Yes

by Abel Ellis

Created on: November 28, 2009

Reframing 911: Evidence of Conspiracy

If our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost a hundred thousand people... would you really want to know? Inspector Finch in the 2005 film V for Vendetta saw innumerable coincidences, a certain chain of events that did not make sense to him concerning his government's actions (Internet Movie Database [IMDb], 2005, 1). This parallel's the events of September 11, 2001. The official reports had the general population believe that the incident was an accident. That is until the second plane stuck the World Trade Center. Then, the horrors of the imagination in the minds of every American became all too true - we were under attack. After the rush of the most tragic terrorist attack in the history of the United States, people began to ask why it happened. They turned primarily to the media, television, and supporting internet sites for the answers. The footage of the twin towers falling to their defeat repeated and repeated as if a broken record kept playing. The media served its role in serving the information the public demanded; albeit, all too well. Experts were lined up to testify against the structure and design of the World Trade Center as well as historians of the Middle East, top government officials, and independent survivors of the World Trade Center. The message was clear and set in the public's mind at a crucial and early stage in the thought process: the towers collapsed because the fire was too hot for the building to support itself. If the media is all showing the same story, it must be right, right? No one even thought otherwise at least not yet.

November 5th, 1605, a man by the name of Guy Fawkes dared to oppose those authorities. The day known in England as the attempt of the Gunpowder Plot, Guy Fawkes was arrested and tried for treason for trying to blow up Westminister Palace with the hopes of killing King James I. Fawkes knew that the forces of power in higher echelons were more dangerous to the country than foreign enemies. His attempt was not simply an organized murder attempt, but the killing of an ideology, a political statement and stance for the good of the people. Four hundred years later, the need for questions and action is still needed. Rhetoric and argumentation has largely replaced murder, and is a very effective tool: one that we should apply to September 11 (Wikipedia, Guy Fawkes 1).

There are several theories and opinions of individuals and experts alike concerning the true events surrounding September 11. These ideas being labeled 'conspiracy theories' already yield a negative outlook onto the accounts and viewpoints held by other individuals. This is why it is my decision to focus on the less debatable physical evidence of 9/11, and what the evidence suggests. I will attempt to do as a CSI agent does in the television series CSI: Las Vegas: process all of the evidence with minimal bias, and let the evidence tell the story. By the end of this paper, it is my hope that evidence will be exposed that has been latent to the public eye, and explores the numerous possibilities of alternative frameworks, including but not limited to conspiracy and inside job theories.

7 World Trade Center

As most detectives are taught, crime scenes are supposed to be worked from the outer perimeter first, and then worked towards the center of the crime. World Trade Center 7 is an exterior building that received minimal damage from the impact of the planes and the collapse of the twin towers. Unlike buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 World Trade Center, 7 World Trade Center was still in near pristine condition compared to the others. 3, 4, 5, and 6 World Trade Center buildings were directly impacted by landing gear and other debris from the planes and towers. These buildings suffered severe fire damage, and were deemed unsalvageable. Building three is said to even have endured a partial floor collapse towards the top of the tower. However, none of these buildings fell on that day. These buildings, which were practically gutted out by flame and debris, were forcibly taken town by demolition in January, 2002. As odd as it may seem, 7 World Trade Center collapsed six hours after the twin towers fell. This building did not even have damage that would justify such a collapse, as it only contained isolated fires within the building (Wikipedia, World Trade Center 1).

According to the CoStar Group, LLC, building 7 housed several governmental hubs essential to government functioning in New York. The building was the home of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Defense, the US Secret Service, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the IRS, and many financial entities such as American Express and Federal Home Loan Bank. To add to the level of importance related to this building, the current investigational paperwork and evidence concerning ENRON and WorldCom, the two largest corporate fraud investigations in history, were stored inside (Hoffman, 2006, 1)

According to individual testimony of some New York City Fire Fighters who were near building 7 at 11:30 in the morning were told to stay away from the building. Approximately six hours later, at 5:20 pm EST, the building fell into its own basement, said to be caused by the extensive fires within. This would be the third example of a steel structure building collapsing due to fire in the history of architecture. The first two steel buildings to fall prior to building 7 was buildings 1 and 2 World Trade Center that same day. Additionally, the notion that this demolition of WTC 7 is supported by Larry Silverstein's, the owner of the entire World Trade Center complex, own words:

'I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse,' (Kimball, 2005, 1).

