• Thu. Jan 27th, 2022

World Observer

Your Wide Network

The Thousand And One Conspiracy Theories Of The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

BySam Brad

Sep 10, 2021

Was Osama Bin Laden really the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks? What if what happened that fateful morning in September 2001 had been orchestrated by the United States, or at least allowed it? What if everything that the official version takes for granted turns out, in reality, a great hoax? That is what the so-called conspiracy theories defend , which, throughout these twenty years, have not stopped proliferating, based on supposed controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers, planes shot down by the US Army and mysterious international collaborations.

Shortly after the tragedy, the most critical created the Movement for the Truth of 9/11 , groups with the intention of “dismantling” the explanations of the North American Executive, especially on the Internet. Engineers, physicists, architects, academics, firefighters or lawyers have established their own organizations in these two decades in which they affirm that the official arguments are not supported and are inclined towards an ‘inside job’ of the United States, to justify future wars, like those in Iraq or Afghanistan. For their part, government investigations and independent reviews have rejected all of these theories .

These alternative hypotheses are not limited to the fall of the Twin Towers, but also include the Pentagon, the United Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, the actions of the Government and any aspect surrounding 9/11 .

Las Torres: a scheduled demolition?
For more than three decades, the Twin Towers had been contemplating New York from a bird’s eye view, with its more than 410 meters high and its 110 floors, when on September 11, 2001 two planes crashed into them and caused their collapse and the death of thousands of people. In just two hours from the first collision, these two iconic steel monoliths, designed to withstand hurricane force winds and even the crash of a Boeing 707 at 950 kilometers per hour, collapsed in the financial heart of the city. Those responsible: the impact, the fuel from the jets and the fires unleashed.

That is, at least, the official version. Throughout these twenty years, skeptics have questioned whether these three factors were the cause of the fall of both towers, separated by just half an hour. They believe that the design of the buildings and the material from which they were made should have been sufficient for them to withstand. “Until then, no steel building had fallen by fire,” they argue.

However, not only the collapse itself has aroused the suspicions of some, but precisely the way in which it occurred. The fact that it was vertical, on its own base and without deviating anywhere, reminds “too much” of the scheduled demolitions , they maintain, and they attribute them “to the US Executive itself.”

However, the Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, prepared by the US Government and published in September 2005, claims that it did not find evidence to support a controlled demolition. On the contrary, they detail that the structural damage caused by the collision -and the consequent redistribution of weights-, the fires fueled by fuel and office supplies and the detachment of the insulators caused the collapse. If all these factors had not come together, they conclude, they probably would have remained standing.

In this line, the architect Iván Samaniego , managing partner of the Marsapi Group, pronounces: “The extremely high temperatures made the steel begin to expand due to heat, go into a visco-elastic state and lose its stability and bearing capacity in the hottest points. When the fire lost strength, contractions occurred as certain parts of the structure cooled, especially the floors. This meant that it could no longer support the loads and that the affected floors collapsed on themselves , causing the entire upper part of the structure to collapse. tower will fall on the lower one. ”

“A building is not prepared for such a catastrophe: the impact of an airplane and a voracious fire. Very difficult parameters to foresee intervened”
Regarding the proliferation of alternative theories, Samaniego thinks that it is due to the impossibility of explaining with total certainty why the towers collapsed as they did. “The reason is that a building is not prepared for such a catastrophe , the sum of an impact from an airplane and a raging fire. In this event, parameters that are very difficult to predict in the structural design intervened. Furthermore, if they were taken into account However, the complexity and added construction costs would make this type of construction not viable, “he says.

And building 7 of the World Trade Center?
Building 7 of the World Trade Center burned for seven hours before collapsing at 5:20 p.m. on September 11. With a height of around 200 meters and 47 floors, no aircraft hit it, nor did fuel fuel its fires . However, it collapsed. In these two decades since 9/11, this property has become one of the key pieces of alternative theories about what happened.

Why that building and not another? That is one of the questions of those who do not believe in the official version, who emphasize that this property housed offices of the United States Secret Service, the CIA , the Department of Defense and the Office of Emergency Management of the Mayor of New York, among others. With these tenants, skeptics go so far as to propose that the objective was to destroy documents stored there about conspiracies, fraud, corruption … like the Enron case, a financial scandal. They even claim that many of the people who worked there did not show up that day.

One of the Twin Towers after the 9/11 terrorist attack.
The United States resumes the judicial process against the alleged mastermind of 9/11 in Guantánamo
To support this trend, they look again at the way in which the building collapsed, on its base, and bet once again on a controlled demolition . In addition, they point out that the sprinklers did not work and insist that no tall steel building had to date completely collapsed because of the fire, something that the Government even acknowledges in the Final Report of the Collapse of 7 WTC.

For its part, the North American Executive carried out simulations to understand how the collapse had occurred and came to the conclusion that, despite the fact that the building had been damaged by the collapse of the North Tower, the collapse was due to fires. The high temperatures caused the expansion of the steel beams, which produced a failure in the structure. In addition, they deny having found evidence of a controlled demolition and argue that the amount of explosive necessary to demolish the property would have caused a sound that was not known .

The Pentagon: a plane or a missile?
The wreckage of Flight 77, after the impact with the Pentagon.
American Airlines Flight 77: What Happened to the Plane That Crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11
Just 45 minutes after the impact of the first plane against the North Tower and half an hour after the attack against the South, a third plane crashed in the Pentagon, located in Arlington County (Virginia), near Washington DC It was 9:37 when American Airlines Flight 77 collided with the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, which immediately increased panic among citizens and encouraged a series of alternative theories to the official one in the days, months and years that followed.

