9/11: A Coincidence Theory that will not die
Our son turns fifteen today. And we weep for the millions who have suffered the ravages of pointless military conflict.
I will always deeply respect those who risked their lives on 9/11. I honor the sacrifice of my brothers and sisters in the military who left their families under the pretense of protecting democracy around the world. I will forever mourn the millions of lives that were lost from the conflicts that erupted from the events of this day 22 years ago.
It’s incredible to me that just six years ago I had never heard the term “Conspiracy Theory”. I used to listen to the news on NPR on my way to work. My wife and I played along with the “contestants” on “Wait, wait, don’t tell me”, the comedy/news program on Saturday mornings. (We were very good at the game because we knew exactly what the facts were back then). We devoted our Sunday mornings to the New York Times Crossword Puzzle. Our friends did the same thing. We were happy.
Like most Americans on September 11th, we listen to the solemn calls to honor the first responders who lost their lives on this day in 2001. We pray for the soldiers and the innocent who died or were injured in the bloody wars that followed. However we have different ideas about who is to blame for this treachery. This is because my wife brought this video to my attention in October, 2017:
It was a building being blown up. Was it an old hotel in Vegas? It wasn’t. It was the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan, also known as World Trade Center 7. It fell on 9/11/2001 at 5:20 PM. It wasn’t hit by a plane. Why had I never known about this building?
Upon initial examination of the video, two things stand out. The building is falling quickly. I found out later that it fell in about seven seconds. This means it fell at a rate that approaches free-fall. If you were standing atop the building at the moment it began to collapse and dropped your keys off the side of the building you would have hit the ground a fraction of a second later than your keys. Think about that. Why did none of the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete put up any resistance to the fall?
Second, the building is falling symmetrically. This means that the building must have sustained serious and widespread damage prior to its collapse. Even if it did, why did everything give simultaneously?
Did people really think that this building could have fallen on its own from localized damage?
I never knew that there were challenges to the official story until I saw this video. This turned out to be of great benefit. I wasn’t swayed by what third parties were saying about this building. I went straight to the 9/11 Commission Report and the official technical explanations from NIST (the National Institute for Standards and Technology). What was the official explanation?
NIST says that a beam on the twelfth floor became unseated from its supporting column (column 79) due to thermal expansion from the heat of isolated fires. This led to a collapse of the building in an immediate and symmetric fashion.
Hunh…
What about the other columns? There were 80 in total. How could the building fall like that if there was no such process in play anywhere else in the building? How were they able to prove their hypothesis?
NIST claims that they did by building a computer simulation of the building–a finite element analysis. But the model did not behave in the same way as what we observed. How could that support their hypothesis? If anything, they proved themselves wrong! Why would anyone accept what NIST was saying about WTC 7 or anything else about the twin towers after such a claim?
I had friends in engineering and mathematics. I went to them, hoping to have a conversation about the basic principles of kinematics, about how things reliably move based on the forces that were acting upon them. They were amused that I was asking questions and were mildly surprised at NIST’s computer simulation, but as soon as they realized that I was seriously questioning the official story, their ears deafened, their eyes glossed over and their minds closed.
“He’s been watching Conspiracy Theory videos on YouTube!”, they nodded to each other.
“No I haven’t! I’m just saying that the official explanation violates at least one law of motion. What’s a ‘Conspiracy Theory’?”
Models and math didn’t matter when it came to this. It was impossible that an anesthesiologist could offer any meaningful critique of the National Institute for Standards and Technology, a branch of the Department of Commerce.
That’s when the world as I knew it changed forever. That’s when I realized that I was living in a world where skyscrapers could be blown up on a sunny morning in Manhattan and anyone who asked reasonable questions was dismissed as a wack-job by people who should know better.
I spent whatever free time I had over the next two years speaking to friends, writing about it on social media and occasionally appearing on podcasts. I made a few friends while losing many more.
By January of 2020 I finally realized that we didn’t need any more evidence that the official story around 9/11 was bunk. It seemed that we needed another massive event, one that was even more audacious than 9/11 that would wake us from our slumber and blind trust in our media and authorities. I prayed that something would happen that would open people’s eyes to the unimaginable duplicity of those we trusted the most.