The term pulling is a common word among the demolition community meaning to demolish, or make fall. Even if this was the decision of Larry Silverstein, in order to properly obtain the resources and precision required to bring down a building half the size of the twin towers would have taken several weeks, if not longer. On September 11, it apparently only took six hours. This event went mainly unnoticed and unseen by the already terrified population as they quickly began to tire of the same scene being shown of the towers falling earlier that morning.

With the fall of this tower, evidence of the largest scale fraud investigation of the century was destroyed and the gold reserve beneath the building trapped, only to be partially recovered during cleanup. A question raised here is why would WTC 7 fall the same day as buildings 1 and 2 when it was hardly damaged? Suspiciously, WTC 4, 5, and 6 suffered more damage than building 7, but were left to be pulled four months later. Building 7 was not even directly under or in the line of fire of the attack. Six hundred feet separated the closest hazard to building 7, and a main street divided it from ground zero. It appears all too convenient that the only building to fall across the street from the attack was building 7. Oddly enough, the Verizon and U.S. Post Office buildings were left standing on either side of it. One of my interpretations of the evidence seen here is that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished under the guise that the damage to the building caused by the terrorist attack made it collapse. Cleverly, this would allow Larry Silverstein to claim nearly the entire complex with all of its buildings as lost, and thus covered completely by the insurance company. If WTC 7 had been left standing as it was after the attack, and later to be inspected, Silverstein Properties would have not have had the benefit to claim it as a loss. Since the evidence of WTC 7's good standing was destroyed, only the written description of its loss was required in order to have a brand new building replace it compliments of the insurance company. Not to mention that key files pertinent to current corporate investigations would be simply turned into dust.

Prior to September 11th

Before the arrow struck the target, what events were in motion prior to 9/11? Margie Burns, a writer for The American Reporter, wrote a convincing article in 2003 concerning the security of the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, or lack thereof. Securacom, also known as Stratesec, was the main provider of security services to both the World Trade Center and the Dulles International Airport. The common denominator between the two locations and the security company comes as quite the surprise. The CEO for the company formerly known as Securacom, was none other than Marvin Bush, President Bush's younger brother. Marvin was in charge of the company from 1993, after the first attempted terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, up until 2000. This was the timeframe where most of the security upgrades were performed, as a lesson learned from the terrorist attempt of the truck bomb in the WTC basement.

According to the current CEO Barry McDaniel, Securacom was the company in charge of security for the World Trade Center during the day of the September 11 attacks. Interestingly enough, Margie Burns also discovered that Securacom is responsible for the managing of security services (i.e. surveillance) for military contracts from the Army, Navy, Department of Justice and the United States Air Force. Reportedly, 29 % of Securicom's revenue came directly from the United States Army alone, which translates into approximately $6.9 million dollars. Aside from the monetary relations with Securacom and the government, both areas of responsibility by Securacom were involved in the September 11 attacks. Dulles Airport is where at least one of the hijacked planes came from, and its target the World Trade Center (Burns, 2003, 1).

Scott Forbes, an employee of Fiduciary Trust Company, offers a vital insight to the goings on within the World Trade Center prior to 9/11. Fiduciary Trust Company was a tenant in the World Trade Center. Three weeks prior to the attacks, all of the tenants were notified that the World Trade Center would be undergoing upgrades in cabling, and thus the power must be shut of to the entire complex for the weekend prior to 9/11 (9/8 and 9/9). This was a complete and major frustration for Scott, who was in charge of the company's backup systems. Three weeks was not a sufficient enough time for Scott to power down all of the financial systems to accommodate the power blackout. After working overtime, Scott managed to complete his task, and thus took Tuesday, September 11 off of work. It was this decision that probably saved his life, and allowed him to tell his story.

