire department chief, who said they were unsure of being able to control the fire, and j 'said ˝ We have already suffered a terrible loss of lives, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it * * and they have therefore taken the decision to pull * * and then we watched the building collapse. [...] [...]

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department order, telling Me That They Were not sure They Were gonna be Able to Contain the Fire and I Said We've ˝ HAD Such terrible loss of life, Maybe the smartest thing to do pull it IS ˝ and They Made That decision to pull and Then We watched The Building collapse. [...]» W78

This statement was seen by many as an admission on his part, voluntarily or otherwise, a use explosives to destroy Building 7. We also found later in the same document the term 'pull' used in a context clearly indisputable, while during the cleaning procedures at Ground Zero, a demolition team preparing to detonate explosives in Building 6 in the months after the attacks.

"We're getting ready to pull Building 6", or "We're getting ready to throw down the Building 6", launched the official.

Following the documentary, Silverstein was assailed by petitions demanding that he clarifies his controversial remarks. It is confined rather to refuse to be justified. But the pressure eventually became too great, some three years later. Indeed, not until September 2005 that the first release from Silverstein Properties tried to clarify the subject by explaining that the comment was referring to a group of firefighters rather than the building itself. In other words, Silverstein emerged from the shadows three years later to say he was simply referring to these firefighters in Building 7.

Only two details puzzling result of this explanation. First, an article published November 29, 2001 in New York Times we learned that from 11:30 on the morning of Sept. 11, the Assistant Fire Chief Frank Fellini, gave the order to fire to abandon efforts related to the Building 7, for security reasons (W79). Then, chapter five of the report of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) covering the Building 7 confirms that, earlier in the day, firefighters stopped the fire fight. It also teaches that the system of automatic sprinklers, for unexplained reasons, was defective (W68).

Thus, since the fire were evacuated from Building 7 early in the day, why this particular transition in the words of Larry Silverstein: "They Made That decision to pull and Then We watched The Building collapse? For, given the fact that no skyscraper had ever collapsed before due to fire, and while the twin towers hit by a Boeing had caused amazement by collapsing, then who could have predict that this building was about to collapse?

Yet without betraying the least surprise that Silverstein recounted his memories, his words reflect the same wording, however, a causal relationship. But why to wait three long years before finally explain his comments? And finally, even assuming that Mr. Silverstein has meant that he had asked the Chief of the fire department to remove the fire of Building 7 ... Is it usual that firefighters receive an order from a single property owner?

Let us, however, dwell on this aspect, since there is always some margin of error due to human expression and personal interpretation. But since we are talking of Building 7, it is important to note that the official report of the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, published in the summer of 2004, did not think it necessary to broach the subject of this collapse. The 47-story building was, however, that day became the first skyscraper in history to collapse due to fire, also in Benin compared to many others, as we have seen previously . Despite this, this aspect was totally ignored in the final report of the commission.

And that contained the Building 7? Among other notable tenants, like then, the CIA and other U.S. intelligence had established their offices in New York. The IRS (Internal Revenue Service), the federal agency responsible for collecting taxes, it took office. Management offices of Mayor Rudy Giuliani crisis were also there. They are located on the 23rd floor had also been undergoing renovations all special in 1998 for the modest sum of $ 13 million (W25).

These premises, which would serve as headquarters for emergencies due to terrorism or natural origin, had been modified specifically in order to survive the worst catastrophes and weather. The windows had been armored to withstand bullets, bombs and winds up to 200 miles per hour, the walls and doors, meanwhile, had been fitted with fire, precautions undoubtedly proved useful in that fateful day in 2001 for whoever was the inside.

But despite the existence of the crisis management center newly renovated, is from a warehouse at the port of New York, Pier 92, which were directed emergency operations from 11 September. Indeed, a control center was established there by FEMA as part of an exercise to biochemical, coincidentally, stand New York September 12, 2001, simulating a terrorist attack (W112).

The coincidence of the presence of a large delegation of FEMA in New York was subsequently coupled with a controversial statement of their spokesman, Tom Kenney, who stated in an interview with Dan Rather aired on CBS that her "team was one of the first to be deployed to support the City of New York in this disaster. We arrived late Monday night and we went into action Tuesday morning. "

Since September 11, 2001 was a Tuesday, the words of Tom Kenney were quick to controversial. FEMA How could she have arrived on site on Monday evening, if only someone knew what was going to happen tomorrow? The existence of bio-chemical exercise has not yet been publicly disclosed, the agency corrected the government about Kenney in the following days, attributing his confusion to fatigue and stress.