Yes. It seems that I may have been responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic…
On September 11, 2019 the Collective Evolution media platform agreed to publish my ten thousand word appeal to reexamine what we have been told around the events of that day in 2001.
Here are the links to the key pieces of information that are woven together in this long and sometimes technical essay:
Human bone fragments were found more than a fifth of a mile away from Ground Zero.
One victim’s body had been broken into 200 separate pieces. This was documented here: NY Times: Medical Examiner’s challenge. I have personally seen what happens to a human body when it encounters bullets, cars, chainsaws, wood chippers and yes, falling debris. Steel beams and concrete can smush and dismember. Blowing the human body into hundreds of pieces requires an enormous amount of focused energy. It requires an explosive event.
George Pataki, then Governor of NY, was mystified about why there was so little concrete left at ground zero yet lower Manhattan was covered with a blanket of pulverized concrete three inches deep. Not only were victims’ bodies blown to smithereens, the twin towers were too. Here he is on CNN describing the puzzling dearth of any large pieces of building material:
CNN also reported that it took more than three months to put out the fires despite that Ground Zero was flooded with millions of gallons of water. The idea that the fires could continue to burn for months underwater because of the intense heat generated by the friction of the collapse is ludicrous. Fires need an oxygen source to burn. Fires can only burn underwater if a chemical reaction involving oxygen is taking place:
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/20/rec.athome.facts/index.html
Then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Meyers (Joint Chiefs of staff Chairman) confirm that four very large military exercises involving our air defenses were taking place exactly when the hijacked planes were headed to their targets. The exercises were designed to simulate hijacked planes being used as weapons to fly into buildings. The public was asked to accept this as unfortunate, unlucky and a freak coincidence...
NIST never explains what happened during the collapse of the twin towers themselves. They instead refer to a speculative paper written by an independent civil engineer on September 13, 2001: “Why did the World Trade Center collapse? A simple analysis”. This analysis conjured up 48 hours after the event makes two enormous and unfounded assumptions. The author’s hypothetical explanation demands that in order for the collapse to initiate, every single column on the floors that were struck failed instantly, simultaneously and completely, allowing the top of the building to fall upon the bottom unimpeded. It is obvious that this did happen, but why did it happen if each plane struck one side of a twin tower, critically damaging the external facade while leaving the majority of the 287 columns on each floor largely untouched. The twin towers sustained asymmetric damage, yet this “simple analysis” requires every column to have failed at the same time in exactly the same way. A critical quantity in the analysis is the weight of the top part of the building. The author uses a number that is 40% more than NIST’s own estimate. NIST did not challenge the analysis but neither did any NIST engineer sign off on it. This allowed them to offer the explanation without officially sanctioning it. NIST is the National Institute for Standards and Technology, which is part of the Department of Commerce. The public was forced to accept NIST as the only objective arbiter of the facts in this crime. If our government was an accomplice, the conflict of interest cannot be ignored.
Perhaps one of the most compelling pieces of evidence is David Chandler’s narrated slow motion video of the North Tower collapsing. It clearly shows that large portions of the building were being destroyed below the so-called “crush zone” as the building was demolished. The 12 stories at the top of the building, which NIST says was responsible for crushing the 95 floors below it, is conspicuously absent. Moreover, if the top portion of the building was indeed crushing a much larger portion that had supported it, it must get crushed in the process. If we buy the official story we must then accept that we are watching Newton’s third law of motion get violated in front of our eyes. I wonder why the footage of the collapses was banned from mainstream broadcasts just a few days after the event. Was it out of respect for those who lost their loved ones in the “collapses”? Or was it because it revealed several things about the real mechanism of destruction?
The Twin towers underwent a massive elevator renovation in the months prior to 9/11. Destruction of the central columns was necessary to destroy the twin towers in this manner. The central columns housed the elevator shafts: Twin tower elevator renovation. If explosives were used to bring the towers down it would have taken months to set up. How could so much stuff be brought into each twin tower without being discovered? This could have been easily accomplished under the guise of an elevator renovation. Very few people outside of the demolitionists and WTC security would have to be in on it.
