9/11, Part 1: Facts That Don't Fit

It's been a while since I've written on the subject of conspiracies. The reason to this is because nobody wants to read them. Anyways, hopefully these facts will make you think at least a little bit.



The events of 9/11 have now faded into the backwaters of our collective consciousness and is nothing more than a memory of a horrible day when we caught a glimpse of the invisible face of the boogeyman himself. While the average person may hold strong opinions about how the events unfolded and whether or not it was an inside job, it is amazing how most people are incredibly uninformed, or perhaps more aptly, misinformed about the subject, thus leading one to wonder how these people formed their opinions in the first place [bcuz teh tv sed so]. Few even recognize the implications that the events of 9/11 have had on society in general.



So I am just going to list some obviously suspicious facts about 9/11, which suggests the possibility of the official theory being false.



1) The put options

Put options are basically bets that a certain stock will drop in value [the opposite of which being a call option]. In the days prior to 9/11, market analysts observed wildly unusual put/call ratios on the stocks of American and United Airlines.. 25 to 100 times normal. At the time, it was merely seen as a market anomaly and analysts did not know what to make of it. In fact, according to Bloomberg [THE source for financial news], on September 6th, 2001, put options on UAL stock [parent company of United Airlines] were almost 100 times higher than normal.



Basically, an unusually high number of people were betting that these airlines would have a severe setback to their business, suggesting at the very least foreknowledge of the event. The 9/11 Commission Report addressed this issue and stated that it was merely coincidence.



2) Building 7

This is considered one of the smoking guns for the controlled demolition theory. Most people are not even aware that Building 7 fell on 9/11, or that even a Building 7 existed. At about 5pm in the afternoon, WTC Building 7 collapsed into its own footprint. It was not hit by a plane and had some fire visible on a few floors. It suffered some structural damage to the exterior of the building due to falling debris, but not enough to damage it's infrastructure. After being on fire for a few hours, it became the first steel framed building to EVER collapse due to fire. Of course this is excluding the WTC Towers 1 and 2, as one can argue that they did not experience an ordinary fire due to burning jet fuel kerosene blah blah. But WTC Bulding 7 had a normal fire, and yet it still collapsed into it's own footprint.



Here is the video of Building 7's collapse. Building 7 housed offices for the CIA, Secret Service, NSA, and also Rudy Guiliani's purported headquarters of emergency operations on 9/11 [according to himself].

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A



Also interestingly, BBC News reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes BEFORE its collapse! In fact, as the reporter was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building [aka WTC Building 7] having collapsed, you can see the building standing just over her shoulder in the background. This means that someone was feeding these news reports, and the reporters are just blindly repeating what they are told to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s



Building 7 was completely left out of the 9/11 Commission Report.



3) Freefall

To me the absolute, indisputable evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory was the rate of the buildings' collapse: at the rate of freefall. To fall at the rate of freefall suggests that there was no resistance to the object's constant acceleration. First let us remember that the official theory suggests that the steel columns were weakened by the fire and thus buckled causing a pancaking effect. A weakened column would still provide resistance and if this theory were true, there is no way that the buildings can fall at the rate of freefall.



The only way that the buildings could collapse at the rate of freefall would be if the material that would normally provide resistance [such as columns, debris, etc..] are somehow displaced. This is exactly what is done in a controlled demolition, in which resistance is displaced by the use of carefully timed and placed explosives.



In fact, Peter Jennings, the puppet gatekeeper himself said earlier in the day [before his overlords made him start parroting the official theory] about the WTC collapse: "Anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of the building to bring it down"



Here is the clip of him making this comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrlAvPgtYso



Here is a clip proving Building 7 fell at the rate of freefall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I



4) Larry Silverstein

Larry Silverstein is a real estate mogul who owned the lease for the WTC Complex at the time of the 9/11 attacks. He bought the complex at a record low price even though he was outbid by a competing company by $50 million. Ownership of the lease was officially acquired in July 2001. Interestingly, Silverstein had the foresight to buy an unprecedented terrorism insurance plan on the building, out of which he tried to acquire double what he put in, more than $7 BILLION! based on his logic that since two planes hit two different buildings it should've counted as two attacks.



In a rare interview about the attacks of 9/11, Larry Silverstein says of Building 7, "I said the smartest decision would be to pull it, and they decided to pull it, and we watched the building collapse."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100



"Pull" is a term used in the controlled demolition industry to refer to demolishing a building. Of course the question arises: since controlled demolitions take weeks to months of planning, how did they manage to do "pull" WTC 7 on the day of? Well the answer is obvious, isn't it? There were already explosives planted inside the building and the plans were already made. Silverstein has since denied his above statement.



5) PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses

PNAC, or the Project for a New American Century, is a neo-conservative think-tank group with extremely close ties to Cheney and the bunch. In 2000, PNAC published a work entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, in which it outlines a plan for militarization and attack of the Middle East [militarization], and says that:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"



And it just so happens, this "new Pearl Harbor" did happen, and catalyzed exactly the change they were looking for.



6) NORAD Fail

The North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, is the institution responsible for monitoring and defending the US airspace. Until 9/11 2001, NORAD interception success was 100%. Whenever an aircraft was off course, lost radio contact, or unidentified, it was standard operating procedure for NORAD to scramble jets from the nearest Air Force Base to intercept the aircraft in question. NORAD had a 100% successful interception rate, and usually within 10 minutes. However on 9/11 a complete failure of the system somehow occurred, without any real explanation. Maybe someone was somehow incompetent and let the first plane hit the WTC. But to let three off-course, reportedly hijacked planes hit their targets over a time period of hours, especially after knowing that the first plane hit the WTC, cannot be explained by just human error. The only plausible explanation was that the normal functioning of NORAD was deliberately compromised.



Interestingly, on the day of 9/11/2001, NORAD was conducting war games scenarios that involved hijacked airplanes that were being flown into buildings, mirroring what was really happening. One infamous quote is this audio of a pilot who was informed of the terrorist attacks in NY, to which he responds, "is this real world or exercise?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAGygtafhlI





Part two will examine who may be responsible in the case that the official theory is false.