Jack Sargeant
Fortean Times
Monday, January 28, 2007

The collapse of the Twin Towers was due to reasons beyond the impact of the planes and the ensuing fire. Some have suggested that charges were planted in the buildings. This explains the demolition-style collapse of the buildings and numerous reports of people saying they heard explosions prior to the collapse.

Although appearing largely undamaged, save for a small fire, World Trade Centre 7 collapsed at 5:30pm on 9/11, in what many consider a controlled explosion. Coincidentally, the NYC Office of Emergency Management, the CIA, and the Department of Defense all had offices in this building.

The hijackers’ behaviour was contradictory to their faith and even risked exposing the plot.

Some suggest that United Flight 93 – the “let’s roll” flight – was shot down.

Cell phones do not work well at an altitude of 33,000 ft (10,000m), raising the question of how passengers called relatives.

Interceptor planes were not launched in time, despite the four hijacked planes’ transponders being turned off and despite the previously successful interception of planes flying off course.

The comparatively rapid removal of rubble effectively destroyed evidence of a crime scene.

Hijacker Satam Sugami’s passport was found undamaged in the street in downtown Manhattan; in contrast, the black box flight recorders for American Airlines Flight 11 and United Flight 175 were never found.

Some of the named 19 hijackers are allegedly still alive in the Middle East.

Reportedly, the hijackers comparatively poor flying skills suggest that they would have been unable to perform the actions needed to crash into their targets.

There was a large-scale military training exercise happening simultaneously with the hijackings, leading some to speculate that this caused confusion and enabled the hijacked planes to reach their targets.


There are, of course, arguments against all of these allegations, but these are largely made by journalists or those individuals or groups out to debunk conspiracies. In contrast, the official report is deafening in its silence when addressing these claims. Despite the overwhelming number of alleged conspiracies the report fails to adequately address any of the anomalies and thus directly feeds the idea of an official cover-up.

But, while there may be gaps within the official version of events, what would be the reason for such a conspiracy? Al-Qaeda was already viewed as dangerous following the attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. If the US government wanted an excuse to attack Iraq then why, amongst the advance planning the organisation of such events would presumably demand, didn’t they manufacture any evidence directly linking the attacks to Iraq?

Subsequent events, such as the flooding of New Orleans, have revealed a government that lacked the organisational skills to evacuate a few hundred people from a sports stadium, despite the press repeatedly demanding action; it seems unlikely that this same government could organise 9/11. Moreover, an event like 9/11 would have needed numerous conspirators and co-conspirators to make sure that it would work according to plan. With such a large number of people involved, surely somebody would eventually, even accidentally, spill the beans.

In viewing a cabal of either American secret agencies or the New World Order as responsible for the attacks there is a wilful blindness to the very real dangers presented by fundamentalist Islamist terrorism and its stated aims and operational tactics.

I finally figured it out. You are Niagara Knick at K4L. Stick to posting here, for all of us.