9/11 And Its Great Transformations

On September 11th, 2001, on what was a perfect morning-right up until the very moment a Boeing 767-223-ER slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, I stood on the corner of Delancey and Ridge Streets in downtown Manhattan.

I was working on an election campaign ”“ it was primary day in New York ”“ and little did I realize that politics, culture and our entire trajectory as a nation was about to change forever. I had been alerted to the first crash by a friend calling my cell phone, but it was as I was staring at the gaping hole in this New York City landmark, in horror, shock set in as I saw a second plane approaching.

I can see it all in slow motion these days ”“ the airplane seemed to glide in almost effortlessly, and as I and others around stood unable to move, a loud explosion echoed through the canyons of lower Manhattan as a fireball erupted that almost seemed to reach where I was standing. It was, for lack of a better term, surreal.


Follow me on Twitter @cliffschecter

About author View all posts

Cliff Schecter

35 CommentsLeave a comment

  • That day also marks the end of News as we knew it, and ushered in the age of Goebbels-ish “message” as the norm. With fact-checking out the door, the whisper is but the far-away dream of yesteryear we can tell our grandchildren about.

    -the happy peanut gallery

  • http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/09/123602/us-rep-walter-jones-diversion.html

    “I always felt that the war in Afghanistan, initially, was the right war,” Jones says. Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader who launched the terrorist attacks that sent passenger planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, was based in Afghanistan, and his organization had a strong presence there.

    ‘Diversion into Iraq’

    Jones supported sending troops to Afghanistan in 2001, and the next year, he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq based on the Bush administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was “a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States.”

    Initially, Jones was such a strong supporter of the U.S. action in Iraq that he joined fellow Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio to have french fries in the cafeteria renamed “freedom fries” as a snub to the French government, which opposed the invasion of Iraq.

    Jones now believes he and other lawmakers were misled.

    “The diversion into Iraq should never have happened,” he says. “That diverted money, and we lost all those young men and women.

    “Saddam was an evil dictator, there’s no doubt. But there was a way to deal with him without diverting 100,000 troops into Iraq. And if we hadn’t diverted to Iraq, I think they would have found bin Laden and taken him out long before they did.”

  • who created history on that day.

    The aide [Karl Rove] said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

  • Numbers growing of people who say the official version of what happened on September 11, 2001, is a lie.

    Al Jazeera, September 9

    On the 11th day of every month, a group of a dozen or so people gather on Hollywood Boulevard to hang a banner over a freeway overpass. The banner reads: “9/11 = Controlled Demolition”. The group hands out DVDs and pamphlets to drivers passing by.

    Call them the True Disbelievers. They are members of a persistent tribe of sceptics that believes the official version of what happened in New York, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon a decade ago is nothing but a colossal lie.

    Many members of the group seem wary of the press. As we approached the group with a camera and microphone, a tall man shouted furiously into a bullhorn. “No interviews!” he yells. “I used to work for a TV station, and I know how you will twist everything we say,” the man shouts angrily. He tries to bully other members of the group into staying silent, but a few agree to talk about why they came out.

    “I’m an independent person,” says Ann Capotosto. “What we are here to do is raise awareness and push forward a clean and thorough investigation.”

    Engineering student Sean Cordone says, “History has shown it’s not crazy to question your government. It’s crazy not to question your government.”


    “Building Seven tells us that there’s a cover up,” Gage says. “Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11 that is obvious to everybody with a small amount of open mindedness.”


    Detailed descriptions of Building 7’s collapse, as well as other information that sceptics say bolsters their case against the official version of events, can be found on Gage’s website, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org.

    In addition to websites, videos and books, 9/11 sceptics now have a comic book, due to hit the shelves in early September. Called “The Big Lie”, it is the tale of a time travelling scientist who goes back to 9/11 to try and stop the disaster, and learns the official story is false.

    One owes respect to the living. To the dead, one owes only the truth.

  • Central Floridians Remember WTC Building 7 Tribute, Prepare for 10th Anniversary Activities

    Central Florida Veterans For Peace, Philip C. Restino, Jr., September 7

    It was a little past 9:00 PM on Saturday, September 11, 2010. Brett Bracewell and I were standing on the corner of Walker and Church Streets in Lower Manhattan, facing south and looking up into the New York City sky. Something big was about to happen, and we knew what it was.