Official testimony of 118 Firefighters who all saw, heard or felt explosions prior to the collapse of the twin towers. NIST never bothered to check if there were explosive residues in the dust despite these eye-witness testimonies, yet they unequivocally stated that there were no reports of explosions: Firefighter testimonies. How comfortable are we in ignoring eye-witness accounts from the heroes of that day? If NIST had found evidence of explosives in the ubiquitous dust, the 9/11 Commission would have the difficult task of explaining to the public why terrorists would choose to fly suicide missions into the buildings when they could have simply blown them up. Is this why they ignored the firefighter testimonies?
Dozens of Mainstream media platforms reported explosive events in the buildings that morning. By the early afternoon none ever mentioned these reports again:
Below is the essay which served as the backbone of a book I wrote and published in 2020, “WOKE. An Anesthesiologist’s View”. It was my earnest attempt to find a way through the distortions around this event. Here it is in its original form on substack:
Note: Links to some of the citations in it are now dead. As we turn our gaze to more calamities that are unfolding around us history, it seems, is being quietly rewritten…
I am once again impressed by the content and tone of the comments on this provocative piece. Thank you all for creating a forum for the respectful exchange of ideas. This is has always been my motivation for creating this substack.
Several readers have brought up the work of Dr. Judy Wood. I appreciate her efforts. I appreciate that she is able to separate fact from speculation. As someone who took 16 years to question the official explanation I am very impressed by the fact that she knew immediately that we were being lied to and that she did not hesitate to make her position known.
Could it have been a directed energy weapon? Absolutely. However, as I am sure she would acknowledge, it is impossible to know with certainty. I am not an expert in such technology. It would be irresponsible for me to opine on this. I am sad to see the truth movement become internally at odds over things we cannot know for sure.
My interest is to create curiosity about what we were told. This is a tall order because asking questions about this event immediately leads to very dark places. This is why my approach has been to separate what can be known from guesswork. This was the strategy I used four years ago: identify the impossibilities of the official explanation and then identify the improbabilities. It is our inability to distinguish the two that keeps us locked in our loyalty to the official narrative.
Many who discount the 9/11 truth movement use the sole argument that too many people would have been involved in such a cover up. It would be impossible for such a thing to be kept secret.
It is not impossible. It is only improbable. There is a world of difference between the two. 80 years ago tens of thousands of people were peripherally involved in the creation of the A-bomb. Very few knew what the big picture was. Truman was unaware of the Manhattan project until the day after FDR died.
This leads to the question, where are the whistleblowers? Surely someone would have come forward! It is not so hard to keep people quiet. There are carrots (several high ranking members of NIST involved in their pseudo investigation obtained large promotions). There are sticks (undoubtedly these same folks were threatened with retribution if they asked too many questions). But that is not the real leverage point. Whoever was responsible for this heinous event clearly controls the media. What would be the point in coming forward if you will be vilified? It is the media that determines whether a person is a whistleblower or a nut-job looking for publicity. The absence of whistleblowers does not prove there was no conspiracy.
Finally there is the question of planes. First it is vital to see that approaching someone who may be open to hearing an alternative explanation will shut down their inquiry if they hear that no planes hit the buildings. If you happen to believe there were no planes I suggest using a different approach.
Second, the movie "September Clues" offers "official" video that shows the nose cone of the second plane emerging intact on the other side of the building. This is clearly impossible. But how are we to verify that this is an authentic video of what was shown on TV? Could it be counterintelligence designed to drive the "no plane" hypothesis to confuse the public even more? I certainly don't know.
This brings up another very important point. Some people believe that aluminum planes could never slice through steel beams. This is untrue. Though the strength of steel and concrete is much greater than aluminum, it doesn't mean that a collision of sufficient energy couldn't destroy steel and concrete. This is easily demonstrated by the pictures we see of plane nose cones severely damaged by collisions with seagulls offered as proof that aluminum fuselage is no match for steel. "Look how fragile planes are!" Yes, they are fragile. But why did a bird do such damage to them? It is the energy of impact that determines what gets destroyed. A peanut hitting a steel plate with sufficient velocity will leave a dent.