But Rudolph Giuliani, however, that returns the prize for most unexpected statement. Indeed, the mayor of New York surprised many by saying during a live interview with Peter Jennings on ABC's airwaves that he was warned that the World Trade Center would collapse several minutes before it occurs. Here is the excerpt in question.

'[...] I went to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street, directly where were the police commissioner, fire department and the head of crisis management and we maneuver from here, when we were told that the World Trade Center would collapse. And he actually collapsed before we could leave the building, so we got stuck in this building for 10 to 15 minutes, and finally we found a way out and we left, we walked to the north and we brought many people with us. [...]» W69

Yet, nobody could predict such a scenario unless, of course, to have inside information, since in principle even terrorists were surprised that the twin towers collapsed. It may seem strange, even suspicious, that the mayor is aware of such a disaster. Moreover, it is legitimate to ask why the firefighters and civilians had no right to even notice.

Strangely, almost simultaneously unfolded on the West Coast a similar scene. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, published September 12, 2001, reported that the mayor of this city in Northern California had received a warning not to take his flight to New York the previous day.

"For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he received a call from what he described as 'the airport security' - eight hours complete before the start of the series of attacks yesterday - warning that Americans should be cautious in their air travel.

The mayor, who had booked a flight to New York yesterday morning from the international airport of San Francisco, said the call was not alarming ˝, which explains why I'm hesitant to make a dramatic statement ˝ . [...]

˝ It was not a strange call. I'm always interested to know if my plane is on time, and they always alerted when I have to be careful.
˝
[...] Where exactly is the appeal came a bit mysterious. The mayor said only that he had ˝ of its security personnel at the airport. [...]» ˝ O5

Is it more likely that Al Qaeda has been at pains to protect the mayor of San Francisco, or that the warning is not him managed by the U.S. administration itself? Whence then this information credible enough to cancel the trip the mayor of San Francisco to New York? And why the report of the inquiry he did not mention the source of this warning?

Thus, the country found itself with the same type of story disturbing on each side. The nation watched while without knowing the beginning of a long series of statements and newspaper articles as astonishing distressing.

One of these stories, in particular, was reported in a long Newsweek article, reproduced in particular by the FPI (Free Press International) September 24, 2001. Bizarrely, the following short excerpt is found deeply buried toward the end of this article about ten pages.

"[...] On September 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently on concerns about security. But only one had even imagined that four planes were hijacked and hitting targets in New York and Washington. [...]» O4

What a powerful information! How a journalist can he bring such an act without regard to state what was the true source of these concerns? And how can they simply move to another area, after mentioning this?

Digital Prism Small Portable Tv Lcd Flat Screen

Shanksville, Pennsylvania

remember the first official version of events surrounding the flight 93. After their commercial plane was hijacked by four terrorists, some passengers decided to join forces attack the hijackers, according to the U.S. government. A skirmish occurred would then be in the cockpit of the Boeing, causing loss of control of the aircraft, resulting in its crash into a Pennsylvania field.

But since it is sometimes necessary to observe certain things with our own eyes, it is strongly suggested to take a moment to review the captured images from the first moments after the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 (see photos attached - PH-14.1 to 14.11).

But where did the plane? Still, there is no debris? Is it possible that these experts on their knees and busy scrutinizing the ground on the last picture (PH-14.11) are now asking the same question, namely how a Boeing 757 may have been sprayed in this way?

compare these images with those of other examples of aircraft crashes (see Annex Photos - PH-15.1 to 15.10).


It is interesting that debris from Flight 93 were found as far away as eight miles (about 13 kilometers) from crash site Shanksville, Pennsylvania. In this regard, here is an excerpt from CNN article published September 13, 2001.

"[...] Meanwhile, investigators said they found debris in at least eight miles from the crash site.

A second area of wreckage was discovered in the vicinity of Indian Lake to within three miles [five kilometers] from the crash site. Some debris was found in the lake and others on the periphery.

additional debris were found in New Baltimore, some eight miles from the crash site. [...]» D4

Judging from a photo taken within minutes after the alleged crash of Flight 93 (see photos attached - PH-14.12), this cloud of gray smoke caused by the explosion he betrays the presence of sufficiently strong winds being able to carry several pieces of aircraft over a distance of up to 13 kilometers?

We learn elsewhere in this same CNN article that the winds were blowing at a speed of nine knots (16 kilometers per hour). Consider also that the debris found at the farthest distance from the crash site were located in New Baltimore, which is located southeast of Shanksville, inlined directly in the path of Flight 93, while a second debris field located at Indian Lake is located about five kilometers him northeast of Shanksville .