    Brett and I were in New York to attend the three-day I.N.N. World Report “How the World Changed After 9/11” conference, which brought together world-renowned scholars, scientists, educators, elected officials, military officers, intelligence experts, law enforcement professionals, firefighters, 9/11 survivors and family members, along with the architect and engineer supporters of AE911Truth, some of whom were behind the big surprise that was about to happen.

    As they had for the past seven years, officials participating in New York City’s “Tribute in Light” memorial had turned on the two official beams of light shining high up into the darkness where the World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 once stood, in remembrance of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the lives lost that day. However, for the 2010 memorial there would be more to it than that.

    Suddenly at 9:11 PM there was a third beam of light shooting up into the sky above lower Manhattan. While many of the thousands of onlookers stood puzzled by the sight of the third beam in the sky, Brett and I were each smiling from ear to ear.

    Brett and I were members of the “Third Beam Team,” a group of architects, and engineers, family members of 9/11 victims, and other volunteers from around the country working under the careful guidance of educator, author, and 9/11 researcher Barbara Honegger of California. The purpose of the third beam of light was to represent and bring attention to the often overlooked and under-reported World Trade Center Building 7, a 47-story steel-framed building which was not struck by an airplane and suffered only a few minor office fires, yet at 5:20 PM on 9/11/01 came down in a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint at nearly free-fall acceleration.


    Even though the “go along to get along” corporate media and government public servants once again completely ignored World Trade Center Building 7 and blacked out any reporting on the third beam of light, their telephones were ringing off the hook due to New Yorkers calling in and wondering what the third beam of light represented. In the months to follow, 9/11 victims’ family members from NYC CAN, along with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth supporters, were able to launch two separate television ad campaigns urging New York City-area viewers to demand a new independent investigation into the mysterious collapse of WTC Building 7. Funds are currently being raised for another television ad campaign. Please visit http://www.rememberbuilding7.org and donate to this promising new project.

    One owes respect to the living. To the dead, one owes only the truth.

  • …over an extended period, I’d have to say that it wasn’t “talked into the ground” or at least it wasn’t “listened into the ground”. I’m rather cynical about the whole thing – having watched it closely, I’m pretty convinced that the vast majority of citizens are more actively stupid about this constellation of issues than they were 10 years ago.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • The Independent, By Sam Lister, September 10

    Former Prime Minister Tony Blair today insisted “significant blows” had been struck in the war on terror but admitted, “it’s not over”.

    Speaking from his London home on the eve of 9/11 he defended the actions he took in the wake of the atrocity and said it was “deeply naive” to believe the response of the West had radicalised extremist Muslim factions.

    He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It is not because of something we are doing to them.

    “They believe in what they believe in because they believe their religion compels them to believe in it.”

    Mr Blair warned the threat would only end when “we defeat the ideology”.

    “I think it will take a generation, but the way to defeat this ideology ultimately is by a better idea, and we have it, which is a way of life based on openness, democracy, freedom and the rule of law.”

    Keep pumping, Tony, maybe eventually your septic system will empty out.

    One owes respect to the living. To the dead, one owes only the truth.

  • That OBL “launched the terrorist attack?”

    If he had that evidence, then why didn’t he bring it to court, or at least to some responsible journalist?

    Have you ever watched the video that shows OBL in front of the TV watching a replay of the attack? The expression on OBL’s face is total surprise.

    For my money, he had no idea those buildings were going to come down, It’s also possible, to protect the secrecy of the mission, he may not have even been informed (specifically) when the attack was supposed to take place. But that’s speculation on my part, which makes it no better than the speculation that he himself launched the attack remotely (would you care to explain how he did this?) from Afghanistan.

    The first non-human casualty of 9-11 was the truth. We have a story, it’s a legend, it symbolizes many concepts we hold near and dear.

    However, no one has shown that the story we will fight to the death to defend, and publicly ridicule anyone who dares to question such a sacrosanct narrative, – even on a so-called dissident website such as we have here – no one has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, or actually no has even come close to proving – that that particular narrative is what actually happened.

    The not-knowing is much more awful to grapple with.

    So we wrap it in a narrative we want to believe.

    What actually happened, however, remains a mystery.