During the three weeks prior to the power outage, Scott also noticed an unprecedented amount of dust appearing around the ventilation ducts and windows. He himself had to clean this dust off daily, and was puzzled as to where it was coming from. Strange workers also appeared carrying cable spools. Loud banging sounds could be heard from abandoned floors; however, no one creating the noise was seen. Scott said that during the weekend of the power outage, all of the doors were open, the security cameras were off, and there was no security in place to compensate for the lack of surveillance. He felt that this was extremely odd. His feelings were also shared by Ben Fountain, who noticed that the bomb sniffing dogs normally inside the World Trade Center were absent beginning five days prior to 9/11. Lastly, strange evacuation practice drills also commenced during this time. Scott forwarded his concerns to the 9/11 Commission, but was ignored (Shafquat, 2006).

The film 911 Mysteries (2006) by Sofia Shafquat presents the idea that the connection of the security company in charge of the WTC, the airport used in the attacks and the Bush Administration is all too convenient. Add this to the testimony by individuals who were inside the World Trade Center prior to the attacks. As Shafquat's movie proposes, was the dust that Scott cleaned on a daily basis the product of pre-demolition preparation? Why were the bomb-sniffing dogs removed five days prior to 9/11? Who were the workers with the cable lines, and why were they adding internet cables to the world's most cabled building?

Let the Old Become New

In continuing with the presentation of the mysteries behind 9/11, Shafquat's film brings to light several valid points as to the urban motivations behind the demolition of the World Trade Center. The predominant reason behind this motivation was the use of asbestos as a metal insulation inside the World Trade Center. Asbestos was ruled by the Environmental Protection Agency as a cancer causing substance, and ordered the World Trade Center to remove its asbestos that was applied in the 1960s and 1970s. The asbestos served as a fire retardant agent protecting the steel beneath. It was said that estimates for this cleanup ran near $1 billion dollars. This amount was hardly the money worth investing in a building that was outdated and a money eater.

As our society becomes more and more technologically advanced, Shafquat points out, the less and less physical coordination and face-to-face interaction is needed to conduct business. The lack of tenancy inside the World Trade Center brought the money factor down, and business was drawn elsewhere to cheaper and less complicated locations. The bottom line was that the World Trade Center was losing money, and with several waivers from the EPA for putting off compliance, something had to be done. Unfortunately, Hugh Kaufman was ordered to release a publication telling New Yorkers that it was safe to return to home and work after 9/11, despite the concerns about asbestos in the air. Kaufman was quoted saying, [the] White House ordered lies to downplay seriousness of [the] event. Currently, hundreds upon hundreds of individuals are now being diagnosed with lung complications and cancer. Even the search animals are dying off from similar ailments (Shafquat, 2006).

Conclusion

What better way to have a problem virtually taken care of itself? Even further, how much better would it to make a profit at the same time? This is exactly the case with the last minute terrorist protection added to the insurance policy a short time before the attack. Add this with the new 99 year lease of the WTC property by Larry Silverstein, a double insurance payout of $7 billion dollars, and complete rebuilding rights to the World Trade Center, and you have got yourself a money maker. Let us ask the question, why would Larry Silverstein invest another century into a money losing property, unless he was privy to information that would justify such an investment risk? If we consider the facts and follow the money trail, the truth is more likely to be found versus following the numerous theories.

With this evidence, how can we as individuals find the bottom line truth? Asking questions are good ways to do this, but no one will ever know the complete truth. This allows for the free flowing river of theories and speculation by experts and analysts. As for the tougher questions posed by V in V for Vendetta, . . . how did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

Learn more about this author, Abel Ellis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.