How Many Coincidences Are We Willing to Accept When Talking About the 9-11 Attacks?

This week marks the twenty-second anniversary of the shocking September 11, 2001 attacks, and after the news of that day was delivered by the headmaster of my school during my Seventh Grade science class, my life would never be the same. Almost 3,000 Americans had been murdered, and there were horrific images of people jumping from the World Trade Center buildings to escape the flames. We would then embark on adventures including an endless War on Terror, constant surveillance of citizens, and justifications for torture and drone strikes overseas. Yet, we still do not have all of the answers to what transpired. As I wrote about one year ago, there were many parties involved in the attacks, not just the Muslim terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and this includes even elements within our own government, such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Astute observers of that day will know that President George W. Bush was planning to attack the Taliban a couple months prior to 9-11 (one such plan was called “the Blue Sky Paper,” which was drawn up with CIA Director George Tenet and involved waging a covert war to destabilize the acting government of Afghanistan and weaken the al-Qaeda threat within its borders) and was about to sign an order to engage in a worldwide war with al-Qaeda two days before the attacks. Conveniently, the 9-11 attacks provided the justification that he needed to launch his wars. The warmongering President Bush (along with his comrades Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) knew immediately and before investigations were conducted that Osama bin Laden was guilty, and according to the president, there was “no need to discuss innocence or guilt” and try to negotiate with the Taliban, which had offered to hand over the terrorist mastermind in exchange for facts and evidence of guilt. Culpability had already been determined, facts be damned. The timing of the 9-11 attacks was either a perfect coincidence, or there were elements within our government that sought to make this happen so that the American people could be convinced to accept the plans that the Bush administration had been generating for months.

Whistleblower Indira Singh went even further by testifying that Saudi-funded software (created by PTech), which serviced several federal government agencies and departments, was easily accessible by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups; and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did nothing to examine this link. Furthermore, PTech became a tool to funnel money between the CIA, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the Saudi government, and al-Qaeda and other Muslim groups. A simple reading of this incident would lead someone to believe that elements within our government intentionally gave terrorists the tools and resources that they needed in order to conduct attacks that would kill American citizens. If there is an innocent explanation for why terrorists were permitted to access federal government systems and have money funneled to them, I am all ears, but the government will not even admit to this in the first place (it cannot admit it, because doing so would mean that the people would question the events and see their own government as being part of the problem, which might lead to an overthrow or stricter measures against centralized power and rogue intelligence and bureaucratic entities).

Just this past year, a court filing from the Guantanamo Military Commission provided additional evidence (outside of what was already known) that hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar were being watched by the CIA and were permitted to gain access to American visas, despite connections to al-Qaeda (they even attended an al-Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia days before arrival in the United States). Additionally, Saudi nationals and intelligence operatives (receiving money from the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States and a defense contractor within the kingdom), Omar al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Thumairy, helped to establish the two hijackers in the United States, thus showing that the Saudi government was entangled in the attacks (Osama Basnan and Prince Bandar may have also been involved). We are often told that there were intelligence failures on that day that caused the hijackers to be able to destroy their targets with relative ease, but it is clear that the CIA intentionally withheld information from the FBI on these two hijackers. It was less of an intelligence failure and more of the CIA allowing the attacks to occur after being in contact with al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia (in what appears to have been a partnership between all three parties).

Of course, it was not just the Saudi government that helped plan the 9-11 attacks (most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, of course), but Pakistan was involved through its ISI. In fact, ISI Director General Mahmoud Ahmed, after visiting the United States and meeting with CIA Director George Tenet, ordered Omar Sheikh to wire $100,000 to the lead 9-11 hijacker Mohammad Atta. Pakistani national Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (alleged architect of the 9-11 attacks) sent al-Qaeda operatives into the United States, and the CIA and FBI ignored those reports and put gag orders on those who tried to testify about it. Again, these were not intelligence failures. These were deliberate steps to allow the events to occur.

