911 conspiracy essay!

September 11, 2001 was a horrible and tragic day in American history, but not for the reasons one might think. The atrocious acts of terrorism that took place on this unforgettable and horrific day were committed by none other than our own government. Why would our government commit such

[ [removed][removed]

[removed][removed] [removed][removed] [removed][removed] [removed][removed] [removed][removed] [removed][removed] [removed][removed] [removed][removed] [removed][removed] [removed]

[removed] [removed][removed] [removed][removed] [removed][removed]

On the day of September 11, 2001 New York City and Washington DC were attacked. The attacks on these two cities became known as terrorist attacks. On this day a total of four United States passenger airplanes were hijacked and flown towards specific targets in New York and Washington DC. Three of the four airplanes hit their planned targets, the North and South towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. David Ray Griffin provides us with a timeline of the events explaining that American Airlines flight 11 was the first plane to hit its target at 8:46 AM, the North tower of the World Trade Center. The second plane to hit its target was United Airlines flight 175, which hit the South tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03 AM. The third and final plane to hit its specified target was flight 77 which hit the pentagon in Washington DC at 9:38 AM. Unfortunately the North tower of the World Trade Center collapsed at 10:28 AM and the South tower collapsed at 9:59 AM (Griffin 3). September 11, 2001 was truly a terrible and devastating day for all Americans.

The Planes should not have hit the targets

If standard procedures for dealing with a situation like this were taken, then none of the planes should have hit their targets (Griffin 3). David Ray Griffin explains in his book The New Pearl Harbor American Airlines flight 11 hit the North tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 in the morning which was 32 minutes after there was evidence the plane had been possibly hijacked and 25 minutes after they knew for certain the plane had been hijacked. If standard procedures were taken, the FAA would have contacted NORAD as soon as they noticed a possible hijacking and this would have taken them no longer than one minute. This would have given NORAD a maximum of 31 minutes and a minimum of 24 minutes to intercept American Airlines flight 11 and take care of the situation (Griffin 4). Although there was enough time, no jets were scrambled to take care of the hijacking, and it resulted in the Flight 11 hitting the North tower of the World Trade Center. This makes you wonder what ether the FAA or NORAD was doing for 24 to 31 minutes that was so much more important than preventing the so called terrorist attack.

United Airlines flight 175 hit the South tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 (Griffin 4). According to the FAA they notified NORAD at 8:43 AM that flight 175 had been hijacked and if this was true NORAD should have sent out jets which would have intercepted the plane by 8:53 AM (Griffin 7). Sadly just as flight 11 was not intercepted, flight 175 was also not intercepted by any jets and allowed United Airlines flight 175 to crash into the South tower of the World Trade Center. If the FAA had really notified NORAD about the hijacking of flight 175 this leads me to believe that NORAD was involved in the attacks of September 11 because they did not intercept flights 11 and 175 when they were perfectly capable of doing so. David Ray Griffin notes in his book The New Pearl Harbor

NORAD explained that they did not receive information about the hijacking of flight 11 from the FAA until 8:40 AM, which would have been 20 minutes after it had gone off course. If NORAD's story was true, then someone in the FAA should have been arrested and charged with a criminal offense. No one in ether the FAA or NORAD was punished though. In fact some workers were even promoted. The problem with NORAD's story is that they did not even send the scramble order until 8:46 AM. The second problem with their story was that they sent the scramble order to the air force base in Cape Cod which was 180 miles away instead of sending it to the New Jersey base only 70 miles away (Griffin 9). That certainly makes you wonder why NORAD proceeded to wait 6 minutes before sending the scramble order and then when they finally sent it, they sent it to a base 180 miles away.

The Twin towers should not have collapsed

According to the original story behind the collapse of the North and South towers of the World Trade Center, they claim that the fires from the plane crashes caused both buildings to collapse. There are many problems with this version of the story. One problem is that the fires could not have been hot enough to cause the buildings to collapse that quickly after the planes hit them. Also Phil Mole explains in his article 9/11 Conspiracy Theories jet fuel burns at no more than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit and it takes about 2800 degrees Fahrenheit to melt steel. The odd thing about this is that if the fires in neither of the buildings could have possibly gotten hot enough to melt steel, how was it that there were reports of molten metal at the basements at ground zero? This must mean that there was some other material (such as explosives) that was added to the buildings to create the molten steel at the base of ground zero (Mole 31). They also explain the buildings fell in a pancake fashion, which is each floor falling and hitting the floor under it causing them to continue to fall until the building completely collapsed (Mole 30). The problem with this part of the story is that "the twin towers... came down too fast to be explained by fire and impact damage alone... and calculations are provided to show that the rate of collapse was indeed too fast, close to free fall" explains Frank Legge in his article 9/11- Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations(1). According to these facts about the collapse of the twin towers it really makes you wonder how you could ever have believed the original story about how the buildings collapsed.