Is it logical to find debris spread so wide after a crash to the ground during a day of low winds, so we can see no room air at the site of impact? Photos attached are examples of the type of debris that were found outside the crash site (see Appendix Photos - PH-14.13 to 14.17).

Such debris they appear likely to be transported by low winds for several miles?

All these elements could he not rather point to an explosion of the Boeing 757 in mid-air? Let's not jump to conclusions and examine a sample article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 13, 2001 edition.

"[...] Find the flight data recorder has been so far the main interest of investigators when they expanded the search area today after the discovery of additional debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact in a coal mine dried up.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents say they have found enough objects to fill the bags they provide to new investigators. Others have reported seeing what appeared to be crash debris floating on the lake Indian, located about six miles [10 kilometers] from the scene of a crash.

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris falling onto the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion reporting the crash at 10:06 Tuesday. [...] "W178

a minute ... human remains for miles of the crash site? Let

then burst reaction of several eyewitnesses. Let us first see the first impression of Jon Meyer, chain wjac-TV, NBC affiliate based Pennsylvania. The following excerpt from the book "Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind the Breaking News of September 11th."

"I could go to the edge of the crater. [...] All I saw was a crater filled with small pieces of charred plane. Nothing that even suggested that it was the plane. [...] There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no human remains. The crater was about 30 to 35 feet [10 meters] deep. "Let

W213 also the reaction of Scott Spangler, a local photographer.

" I thought I was not the right place. I was looking for a wing or tail [the plane]. There was nothing. Only this hole. [...] I tried to find something resembling the tail, a wing, an airplane metal. There was nothing. "W213

For his part, found that Mark Stahl, a resident of Somerset, Pennsylvania, who also went there?

"There is a crater in the ground, the aircraft disintegrated for all practical purposes. There remains nothing but trees burned. "W214

Ron Delano lived on him about two miles [3.2 kilometers] of the crash site. He rushed over.

"If we had not told them that a plane had crashed, we would not have known. It looked like it had disintegrated after impact. "W215

Gabrielle DeRose, chain KDKA-TV and CBC affiliate based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, also had a similar reaction.

"It was very disturbing to think that everything had simply disintegrated [...]. There were no large pieces of airplane, no human remains, no baggage. "W216

Observe also that Fox News reported on their live TV coverage September 11, 2001.

'Journalist:' I'm with Chris Chaniky, a photographer from Pittsburgh affililié Fox. He was on the scene a few minutes away, and Chris, I saw the pictures. It seems that there is nothing here except a hole in the ground. "

Chris Chaniki: 'Basically, yes. The only thing we could see from our point of view was a big hole in the ground and some broken trees. Could see people working, walking in the area. But where we were, there was not much. "

Journalist: 'Absolutely no large pieces of debris? "

Chaniki Chris: 'No. There was nothing, nothing that could indicate a plane crashed there. "

Journalist: 'Smoke and fire? "

Chris Chaniki: 'Nothing. It was completely calm. It was actually very quiet. There was nothing happening there. No smoke, no fire, only a few people who were walking. They appeared to be part of staff the NTSB [National Transportation Security Board], they were walking and examining the pieces. " [...]

Reporter: 'What could you see on the ground, anything other than dust and ashes? "

Chaniki Chris: 'You could not see anything. Just as dust, ash and people were walking. " [...] W217

then add to that the existence of eyewitnesses who said they "saw flames in the sky before impact." Here is an excerpt from the PBS published September 13, 2001.

"The investigators began [...] their analysis of the crash site in search of any aircraft parts that could explain why it crashed. So far they have recovered the flight data recorder [one of two black boxes] and some of the engines of the Boeing 757. Officials say that the biggest piece of debris is only the size of a briefcase.

Pennsylvania Police said the crash debris had been found about eight miles [13 kilometers] away in a residential area where local media have quoted residents who saw flames in the sky before impact.

Investigators were reluctant to speculate whether the presence of debris in two locations indicated an explosion before a crash to the ground. [...]» D7

Another example is an article of the Philadelphia Daily News, dated November 15, 2001, who felt the pulse of the small community two months after the attacks.

"Ernie Stuhl is the mayor of this tiny farming community [Shanksville] who was abruptly put on the psychological map of America on the morning of Sept. 11, when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed headlong into the edge of cleared land a few miles outside the village. [...]