What about the Israeli government? The so-called “Dancing Israelis” celebrated the fall of the twin towers, and it appears from FBI testimony that these men were operatives from The Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (Israeli Mossad) who were sent to the United States to “document” an event that the Israeli government somehow knew would take place. Not only does this implicate the Israeli government in spying on American citizens, but why would an ally not warn the United States of impending doom if it had intelligence of an attack, or was the CIA working with the Mossad to make the events happen? Israel was a huge benefactor of the American destabilization of the Middle East and the elimination of some of its enemies (making Israel more dominant in the geopolitical situation in the region). So, it appears (again, unless better explanations can be produced) that the CIA was partnering with al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Israel to make 9-11 a reality (disclaimer: this is about the government of Israel and not the Jewish people, for all of those who would like to claim that this is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, because apparently, some people are incapable of seeing nuances and being mature and rational humans).

What other signs were there that the 9-11 attacks were going to occur? On September 10, 2001, stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines (the two airlines whose flights were involved in the attacks) and insurance companies were shorted and bet against, and “coincidentally,” those who shorted their stocks made huge profits within the next few days. It was not just in the United States, though. The airline and insurance stocks were also moved in Europe, and particularly in the United Kingdom. In Germany, oil and gold prices were manipulated by investors. Some suggest that the very terrorists who were planning to hijack the airplanes initiated the short stocks that triggered a domino effect. Others claim that the airlines were struggling, and investors just happened to short stocks one day before the attacks. Could it also be true that there were more global parties involved in 9-11 than what is admitted, leading investors to exploit the opportunity that they saw coming (perhaps insider trading is not all too uncommon and catastrophic events are not as random as we think)?

Another suspicious predictor of the 9-11 attacks was that of World Trade Center (WTC) leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who added terrorism insurance to his new lease in June 2001 (more properly, he added insurance that did not exclude terrorist events on a real estate purchase that he made right before the attacks). In addition, he was planning to miss his doctor’s appointment and go to work at the towers that were about to be hit, but his wife told him to go to the appointment and not to the buildings. Lucky for him, he avoided certain death. He also was allegedly worried about asbestos in the buildings, and the 9-11 attacks were able to neutralize that threat to his profits. In the aftermath of the attacks, Silverstein was granted $3.5 billion in insurance payouts, and after attempting to gain double that amount due to dual attacks (two towers), a judge settled with $4.55 billion. Interestingly, did Silverstein admit that he wanted to “pull” one of the buildings (possibly indicating that the towers were planned for destruction) and let it fall so that he could collect his insurance money (he covered this up by suggesting that he was talking about pulling the firefighters, not the building, but do we really actually know what he meant?)? Could all of this be a series of coincidences? Sure, but we should at least be able to question him about it.

What about how the WTC buildings fell? Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which consists of 2,936 experts on structural sciences, has raised issues (even on CSPAN) with the official narrative, The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) account. In fact, the organization states that it would be impossible for heat alone to cause the steel columns and floor beams and girders to weaken enough to collapse in the manner in which they supposedly did, and for WTC Building 7 to have folded similarly without actually having been hit would be near impossible (debris from the neighboring buildings would not have been able to fly over to hit office furniture in the perfect spot to spark a fire that then caused a spiral of failures).

These buildings were constructed with a steel structure design that could “isolate any failure and prevent a domino-effect collapse.” It is extremely peculiar that the building was designed to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707 (but not a Boeing 767?), and the towers stood for several minutes before collapsing, proving that the buildings did not fall solely because of the planes. Furthermore, the sprinkler systems should have prevented the fires from spreading, but conveniently, they did not work in any of the buildings. All three WTC buildings happened to coincidentally fall the exact same way and due to the exact same circumstances (secondary fires). Were the hijackers experts in engineering and knew that they would have a huge impact in multiple buildings if they injected fuel at the exact spots that would be necessary to cause chain reactions (and have debris fall perfectly to WTC 7)? Were they even better than Luke Skywalker, since they were able to destroy three death stars by hitting multiple tiny weak spots, while simultaneously evading Imperial aircraft that never bothered to show up?