    As a last thought on the matter, if we had that evidence, I highly doubt OBL would have been killed. If the US had the evidence that he in fact actually launched that attack himself, they never would have passed up the chance to make this into the biggest media event of the century. Think OJ times 100. It would have been a total propaganda slam-dunk for CheneyCo.

    Given the situation, my opinion is that he was shot on sight specifically to avoid having to confront the fact that we do not have that evidence, or anything even close to it.

    We would have had to let him go free, at least as far as the 9-11 case goes.

    That would have been unacceptable to Americans. In my opinion, that was why he was shot on sight.

  • We want the truth.

    And this is completely within our rights and responsibilities as citizens to demand from our government.

    And the thing that matters the least of all, is how many years ago it happened.

  • “They believe in what they believe in because they believe their religion compels them to believe in it.”

    So…they believe what they believe, because, ummm…they believe it!

    Wha-bong! Am I supposed to be having a zen-stick moment or something right about now?

    Instead of the crushing realization I’m having, yet again, of how stoopid our so-called leaders are?

  • …it would appear that “you” (in the sense of a non-trivial part of the American population) can’t handle the truth. Witness the immense mythology that has arisen since 9/11 that folks embrace to obscure the notion that on the day the actions of 19 not very sophisticated but highly motivated men were enough to kill a couple of thousand people. Witness more importantly the cascade of bad decisions that has flowed from your nation’s response and the incredible popularity of the meta-mythology adhered to by significant numbers that you are all simultaneously powerless and blameless (i.e., that it’s some group of “others” be it Republicans, Democrats, banksters, the Trilateral Commission, neo-cons, etc. into the thousands that alone screwed the pooch and that you could not have changed things).

    In the main, it is my observation as an outside observer, that nearly none of you want the truth – what you want is vindication for your truth.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • The technical details in the complete 2005 NIST report says WTC 7 burned for seven hours after the north WTC tower, (WTC 1) collapsed. The building had been completely evacuated in the first hour. The sprinklers failed to work because the city’s water main was damaged. Firefighters made a decision not to fight the fire; it fell three hours later.

    Rigging a building for demolition is not considered possible in such a short time. Collapse of steel buildings is rare, but possible, especially for the long-span floors systems favored in NY offices, and lacking a structural design that accounts for thermal expansion of the steel structures and impact on connections.

    “http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm ”

  • is NOT rare – it’s the rule. The beams expand and twist, leading to structural collapse. Any fireman will tell you he’d rather be on the roof of a post-and-beam structure whose 8 or 12-inch beams burn slowly (lose mass/strength slowly) than one with steel beams.

    Retiring Mainframe maven, active curmudgeon, poet, writer.

  • As it turns out, it was Col. Jessep who could not handle the truth.

    That movie was made in 1992 – three years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Soviet Union (Cuba alone, an existential threat? it is to laugh) was in full implosion. The particular existential threat that Col Jessep points to as his justification was in the process of ceasing to exist.

    More to the point – we now know that a significant portion of that threat never actually existed as sold to us. The existential threat that Col Jessep uses as justification for killing and lying was itself founded on data which had been manipulated and exaggerated – in no small part to protect fiefdoms in the military and intelligence communities. A threat, yes – but already by Col Jessep’s day a threat whose capabilities and readiness were greatly exaggerated.

    So that “you can’t handle the truth” jibe is kind of a knife with two edges when we recall that what Jessep called “truth” that moment was actually no such thing. It was a mere artifact of his perceptions, training and affiliations: as imposing and solidly constructed as it appeared to Jessep to be, it had little more objective reality than the 19th century scientific concept of “ether”.

    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • fell neatly in their own footprints? Have you seen even one example of another steel high-rise doing that outside of a controlled demolition?

    Occam has just one answer to this puzzle.


    “There’ll be one corporation selling one little box
    It’ll do what you want and tell you what you want
    and cost whatever you got” — Greg Brown

  • would reject your last sentence; his principle doesn’t work like that.

    [Occam’s Razor] was often inaccurately summarized as “the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.” This summary is misleading, however, since in practice the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation… In the scientific method, Occam’s razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result…[12][13][14][15].[4]

    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • If anyone knows of a steel building collapse due to fire outside of the WTC 9/11, I would appreciate a link as it would contradict widespread claims. Even a single example.