And when you ask Stuhl his theory on what caused the plane crash that morning, he will tell you the most common theory - a battle in the cockpit between the hijackers and burly and heroic passengers caused the loss of control of the Boeing 757. [...]

But looking to get more details from the mayor, and he will add something surprising.

˝ I know two people - I will not give names - that heard a missile ˝, Stuhl said. ˝ They both live nearby, within a few hundred yards. One of these types has served in Vietnam, and he says he has heard, and he heard a [missile] that day. ˝ The mayor added that according to what he knows about the morning concerned, military fighter aircraft F-16 ˝ were very, very close ˝.

If the mayor of Shanksville still seems undecided about the cause of the crash of Flight 93 two months ago, it is far from alone. While the initial shock of September 11 dissipates the crash about 80 nautical miles [Around 130 kilometers] east of Pittsburgh, and what caused it, begins to emerge as the greatest mystery of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.

Nobody fully explained why the plane crashed, or what exactly happened during the interval of eight minutes between the end of calls from cell phones on the plane until the crushing.

And the FBI, which took over the investigation from the hands of the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], refuses to make public the data of any ˝ ˝ of black boxes so important, is the voice recorder from the cockpit and flight data recorder. [...]

Go to Shanksville and the surrounding agricultural land where people have actually seen or heard the jetliner rush around 10:06 this morning and there are plenty of people - including witnesses - who also think that Flight 93 was shot down, or at least do not exclude this hypothesis. [...] Many people

sector Shanksville, some of which were interviewed by the Daily News, saw a small jet unidentified the flying at high speed shortly after the crash of Flight 93. Several days later, authorities said they believed the aircraft was a Falcon 20, a private jet headed for Johnstown, not far from there, who were asked to come down and observe the site crushing. However, officials have never identified the pilot nor explained why it was still in flight about 30 minutes after the government ordered all aircraft to land at the nearest airport.

While the FBI and other authorities have said the plane was almost completely disintegrated by the impact at about 500 mph [800 kilometers per hour], they also reported that an engine - or at least a portion of 1000 books [ about 450 kilograms] of one of them - was found at a considerable distance ˝ ˝ crater. Stuhl, the mayor of Shanksville, said he was found in the woods just west of the site.

From day one, the government has provided conflicting accounts about the exact whereabouts of three F-16 Air National Guard of North Dakota, VOR at national air defense and assigned to the base of Langley Air Force in Virginia, and deployed at the height of the attacks. [...]

So where were the air defenses of the United States at 10 am - 72 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, and about half an hour after air traffic controllers and the United States have begun to suspect that Flight 93 had been diverted? [...]

Most Americans are quite comfortable with the conclusion that struggle between passengers and terrorists caused the crash of Flight 93. Roxanne Sullivan, who lives at the end of Skyline Drive in Shanksville and who worked to erect and maintain one of the memorials, says she has absolutely no doubt about what happened. How does she know?

˝ ˝ Right here, "she said, striking on the heart.

All his neighbors are not convinced.

˝ I believe he was shot in midair ˝, said Dennis Mock, who is not an eyewitness but is living nearest the crash site on the side West. ˝ This is what the locals think. [...]» ˝ W74

Same story on the side of the television station WTAE-TV Pittsburgh, which reported that debris was found in lake Indian and at least four witnesses who were at the crash site within five minutes said they saw another plane in the sky. It would have remained there for a minute or two and then would go again, and bore no reference or indication, neither civil nor military (W75). Note

then this article from Associated Press (AP) dated September 13, 2001, which «[...] controllers reported that the regional center of Nashua (New Hampshire) have learned through discussions with other air traffic controllers that an F-16 fighter stayed in pursuit with another short range airliner business under the yoke of the terrorists until it crashed in Pennsylvania, according to the employee.

Although controllers do not have full details on the continuation of the Boeing 757 by the Air Force, they learned that the F-16 had made 360 degree turns to remain close to commercial aircraft, said the employee.

˝ He must have seen everything ˝, said the employee about the pilot of F-16 chasing the United flight 93 near Pittsburgh. [...]» D5

At this point, it becomes appropriate to look to cases of Colonel Alan Scott and Major General Larry Arnold. They changed their testimony before the inquiry in 2004 and claimed to have learned of Flight 93 after it crashed in Pennsylvania. The two men initially said they had yet ordered the deployment of fighter aircraft at 9:24 in response to United Airlines Flight 93. Here is an excerpt from a special report published in Vanity Fair from August 2, 2006.