World Trade Center 7 should not have collapsed

Throughout the article 9/11 Conspiracy Theories by Phil Mole he explains the collapse of building 7 has been seen as very mysterious because it has never really been explained how and why it collapsed. Also, how is it that only two planes hit the twin towers in New York but somehow building 7 managed to collapse as well? The original story that claims building 7 collapsed due to fires on several of its floors has many holes in it (Mole 34). One problem with this story is that when watching the collapse of building 7, it collapses in a way that seems as though it was a controlled demolition. Also the World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein stated "We've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it" (qtd. in Mole 35). This quote from Larry Silverstein allows us to believe that the collapse of building 7 was indeed a controlled demolition. The question that this brings up though is, if building 7 really was a controlled demolition what were explosives doing already planted in building 7? Finally Paul Joseph Watson explains in his article

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance, that the most interesting question behind the collapse of building 7 is how the BBC reported the collapse 26 minutes before it actually happened (par.3)? The only possible way that the BBC could have known this information is if they somehow received it in advance.

I am not positive why the Government would want to destroy building 7 along with the other 3 buildings destroyed on September 11, but I strongly believe that it was for them to create false evidence of terrorist attacks so they could gain US support to enter Iraq and secure Iraq's oil and resources. They also manipulated us by telling us that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction even though they never did. This was all false evidence that caused the citizens of the US to support the Governments invasion of Iraq, which is exactly what they wanted.

The Government had prior knowledge of the attacks

After reviewing many sources it is clear that the government had prior knowledge of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Joel Levy explains in his book

The Little Book of Conspiracies: 50 Reasons to be Paranoid that several high- ranking officials were warned about the attacks a few weeks prior to September 11, 2001 (57). Attorney General John Ashcroft was told not to take commercial airlines from July 2001, and the mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown was told not to board commercial flight the morning of the attacks (57). This information proves that the government certainly had prior knowledge of the attacks. The interesting thing is that George Bush blatantly lied about their knowledge of the attacks when he claimed "nobody in our government at least - and I don't think the prior government - could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale" in one of his speeches shortly after September 11, 2001 (Kristof 1). Also Attorney David Schippers publicly explained that over six weeks before the attacks, FBI agents told him information about the planned attacks, and they were very specific including dates, targets and funding (Griffin 51). Finally David Ray Griffin states in his book The New Pearl Harbor that "in 1995... Philippine police found an al-Qaeda computer with a plan... which involved hijacking planes and flying them into targets such as the World Trade Center, the White House, CIA Headquarters and the Pentagon" (68). According to this undeniable information there is no way it could be said the government had no prior knowledge of these attacks.

Opposing Views

My opposition tries to explain that there is no way it could have been a controlled demolition because they wouldn't know where the planes would hit (Mole 31). Unfortunately for my opponents there is no need for them to know where the plane will hit. If they are going to demolish a building and a plane takes out some of the columns already it won't matter because the explosive will just take out the existing columns. Also the fact that the South tower slightly leaned toward the side of where the plane hit does not dismiss the question of if it was a controlled demolition. During controlled demolitions they don't always get the buildings to fall 100 percent perfectly straight down.

Another good point my opposition makes is that even with the fire burning at 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit it still could weaken the steel enough for an eventual collapse. I don't doubt that at all. The only problem is if there is no possible way that it melted the steel, how was it that they found pools of molten metal underneath the collapsed buildings? Finally Phil Mole explains in his article

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

my opponents try to change the meaning of what Mr. Silverstein said by saying he meant "pull it" (Mole 35) as in, get the firefighters out of the building. That is just an absurd explanation of what he meant because no one would ever refer to taking firefighters out of a burning building by saying "pull it" (Mole 35). First of all whenever you hear of someone wanting to destroy a building they say "pull it" (Mole 35) and also you would never refer to firefighters as "it" (Mole 35) they would be referred to as "them." There is just way too much evidence that points to the fact that September 11 was an inside job.

September 11, 2001 was a day that every American will remember for the rest of their lives. Many people died because of the terrible acts of these so called terrorists. Unfortunately the stories behind September 11 are very difficult to believe when there are so many questions about the attacks that were never answered. The facts about what happened during and prior to September 11 are enough to make us all wonder if the government really did kill hundreds of its own citizens just to further its corrupt plan.