    My understanding of Steel buildings is that they are really strong and perform better as a whole against heat than any one part. They are extremely hard to knock down, lot’s of examples:

    This building in Belgrade was hit by 12 Cruise missiles, completely twisted around its vertical axis, and burned for two weeks in 1999 never fell down and was restored and now is still in use in Belgrade (Photo from Wikipedia)

    A building in Warsaw hit by 2000 shells during WW II has been restored and is still in use today (Photo from Wikipedia)

    Look Here at some very tall building fires in the U.S. None of these buildings fell.
    Here was a really bad one in Madrid, burned 18 hours:

    Here is a report by the Nevada Society of Fire Protections Engineers on why steel buildings won’t fall down when they burn.
    The Empire State Building burning after hit by a B-25 bomber. I believe it’s still there :)

    I’ll leave you with this picture, a different Ground Zero, one of the few steel buildings at Hiroshima when it was incinerated by an Atomic bomb dropped by the U.S.

  • …if folks believed they were being sold or had been sold a bill of goods, why the disempowering rhetoric? That one has been spoofed once means that one is doomed ever to be powerless? Sorry, doesn’t wash for me. That those opposed to the spoofers have had their asses handed to them repeatedly is less an issue of the power of the spoofers than it is an issue of how incredibly bad the opposition are at advancing their viewpoint in any meaningful way and how unwilling they are to do the work required.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • Is that a wealthy young Saudi religious zealot (and presumed CIA operative) with no remarkable physics or engineering expertise was able to figure out how to topple the “twin plus one” towers with almost surgical precision to the ground, when such a feat has never happened before or since. How did he know? Or did he? Maybe he didn’t actually figure it out all by himself. Maybe one of his evil-doing associates came up with the notion and Bin Laden figured it was an idea more worthy of support than his fundamentalist utopia efforts in Afghanistan. Shouldn’t somebody have asked him about all this before his sudden dispatch from the planet? You’d think it could be considered essential information for the engineering design and construction of tall buildings – well, all buildings – that they be expected not to fall down? But for now we can never be sure – because the evil doers apparently know just how to identify the exact single stress point that – if impacted- will cause a building to fall. Hell, they even know how to make a tall building fall without any impact at all. A Merlin thing or something? How about that other guy – Sheikh Muhammed or whatever- the hairy one with the little kids – that guy they couldn’t stop waterboarding – he confessed to everything, didn’t he? Architect of 9/11 etc? Well he definitely knows how to demolish skyscrapers and I can’t for the life of me think why somebody hasn’t insisted that at least write an academic paper on the subject between torture sessions.

    Then again, perhaps the towers plus one fell pursuant to the law of unintended consequences – or perhaps, in light of the sympathetic collapse of Tower 7, one could alternatively suggest it was the law of unintended co-incidences?

    Convention requires that we accept that the collapse of the towers was a well-planned and executed purposeful act of aggression by Bin-Laden and his Muslim followers who “hate our freedoms”. It therefore seems particularly incredible that nobody has obtained what might be considered essential skyscraper construction advice from these expert freedom-hating Al-Qaeda engineers who are demonstratively expert at demolishing them. (While we’re at it, we might also ask how it’s possible for two or three guys to overwhelm plane loads of passengers and crews with utility knives. Clearly these had to something particularly ominous about these knives – something so scary that cabin crews were willing to give up control of their aircraft. So we definitely need to ask the evil doers about the make and model of their box-cutters. That way crews can simply be issued utility knife resistant uniforms and thereby save passengers a passle o trouble at check-in and the nation a passle o cash in security costs.)

  • there were other tall buildings in the complex located much closer to the primary towers that were similarly affected by long burning fires and lack of water, yet they did not fall down.

    Hey, waduwino. Fishy, that’s all.

  • has mistaken the public for persons who could care less about what Tony Blair thinks much less what Tony Blairs says.

    Crazy religious zealots vs crazy religious zealots. The sooner they all cancel each other out, the better, imo. (The trick is to stay out of the cross fire.)

  • …would be rewarding.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • …core remained standing. The pure steel extensions to the core sloughed right off and collapsed, and they didn’t carry anything like the loads seen in WTC 1, 2 and 7.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • …as in the WTC structures.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • that you have three identically tidy failures, from at least two different causes, that are unlike all earlier examples (as far as I have been able to tell).

    What are the odds?