"[...] During the interrogation that followed, Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste did not try to know why the military did not react better, but put more emphasis on why the story that had told Major General Arnold and Colonel Scott was so untrue, particularly in relation to the phantom American 11 flight, which officers had never mentioned, and the subject of United Flight 93, they claimed to have followed.

[...] ˝ I was part of the government and I know what What information handling ˝ said (John) Farmer Jr., Dean adviser of the Commission. The history of the military was ˝ an order quite different from the manipulation of information. It just was not true. ˝ Farmer adds not understand why the military felt the need to change the facts. [...]» V3

Is it possible that their first statement was true, they actually ordered the dispatch of hunters to pursue Flight 93? And it would have been one of those F-16 that was seen in the skies over Somerset County, over Shanksville? Is it likely that the military has subsequently amended its version of history to cover up some embarrassing facts?

But let us not speculate, because many assumptions are rapidly becoming terrain vague. However, in light of all this information, it is uncertain whether a simple spat in the cockpit has been the source of tragedy, as authorities allege.

Moreover, it would be difficult to analyze the component of the United Airlines flight 93 in passing over in silence the alleged phone call placed from one of Airphones aircraft by Mark Bingham, a passenger who was presented as one of American heroes in the days following Sept. 11 for having personally fought the terrorists and caused the crash of the Boeing in which he was .

According to the official version, the last call that it would have placed a few moments to rebel is particularly strange. Indeed, although Bingham called his own mother, rugby player and four feet six inches [1.93 meters], began the conversation surprisingly impersonal, using his full name. "Mom, Mark Bingham. ", He said he would (D1).

*****

also noted that the number of passengers on Flight 93 was particularly low this morning. Despite a capacity of 200 occupants, only 38 passengers took their seats. The other three flights involved in the attacks were indeed too little abnormally loaded. In this regard, here's what CNN reported Sept. 20, 2001.

"The numbers may seem out of proportion, fortunately. Thus, the question remains as to why the number of passengers of the four hijacked planes in the sky of the United States is described by officials industry as 'very, very low'. [...]» W65

The American Airlines flight 11 had only 81 passengers on board despite a capacity of 181 people. The United Airlines flight 175 could accommodate as many passengers but not received him on 56. Then, on American Airlines Flight 77 contained only 58 passengers despite its capacity of 200 occupants (W153).

The occupancy rate of four aircraft was thus on average approximately 30% of their total capacity. But back

especially on Flight 93. Include an unexplained gap of three minutes between the time cited by the government as the end of the discussions recorded in the cockpit, retrieved via the black box of Boeing, and the moment of impact recorded by seismographs to this day remains a mystery. Here is an excerpt from the Philadelphia Daily News dated September 16, 2002.

"[...] Several prominent seismologists agree that Flight 93 crashed last Sept. 11 at 10:06:05 am, one or two seconds. The family members who were allowed to hear recordings from the cockpit in Princeton, NJ, last spring, were informed that they came to an end a few seconds after 10:03.

The FBI and various agencies have refused repeated requests to explain this discrepancy. [...]» D8

The article continued by explaining that the records of the discussions in the cockpit is kept in the black box as a movie loop of a duration of thirty minutes, collecting the very fact that the pilots last words before a possible impact. We learned also how the government finally allowed the families of the victims to hear this record.

"[...] Last spring, while the saga of rebellion passengers of Flight 93 became widely known, several relatives of the crash made an unusual request: They wanted to hear the recording in question. The FBI at first refused their request coldly.

˝ While we sympathize with the bereaved families, we do not believe that the horror captured by the recordings of the cockpit to the console in any way ˝, said Assistant FBI Director John Collingwood in December last. But under constant pressure, the Bureau revised its position and agreed to hold an extraordinary meeting in April at the Princeton Marriott Hotel.

None of the family members of victims interviewed for this story does not recall receiving any explanation for the discrepancy between the time records and the actual crash at 10:06. [...]» D8

What could this mean delay of three minutes between the end of the communications recordings of Flight 93 and ground vibration picked up by seismologists?

history make this story even more nebulous end this section by quoting a particularly surprising. On the morning of Sept. 11, the TV station WCPO, Cincinnati-based, broadcast at 11:43 the draft an article by The Associated Press on its website. The article, however, was quickly removed under the pretext that it contained inaccurate facts ˝ ˝. Here is the original version.

"A Boeing 767 from Boston had to make an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that a bomb might be aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White added that the aircraft had been placed in a safe place from the airport, then evacuated.

[The carrier] United identified the plane as Flight 93. [...]» D6