The point here is that when a plane hits steel, the steel may be destroyed. But if the steel gets destroyed, the plane will be too. This is certain. This is important because there was very little left of the plane to damage the central columns, something necessary to destroy the twin towers.
So what, if anything, struck the twin towers? I don't know. I am quite confident that it wasn't two commercial airplanes flown by jihadists with single engine licenses on a suicide mission. Whoever orchestrated this tragedy would have never banked on the fact that they wouldn't lose their nerve or that they would assuredly hit their targets with pinpoint accuracy. The entire op would have failed if one of those things occurred.
I now speculate...
61 years ago the military hawks surrounding JFK suggested an operation that would make it seem like an American civil aircraft was shot down by Cuban MIG fighters in order to create a pretense for a military invasion of Cuba. The civilian aircraft would be boarded by operatives with aliases. Midflight, their transponder would shut off and be replaced by one transmitted from a drone craft painted to look the civilian plane. The craft with operatives aboard would land at Elgin AFB while the drone would be intentionally crashed. Thus it would be easy to create the story that the Cuban military took hostile action against American civilians.
This devious plan was called "Operation Northwoods". JFK wouldn't go along with it, but the similarities between this proposal and what might have happened on 9/11 are hard to miss.
How do we know this plan was suggested? Here is the link to the document obtained via a FOIA request (read page 10 of the annex):
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Of course I have no idea if this was the strategy used. However, this document is proof of the pure psychopathy behind the war machine back then which is assuredly alive and well today.
So then, what happened to the people aboard the four planes that were hijacked? If they followed this plan, the pilots and flight attendants on these planes were "operatives". They landed the planes secretly on various airbases. The passengers were offered apologies for the inconvenience. They were told they were part of a very real military exercise involving simulated attacks from commercial jet planes and they would be on their way very soon.
Meanwhile some sort of military craft was remotely guided with pinpoint accuracy to each twin tower.
The passengers were instructed to call their loved ones to let them know that had been hijacked and that the culprits were of middle eastern descent. This would explain how these cellphone calls were completed in 2001. But why were they instructed to do this?
Answer: This would offer powerful eyewitness testimony that would be hard to contest. There was a hijacking. The perpetrators were jihadists. What happened to them next is up to you to decide...
Again. I am only speculating.
An insult to average intelligence also: the most commonly perceivable discrepancies in the official 9/11 narrative attest to the undeniable fact that most people make up their minds first, then process evidence selectively to corroborate the narratives that best support their existential need for external assurances of safety. Those who saw- and continue to clearly discern personally inconvenient truths, can be said to be the most courageous and honest (the least self-deceiving) among humans.
I didn't judge those who didn't see 9/11 for what it was: controlled demolition...But I did notice that the sudden, derogatory use of term 'conspiracy theorist' came from what seemed a deliberate distortion and demonization of the term. Why not conspiracy hypothesis? The mind imposes its own limitations on everything it sees, but intuition doesn't. The mere notion of Conspiracy Theorist (what is so derogatory about someone who hypothesizes conspiracy?) is an imposted limitation onto everything the mind doesn't want to see.
But I did judge those who didn't see the pandemic for the falsity that it was. And my judgments nearly destroyed me... yet I learned that the horrors of the last 3 years effectively woke me up to- and "saved me" from -the toxicities of a judging mind.
When confronted with horrible pain, including the pain of fear, the opportunity to up-level our consciousness is more precious than anything that could be lost through unfortunate incidents or catastrophic events. The alternative is to sell one's soul to the devil (to the self-deception of denial) for the tenuous promise of peace from an illegitimate promise of safety.
That's where I find my peace amidst the tragic events in this debilitating, 'changing world.' A non-judging mind can find guilt nowhere to exist... and that feels like the last step into complete freedom from fear. Mourn the pain but bless the fruit of 9/11, bless the fruit of the pandemic, bless the horrors yet to come, for they will strengthen those who have the courage to use the opportunities therein, rather than to collapse to the fear mongering imperatives "to comply for the safety of all."