  • …improves those odds exactly how? I mean, here’s the logic of your position – because something like this has never happened before I should embrace the spectacularly less likely notion that somebody wired three huge structures for demo without anyone noticing, preferably using mysterious substances like nanothermate. I mean sorry, I must have missed it, how many structures this size have been wired for demo without someone noticing? Must be a real forest of structures being downed by nanothermate for this interpretation to be favoured by the odds. No, you say? None? No other structures?

    Huh. Imagine that.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • I’d have been happier with the NIST reports if they contained a single occurrence of the word “thermite”.

    I found that a peculiar omission given the ubiquity of thermite in demolition and the particular thoroughness with which they debunked the competing “conventional explosive” hypothesis.

    One might have expected to see the word “thermite” mentioned at least once in any competent dismissal of alternate scenarios – particularly since with thermite the two compelling arguments they concentrated on in making their arguments against conventional explosives (in an open floor plan building like WTC7, enough explosives to cut the columns would have a) made a clearly audible “boom” and b) bulged or broken the windows – both absent) would have been non-issues.

    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • …conjecture post-dates the release of the NIST report on WTC 1 and 2 (Sept 2005). Earliest mentions of thermite/thermate that I can find readily to hand are 2006 and later. I seem to recall that they started off talking about thermate in the context of WTC 1 and 2 and then later shifted to include WTC 7. Not sure about the relative timing vis-à-vis the release of the report on WTC 7 (November 2008).

    As to thermite being ubiquitous in this type of demolition (i.e., blowing a building up rather than gradually dismantling it), that hasn’t been my impression. I’ve never heard of anyone using it in demolishing a structure like this – only applications at all like this that I’ve heard of are military (e.g., spiking a gun, destroying crypto gear – and even then WP is *way* more common). It really takes a lot of this stuff to accomplish anything on the scale required – cutting with a lance folks do a fair bit of, but I am very much under the impression that using it in this specific type of application just ain’t at all common.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • Why Was A Top Secret Military Intelligence Unit Ordered To Stop Tracking Bin Laden Months Before 9/11?

    The Public Record, by Truthout, September 10

    Senior Pentagon officials scrubbed key details about a top-secret military intelligence unit’s efforts in tracking Osama bin Laden and suspected al-Qaeda terrorists from official reports they prepared for a Congressional committee probing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, new documents obtained by Truthout reveal.

    Moreover, in what appears to be an attempt to cover up the military unit’s intelligence work, a September 2008 Defense Department (DoD) Inspector General’s (IG) report that probed complaints lodged by the former deputy chief of the military unit in question, the Asymmetrical Threats Division of Joint Forces Intelligence Command (JFIC), also known as DO5, about the crucial information withheld from Congress, claimed “the tracking of Usama Bin Ladin did not fall within JFIC’s mission.”

    But the IG’s assertion is untrue, according to the documents obtained by Truthout, undercutting the official narrative about who knew what and when in the months leading up to 9/11.

    Much of JFIC’s work on al-Qaeda and Bin Laden remains shrouded in secrecy and has not been cited in media reports revolving around pre-9/11 intelligence, which has focused heavily over the past decade on CIA and FBI “intelligence failures.” Only a few details about the military intelligence unit have surfaced since then, notably in two previous reports published recently by Truthout.


    However, Iron Man, whose unit also developed original intelligence on al-Qaeda targets, which included the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the documents show, claimed JFIC was told to stop tracking Bin Laden, suspected al-Qaeda terrorists, and members of the Taliban some months prior to 9/11.

    Iron Man further alleged that the orders his unit received, as well as the work it conducted, was knowingly withheld from investigators working for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, who were tasked with probing the circumstances behind the 9/11 attacks.

    Also, The Public Record, A Year Before 9/11, Military Intelligence Unit Determined World Trade Center, Pentagon “Most Likely Buildings to Be Attacked”, June 13

    One owes respect to the living. To the dead, one owes only the truth.

  • WORLD PREMIERE TOUR – Final Edition

    AE911Truth is proud to announce the completion of the Final Edition of our milestone documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, and we are taking the film on the road with a whirlwind World Premiere Tour across the U.S., starting on May 21. The director of Experts Speak Out, AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, will personally introduce this groundbreaking film at top venues in 30 cities nationwide and take questions from the audience after each screening. Tickets are on sale now, so make sure to buy yours before the events sell out.


Leave a Reply