The 9/11 Report
The 9/11 attack was used by the Bush administration to inject a massive deployment of U.S. military forces into the "War on Terror". Thus, this attack and deployment are continuations of the history documented in this site's article "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror".
There are many debates about many aspects of 9/11. This article avoids those debates, and focuses on facts that are indisputably true.
It is indisputably true that the stated purpose of the official report was to "provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned."
It is indisputably true that a third building collapsed at the World Trade Center on 9/11, Building 7, also referred to as WTC 7 and 7 WTC. It is indisputably true that Building 7 was not hit by a plane.
It is indisputably true that the official 9/11 report contained no analysis of Building 7's collapse. It is indisputably true that the official report did not mention the fact that Building 7 collapsed.
It is indisputably true that the official report included no reason for omitting an analysis of why Building 7 collapsed. It is indisputably true that the report included no reason for omitting the fact that Building 7 collapsed.
It is indisputably true that Building 7 collapsed quickly and completely into its own footprint, much like the other two buildings. Since it was not hit by a plane, it is indisputably true that Building 7 was the exceptional case among the three buildings that collapsed. Thus it is indisputably true that it may have provided a somewhat different set of clues from the two other buildings.
It is indisputably true that in a normal crime scene or scientific investigation, the potential for extra clues would justify an analysis of the exceptional case.
The official 9/11 report is online at
In the report Building 7 is referred to as "7 WTC". You can search for "7 WTC" (without quotes), and you'll find five brief mentions of 7 WTC. You'll find that none of them mention Building 7's collapse.
There are two possible explanations for omitting all mention and analysis of Building 7's collapse. One would be an extreme oversight. The second would be an intentional cover-up. These raise two parallel questions. First, what is the likelihood of a team of intelligent, educated, professional investigators overlooking one of three buildings that collapsed suddenly and completely? Second, what is the likelihood of the Bush-Cheney administration falsifying evidence?
The Building 7 Report
The 9/11 report was done because of pressure from the victims' families, pushing against the Bush administration's preference to not do a report. Similar pressure from the families resulted in a report on the collapse of Building 7. This report was issued in the final months of the Bush administration.
The official government report on Building 7 is here:
The government version is "locked", so readers cannot copy sections for pasting into research documents. An unlocked version is here:
It is indisputably true that CBS News anchor Dan Rather described the collapse of Building 7 by saying, "It's reminiscent of the pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." At 1:35 in the video here:
In a controlled demolition of the sort Rather described, all support columns in a building are collapsed simultaneously. This is important to bring the building down into its own footprint. If the building started its collapse on one side, it could tip over like a tree being felled, and land on many neighboring buildings.
It is indisputably true that the official report on Building 7 says the support columns did NOT collapse simultaneously. It repeatedly says the building's collapse began with the collapse of support column 79 near the north-east corner of the building. When that column collapsed, it's collapse propagated to nearby support columns, which in turn dragged down further neighboring columns, creating a wave of collapse that travelled the length of the building. "Each north-south line of three core columns then buckled in succession from east to west." (p.22)
There were eight such sets of support columns from east to west. If we assume a mere two seconds elapsed between one column's collapse and it's neighbor being dragged down, the wave of collapse would have taken about 16 seconds to travel the length of the building from east to west.
It is indisputably true that videos of Building 7's collapse show no wave of collapse traveling the length of the building. Instead they show the opposite, a simultaneous collapse of both ends of the building.
"The symmetry is the smoking gun", says metalurgic engineer Kathy McGrade in a concise, yet thorough 15 minute documentary prepared by an organization of professional architects and engineers (at 6:20 of the video).
This documentary shows indisputably that a great deal of significant evidence was omitted from the official report on Building 7. This omitted evidence is also discussed in a C-SPAN interview with a professional architect Richard Gage, who has looked carefully at this omitted evidence.
It is indisputably true that among this omitted evidence are testimonies from numerous NYC first responders on the scene, firefighters and police officers, who reported hearing explosions just before Building 7 collapsed.
9/11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open
"WTC7 in 7 Minutes - 9/11 Explosions not Fire", at 5:20 in this video
Explosions Before The Collapse of WTC 7
While it is indisputably true that the report on Building 7 includes no mention of these testimonies, nevertheless the report says, "Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7."
Describing this "considerable effort", the report says, "Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection." (p. 26)
Here the report says that those in charge of the investigation declared other scenarios (which would include a well-controlled demolition) "infeasible", and therefore ignored them. That is, they reached their "infeasible" conclusion before investigating those scenarios, and used that as a justification to not investigate them.
The situation parallels one in which three people are murdered, and the official crime scene report analyzes two of the murders, while failing to even mention the third murder. Eventually a report on the third murder is issued which is glaringly contradicted by multiple videos of the murder.
For many professional investigators and analysts in crime scene investigations, law, science, and engineering, the total set of omissions are too major and too numerous to be likely oversights. Even by standards of common sense, they do not look like oversights. On the contrary, by both professional and common sense standards they look more like intentional omissions.
Today there is a wealth of information available on the internet that was omitted from these two 9/11 reports. Since much information remains hidden, there will be a variety of theories attempting to fill these gaps in the picture. Such differences are inevitable with incomplete information. But they do not discredit the indisputable facts, nor discredit the legitimate questions that call for further investigation.
Who would have had the motive, capacity, and opportunity to carry out such an attack?
And who would have also had the capacity and opportunity to cover up important facts, both in the official reports and in the major news media?
One theory is that the Saudis were behind it. The facts and reasoning behind this theory is that the men identified as the airplane highjackers were Saudis. Further, there is evidence that some of these men received money from highly connected Saudis. The wife of a 9/11 victim makes this case here.
A second theory is based on the conclusion that the buildings were brought down by explosives, and the planes were merely a diversion. On this basis a Jewish-American U.S. Marine and scholar makes a very compelling case that the Israelis were behind 9/11.
Dr Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D. University of Michigan) received the Superior Civilian Service Award after more than five years of service at the U.S. Army War College as Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research. He is listed in WHO'S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed.). A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky's teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University. While in government service he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).
Dr. Sabrosky discusses the facts that show the Israelis had (1) motive, (2) the technical capacity required, and (3) opportunity. A key point is that an Israeli company was in charge of security for the World Trade Center at the time of the attack. Thus, the Israelis would have had the unique access essential to secretly wire the buildings for demolition.
His analysis of the attack, along with his analysis of the political relationship between Israel and the U.S. and Zionism's relationship to Judaism, is in this thoughtful interview.
The Israelis have also demonstrated the capacity to virtually eliminate from the major U.S. media the facts about their attack on the USS Liberty, in which they made a concerted effort to completely sink the ship and kill the entire crew.
The Israelis have also demonstrated the capacity to bury facts about their decades-long religious intolerance and brutal treatment of the Palestinians.
The 9/11 attack was used to justify the deployment of vast U.S. military resources in the Middle East to fight the "War on Terror". The Israelis, financed by war profiteers, have been at the root of the "War on Terror" since its beginning, as documented in this site's post "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror".
Hidden conspiracies in the realms of power and money have existed since the dawn of history. The belief that there are no such conspiracies is uninformed. Scoffing at such conspiracies, promoting the belief that they are always silly, is a key tactic in covering them up.