According to AE911Truth, controlled demolition, most likely thermite, is the only viable answer, as the way that the buildings fell would indicate that there were blasts from planted bombs. Additionally, there were 118 firefighter witnesses who testified that they heard explosions coming from the buildings, indicating that a planned destruction may have occurred. Could all of these firefighters be lying? Perhaps, but what benefit would they get from doing so? Better yet, why would we believe the official account put out by agencies that regularly lie to the American people?   

And what was located in WTC 7? That is right, there was a secret CIA office, which was in place to spy on and recruit foreigner diplomats (and operatives to engage in terror plots against Americans?), that happened to go down in flames and have all of its documents erased from history. Additionally, Reuters had fed to other news corporations, including CNN and BBC, information that allowed them to report that WTC 7 (or the “Saloman Brothers Building”) had fallen before the building actually tumbled. This is certainly suspicious. How could news reporters have known that the building would collapse before it did? The official fact-checked explanation was that it was a simple reporting mistake in the chaos, but do they really think that we are dumb enough to fall for that? Peddling false information on such a large scale would show a huge lack of integrity and incompetence in reporting, and it is hard to believe that Reuters would blatantly compromise itself like that. Perhaps the company received advanced warnings or were informed that the buildings had fallen (even though they had not yet) by sources that knew what was going to happen.

There were indications that the 9-11 attacks would occur, and a flight instructor became suspicious that one of his students, who became a hijacker (Zacarias Moussaoui), was more interested in “mode control panel” and taking a “joy ride” with an airplane than actually being able to understand all aspects of flying, including landing. The FBI was alerted to this and the fact that there were al-Qaeda operatives attending flight schools throughout the United States, and although hindsight is twenty-twenty, we should consider that perhaps the FBI did nothing and intentionally allowed the 9-11 attacks to occur (how many intelligence failures are we willing to accept?).

After the attacks occurred, how was the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami able to be perfectly preserved after being prone to excessive heat from a destroyed aircraft? Some question the authenticity of the passport, and others suggest that it had not been on the plane but was handed to investigators by a mysterious individual who later disappeared (where did he get it from?). Yet others, suggest that it was Mohammad Atta’s passport, which was apparently discovered around the time of the alleged suicide note. Ziad Jarrah’s and Saeed al Ghamdi’s passports were also supposedly found at the crash site. It is convenient that American intelligence could find these things after the crash, including non-incinerated passports, but it could not prevent the attacks. It appears that the intelligence apparatus that Americans were forced to pay for was extremely incompetent, to the point where taxpayer dollars were being wasted. Or, elements within our government wanted the 9-11 attacks to occur.

Judging by the pre-9-11 invasion plots against the Middle East, the pre-drawn Patriot Act plans (ready to go before 9-11), the massive surveillance state that was set up domestically and internationally, the CIA collaboration with foreign elements involved in the attacks, and the benefits of drone warfare and a global war on terror; it is hard to suggest that all of the coincidences were just simply incompetence and not something more sinister. Could airplanes flown by inexperienced pilots have evaded the heavily-defended American airspace for as long as they did? Could a hijacker have pulled off a miles-long looped pattern (while the American military stood idly by) and carried it out perfectly level with the ground to hit the Pentagon? Was a budget office that would have been able to produce evidence to account for the missing $2.3 trillion that Donald Rumsfeld had announced on September 10, 2001 mysteriously destroyed? Why did President George W. Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice suggest that terrorists flying planes into buildings was an unknown threat when military exercises (by multiple agencies) were being conducted on that very scenario (even on September 11, 2001)? We cannot know for sure everything that transpired, but we can piece together the much-available evidence and get a good picture of the day. If we apply pressure on officials to tell the public the truth, perhaps we can figure out what our next steps should be?

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.