One of the main defenders of these hypotheses has been the French political activist Thierry Meysan , who in his book ‘The great imposture’ attributes the responsibility of the attacks to the United States and not to the terrorists, as a method to force the course of events and justify future wars. Among the arguments of this journalist to support his version, the almost total absence of images of the crash in the Pentagon stands out, despite being a building surrounded by numerous surveillance cameras.

Critics also point out, to reinforce their theory, the scarcity of remains, both material and human, in the vicinity of the impact site. They claim that a Boeing 757 was never found in the area and even point out that the person responsible for what happened could be a missile instead of an airplane . In this sense, they consider that the hole left by the artifact in question was too small to correspond to a commercial jet (27 meters according to the Pentagon report and not the 38 measured by the length of the wings).

For its part, the Institute of Pathology of the Armed Forces of the United States left no doubt about the recovered remains and communicated the identification by DNA or dental analysis of the 189 dead in the attack, except for five: 64 on the flight and 125 in the building. In addition, the official version explains that the hole in the Pentagon was that size and not larger because the wings, as well as part of the fuselage, were damaged before the crash and the dimensions of the plane were smaller at the time of the collision.

The pilot and consultant specialized in the aeronautical sector, Ignacio Rubio , thinks about this theory , who doubts its veracity: “They are hypotheses, the reality is that there are some remains and some black boxes . I understand that it was an airplane, not a missile. That’s the reality and you can’t make it up. ”

And United 93, the plane that never reached its destination?
The only plane of the hijacked that tragic morning of September 11, 2001 that did not reach its objective was United 93 . According to the report of the National Attacks Commission , commissioned by the George W. Bush Government, the intention of the terrorists aboard this Boeing 757 departing from Newark International Airport was to attack the Capitol or the White House. But it ended up crashing in the middle of nowhere in a field in Shanksville, in southwestern Pennsylvania.

The official version assures that it was the attempt by the passengers to regain control of the plane from the hands of the terrorists that forced the hijackers to rush it to the ground before reaching its destination. A more sweetened and epic-laden hypothesis spread shortly after the attacks, in which the civilians on board – informed of what happened in New York and the Pentagon – decided to sacrifice their own lives and crash the jet to avoid victims in the place chosen as a target.

As with the rest of the crashed flights that unfortunate Tuesday, there is no shortage of theories that cast doubt on this explanation of the Commission. Thus, one of the main alternatives is that United 93 was, in reality, killed by the United States Armed Forces themselves , which later tried to mask it so as not to earn the reproaches of the citizens. The disintegration in the air of the Boeing, they highlight, would explain why the wreckage appeared scattered over such a wide area.

In their different ramifications, these theories speak of an F-16 that shot down the Boeing 757 or a mysterious white plane . For its part, the official report affirms that none of the fighters that went out to intercept the terrorists opened fire due to communication problems.

Communication problems, slow protocols, incompetence. That is the answer that the Commission on the attacks gave in its report to another of the great questions that arose after 9/11: why didn’t the Army fighters intercept the hijacked planes; especially the last two, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania?

Skeptics argue that, once the hijacking of the first two flights was known, the US Air Force should have reacted quickly and intercepted the jets. In addition, they note that Andrews Air Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon and question why no one gave the order to shoot down those planes before they spread terror on the east coast. Given the government justifications, it is difficult for them to accept that the confusion between administrations prevented the fighters from acting.

However, the report is resounding in its conclusions: both the president, George W. Bush , and the vice president, Dick Cheney, gave the order to shoot down the planes. There were also fighters that took off, but late and without clear guidelines, due to lack of time and lack of coordination. The country was “not prepared” to deal with suicide attacks aimed at converting passenger planes into missiles that, in addition, disconnected their transponder to be untraceable. “That morning, the existing protocol was not adequate for what was going to happen,” summarizes the document.

“That morning, the existing protocol was not adequate in any way for what was going to happen”
Along these lines, Rubio sees the official explanation as plausible , considering the time taken twenty years ago to launch the fighters and provide them with indications about their objective. All this, he considers, is especially complicated when you cannot establish contact with the planes and it is not even possible to locate them on the map.

The pilots, too experienced?
Another big question put on the table by skeptics is the expertise of the terrorists at the helm: how were people who supposedly had little training to fly able to fly those planes with such skill and precision? Did they have help? Whose? One of the theories is that the US invented obidencies about the authorship of the kidnappings to blame Osama Bin Laden.

In this regard, the Commission’s report states that three of the four men at the controls of the hijacked flights (Mohammed Atta, Marwan al Shehhi and Hani Hanjour) had received their commercial pilot’s license, while Zaid Jarrah had a pilot’s license. private. However, Rubio is very critical of the ability of these terrorists to carry out the 9/11 attacks, since none of them had previously handled a plane of this size.

“The impact is very precise so that they really knew how to take it like this, at that speed, which would be about 300 knots, and with that angle of turn. There is a lot of information that escapes us , if they could have help from someone else … There is information that has not been declassified and we do not know if it will one day be for national security reasons, “he added.

“Not everything that seems is, not everything that is seems,” said the Portuguese writer José Saramago, in a quote that fits perfectly with the feelings of the most critical of the official version of what happened on September 11, 2001. From the defenders of the most intricate theories to those who denounce the opacity of the US Government, all of them demand “the truth”, while in these two decades the alternative hypotheses continue to be very present and sow doubt in those who are willing to listen .

Sam Brad

The Great Writer and The Passionate Poet As Well, He Graduated from University Of Florida in Journalism and Brad have around 12 years of experience in news and media section.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *