The questions have never been answered nor can be answered since honest
answers incriminate Uncle Sam in the 911 plot.
The fig leaf that the US cannot harm its own citizens is blown away by
the Operation Northwoods plan.
What is truly insane and absurd, is to believe that
events took place that defy the laws of physics (unexplained and unexplainable cause of the
collapse of the three buildings at free fall speed), or that the terrorists had any chance of success in a plan that
required the following for its success:
1. The President being away. He alone could give
the order to shoot down a passenger plane as per a rule framed shortly before
911. Why this rule was made shortly before 911 is anyone’s guess. This order
was not given, according to the President himself, until after the third plane
had struck the Pentagon. Whether it was given at all or not we will never know
because no plane was brought down.
2. The Défense Secretary remaining “out of loop” during
the most crucial 30 minutes while the third plane was tracked all the way till
hit the Pentagon.
3. The joint chief of armed forces was too busy in
his breakfast meeting to be disturbed
4. No attempt made to shoot down the plane using the
protective shield of the White House /Pentagon consisting of ever-ready ground
to air missiles. Since the capital is under the prohibited airspace, any
hostile aircraft is meant to be brought down but the Vice President, by his
very presence in the WH, prevented the shooting and confirmed that the “stand-down”
order stood. This after two planes had already struck their targets! It is not
the argument of the government either that this plane was not shot down because
they did not have the President’s clearance. No attempt was made to contact the
President and get his clearance during the 30-minute window available, because
such clearance was not necessary for shooting down a hostile aircraft violating
the capital’s prohibited airspace.
5. Four dummy exercises the same day and during
the same period involving all the available air force jets leaving only four
available in distant locations from where they could not have reached the
hijacked planes in time. The games were not called off until “Mission Hijack”
was declared closed!
6. The Dummy games added to the confusion and when
the hijack was reported, it was first thought that it was from the dummy
exercise causing precious loss of several minutes
7. Key members of FAA and NORAD were either new in
the assignment or missing without a replacement causing delay in issuing
necessary orders which added to the reasons why the four planes ultimately
scrambled, could not reach their targets.
8. The agencies (FBI,
CIA and NSA) turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the several warnings of the
imminence of such an attack.
The terrorists, on their own, would not have even succeeded in hijacking
the planes and would have been arrested much before. Even if they had succeeded
in hijacking four planes, they would have been accosted by an air force jet before
they hit their target. They would have only succeeded in crashing the four
planes with the passengers into some open field. Even if they managed to hit
WTC1 and WTC2, there is no way these two buildings could have fully collapsed,
leave alone WTC7 which could not be hit by a plane because it crashed in a
field before doing so. The plane crashing into the Pentagon is simply
So be my guest Ghulam Uncle Sam and believe in miracles.
Uncle Sam nor Uncle Sam can give honest answers to the following questions
without incriminating Uncle Sam. Their lies are exposed. GUS is a shameless denier
of the truth.
of Operation Northwoods plan, why do you consider the 911 plan as a crazy
conspiracy theory? Wasn’t the Operation Northwoods plan an equally crazy
conspiracy hatched by Uncle Sam involving hijacking of planes and acts of
terrorism and loss of life of its own soldiers and citizens?
Uncle Sam have plans that required a cataclysmic event like 911 and those plans
were speedily executed after the 911 event riding on people’s anger?
Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for 30 minutes before it hit its
target, was following it on radar, the plane was within 1 mile of the White
House before it turned towards the Pentagon, had the means to shoot it down and
should have done so in order to protect the capital. But they didn't. Why?
regards to the exchange between Cheney and the young man can you suggest
anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane, as it was
approaching Washington's protected airspace?
four different games of simulated hijacks being played out with all the available
air force planes leaving only four available at distant locations from New York
to deal with the real hijack? Why weren’t these games called off until the last
hijacked plane had crashed? When the President returned in the evening, there
were 300 air force planes in the air protecting the American skies. Where were
296 of them in the morning when they were needed? The answer is - they were
engaged playing 4 different games on the order of the VP!
merely a coincidence that the President was outside Washington on 911, the Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed to be “out of the loop” during the crucial
30 minutes as the plane that hit Pentagon was tracked all the way until it hit
Pentagon, and Myers was not to be disturbed from breakfast with Max Cleland?
The VP prevented the plane from being shot down while it came within 1 mile of the
White House and when it turned towards Pentagon, the two people who could give
the order to shoot viz Donald Rumsfeld and acting chief Myers were in hiding,
although two hijacked planes had struck the WTC towers half an hour before!
are private investigators such as the insurers barred from their own
investigation which is normal whenever they are required to settle insurance
is the 911 Commission silent on the
collapse of WTC7. Why did NIST not explain how WTC1 and 2 collapsed beyond
saying what initiated the collapse? NIST simulation ignores observed, recorded
and admitted free fall in stage 2 of WTC7 besides fudging other data. It has
also withheld the data used for simulation. Why unless it fears that making the
data available would expose their manipulation of data?
does NIST not make its analysis with complete data available to the
Universities and let them learn how this extraordinary and miraculous event
defying the laws of physics took place? Why is it depriving the world and its
own universities from learning from this event?
the reports ignore the visual, audio and eye-witness evidence of melted steel,
secondary blasts and of explosives going off? Why did the NIST and the
911 Commission not ask questions to the witnesses to ascertain whether they had
seen or heard anything that would point to a Controlled Demolition? Why was
Controlled Demolition that was widely suspected not even the subject of
inquiry? Is it not because they went about establishing the lie rather than
trying to find out the truth? Neither body
examined the debris or visited the site before the debris was cleared.
the first responders, the affected and the family of the killed prevented from
speaking out, with clauses that prevent them for doing so as a condition for
availing compensation now or in future?
there such lack of transparency and a massive cover-up to prevent the truth
from emerging? Isn’t this the behaviour of a liar?
Watch this video from 40 to 55 minutes
for the complete testimony of Mineta and the blatant attempts of the
Commissioners to create confusion and discredit Mineta’s testimony. Not the
behaviour of an Inquiry Commission seeking the truth but the behaviour of fixers.
The Secret Service knew about the incoming
plane for 30 minutes before it hit its target, was following it on radar, the
plane was within 1 mile of the White House before it turned towards the
Pentagon, had the means to shoot it down and should have done so in order to protect
the capital. But they didn't. Why?
In regards to the exchange between Cheney
and the young man can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot
down the plane, as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?
Secretary Mineta recounted to the
Commission his experience on the morning of 9/11 from the time he was notified
of the first plane hitting the WTC, to his experience at the Presidential
Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) along with Vice President Cheney and staff.
Unlike Rumsfeld who claimed to be “out of the loop“, and Myers who was not
disturbed from breakfast with Max Cleland, and President Bush who was busy
reading a story to kids, Mineta was able
to provide a full account of his experience that morning. Mineta testified that
he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 a.m. and that Vice President Cheney was already
present with his staff. 9/11 Commission Report states that Cheney himself
arrived at the PEOC at 9:58, a stunning 38 minute contradiction to Mineta’s
testimony and yet neither Cheney nor Mineta have been punished for perjury
since surely one of them was lying. Obviously, Mineta wasn’t lying and couldn’t
be punished and Cheney was giving the “official truth” which the Commission was
bound to uphold as the truth even if it was a lie.
Mineta responds to an opening question
by Commissioner Hamilton about the events in the PEOC and an alleged shoot down
order. He describes a conversation between Cheney and a young man:
Mineta: “During the time that the
airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in
and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles
out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said
to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President
turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand,
have you heard anything to the contrary!??”
Mineta explains that while he had not
known it at the time, he had surmised that the standing order the young man
asked about must have been a shoot down order. Hamilton, looking a bit
confused, seeks clarification about which flight the conversation was
regarding, and Mineta once again clarifies that it is the flight that hit the
Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. on September 11. There was good reason for the quizzical
expression on Hamilton’s face. Secretary Mineta had thoroughly trashed previous
accounts of the PEOC activities that had been published in the press. In a CNN
piece dated 9/11/02, the timing of events had been represented differently.
According to CNN:
“After the planes struck the twin
towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report
that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant
asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down.”
In the CNN piece Cheney aid Josh Bolton
describes the same exchange between Cheney and the young man that Mineta did,
but Bolton ties the exchange to “a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was
heading for Washington”. This is the official White House legend, the one
adopted in the White House produced 9/11 Commission Report, the one exposed by
Mineta. Hamilton follows with a question about Flight 93:
Hamilton: “With respect to flight 93,
what type of information were you and the Vice President receiving about that
Mineta: “The only information we had at
that point, was when it crashed.”
Chairman Kean then stresses that the Secretary’s
time is limited. He moves to Commissioner Roemer, who, immediately prior to his
questioning appears to be receiving counsel.
Tim Roemer seeks to discredit Mineta
Mineta responds to a condescending
greeting by Commissioner Roemer by giving a timeline for when he arrived in the
PEOC (9:20), and an estimate of when the conversation between the young man and
the vice president occurred (9:25-26). Roemer paints a picture of chaos and
conflicting decision making between the functioning of the Situation Room and
the PEOC and proposes a confused scenario of how a shoot down order might have
transpired, to which Mineta replies:
Mineta: “That would be speculation on my
part as to what was happening on that day.”
At this point Roemer appears to attempt
to discredit Mineta and imply that he, like Rumsfeld, was “out of the loop”:
Roemer: “I know. Because you had been
conducting official business and I’m sure you were hurriedly on your way over
Mineta: “As I was listening!”
Thwarted, Roemer then tries to clarify
how the order played out.
Roemer: “Would your inference be that
they scrambled the jets to shoot down the commercial airliner, it failed, and
the commercial airliner then crashed into the Pentagon?”
Mineta: “I’m not sure that the aircraft
that were scrambled to come up to the D.C. area…were under orders to shoot the
Mineta ultimately expressed the obvious,
that the standing order was an open question only Cheney could answer. The fact
that the 9/11 Commission Report discarded his testimony has never been
The incoming plane was
identified to be hostile (hijacked, switched off transponder, not in two way
radio communication, having reversed its flight path) and heading towards the White House/ Pentagon.
It was tracked all the way on radar for the last 30 minutes with foreknowledge
that two similarly hijacked planes were crashed into WTC and a young officer
desperately seeking the VPs orders. In the absence of the VP, they would have
acted once the plane entered the prohibited airspace S56. The presence of the
VP in the White House alone made them seek his orders, and it would appear that
the VP was there precisely to prevent the shooting down. Shooting down a plane
using the ground to air missile shield takes no effort or time once the
decision to shoot is taken.
case of allowing the plane to hit its target and clear proof that the 911
Commissioners were doing their best to do damage control and alter the clear import
and meaning of the Transport Commissioner’s testimony.
911 Commission Report and the NIST report raise more question than they answer
and are blatant attempts to cover up the truth and establish the official lie.
Why wasn't a ground to air missile fired to bring down the plane?
How can there be a ground for attacking Cuba if there are Cuban casualties
and not American? The Operation Northwoods had all the elements of the
Operation Northwoods was a proposed
false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the
United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets,
blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba.
The plans detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban
émigrés,sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent
terrorism in U.S. cities.
The operation proposed creating public
support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would be
perpetrated by the U.S. Government. To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals
recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the
introduction of phony evidencethat
would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
The desired resultant from the
execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent
position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible
government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to
peace in the Western Hemisphere.
What you said is repeated verbatim “the position of the civil society is to accept the official findings” and did not respond when I asked you whether the Civil Society should accept the official findings “even when it contradicts and/or omits the relevant evidence and defies the laws of physics”.
You haven't answered even one question, least of all why the Vice President did not order shooting down of the plane approaching the Pentagon although his orders were repeatedly sought as the plane was 50, 30 and then only 10 miles away.
If the 911 plan is crazy, it is only Uncle Sam’s admitted Operation Northwoods plan with a few changes. Uncle Sam is capable of doing crazy things beyond anyone's imagination and use their incredulity to its advantage
I wonder why Ghulam Uncle Sam is even responding after having said “the position of the civil society is to accept the
That is fine, we understand his
taking such a position like many other Americans who have also said that they
will accept what Uncle Sam says, right or wrong. Psychologically, a kid who is
dependent on his parents, and looks upto them for physical and emotional
security, will be devasted if he/she comes to know that the parents are even
capable of entertaining thoughts of harming him/her. They will therefore banish all such thoughts
and reject all evidence to the contrary because the very thought is traumatic
and unbearable. For them a false belief and denial of the truth is preferable
to confronting the truth. The government is such a surrogate parent of
The evidence however is unassailable
that Uncle Sam is complicit in 911. That Uncle Sam can think up of such a plan
is established by declassified documents on Operation Northwoods. What is ON
but a conspiracy to indulge in acts of terrorism with considerable loss of
American lives and blame it on Cuba and wage war on it in retaliation? That it
was not executed does not prove anything. Cuba wasn’t an easy target like
Afghanistan or Iraq and had the full backing of a powerful USSR and there was
the distinct possibility of a nuclear war since the Soviets had deployed nuclear
missiles in Cuba pointing at the US. Better sense therefore prevailed.
That the US had plans to wage war on 7
Muslim countries and take away the freedoms and right of privacy of American
citizens is also well established and the fact that they needed a 911 event to
put their plan into action. The motivation for executing the 911 plan is
established. They executed what they had planned helped by the 911 event.
That all three agencies (CIA, FBI and
NSA) had foreknowledge of plans to use hijacked plans and crash these into
landmark buildings is also admitted. The FBI was also keeping a tab on a few of
the alleged hijackers.
The behaviour of all key decision-making
persons on 911 is baffling to say the least. The President was away and not in
Washington DC talking to school kids. He did not budge even after being told
that the nation was under attack twice by an aide. The first time was when a plane
crashed into WTC1 and then when it crashed into WTC2. We are told by President
Bush himself, that he authorised the shooting down of hijacked commercial planes
only after the third plane had struck Pentagon! To shoot down the plane that
struck Pentagon did not require any prior clearance as the airspace surrounding
the White House, Capitol Hill and the Pentagon is always prohibited (P 56) and the aircraft was known to have been
hijacked and not in two-way radio communication and its transponder was
switched off. It had all the characteristics of an aircraft approaching with
hostile intentions and it was known that two similarly hijacked planes had crashed
into WTC1 and 2. And yet this aircraft, which was tracked on radar for 30
minutes until it struck the Pentagon, was not ordered to be shot down by the VP
although it came within 1 mile of the White House before changing direction
towards the Pentagon. This is not a case of penetrating the shield but a plane
which could have been brought down by the ground to air missile protective
shield anytime during those 30 minutes it was tracked but was wilfully and
intentionally not brought down. Not a single missile was fired. Four hijacked
airplanes went unchallenged over one hour and forty minutes. We are told that
there were no fighter jets available because all the fighter jets were
participating in four different dummy exercises which were a simulation of what
was happening in real life! These dummy exercises were not called off until the
fourth plane had crashed on its own!
The collapse of the three buildings has
been discussed. It defies the laws of physics to consider that any of the three
buildings would have collapsed at free fall speed on their footprint in the
manner of a perfectly executed demolition job without a Controlled Demolition
job. Nothing, except a pre-planned Controlled Demolition, camouflaged by a
plane crashing to make people think that it was the plane crashing that caused
the collapse, is the proper explanation. The third building was not even hit by
a plane because the plane crashed into a field and yet the plan for CD was
executed by starting an office fire and blaming it on damage caused by falling
debris from WTC1 while other buildings nearer to WTC1 did not suffer any great
Uncle Sam the accused is also the
investigator and therefore what it says in its defence needs to be critically
examined. What it says does not stand scrutiny and these are lies. Its reports
and the way the exercise has been carried out, has been shown to be a cover-up
job with evidence.
The Pentagon, the White House and Capitol Hill are protected by their
own ground to air missile shields. Why wasn't any missile fired or the order
given to fire it although the officer is seeking such an order when the plane
was just 50 miles away, then again when it was just 30 miles away and finally
only 10 miles away? What does the VP mean by saying the order still stands if
it is not a stand-down order? If it was an order to bring down the plane, he
would have been demanding why was it not brought down even though the plane had
got so close. And if it was an order to bring down the plane, it would have
been brought down with a single missile at any point in time before it hit the
Pentagon. If the VP had given the order when it was 50 miles away, the Officer
would not have come back to report anything except that the plane was brought
down. The poor chap is still seeking the
order to bring it down but that does not happen. Instead the VP confirms that
there is no change in the order which is obviously a stand-down order. See for
yourself how the commissioners instead of pining the VP, are trying to
white-wash the testimony.
Watch the Commissioners of the 911 Commission doing their
utmost to cover up the truth in the video below. Transport Secretary
Mineta’s revelation and embarrassing elaboration make both Commissioners Lee
Hamilton and Tim Roemer to do their best to shut him down and up, and to blur
and blunt and smother its significance. Such intervention by the Commissioners
is by itself sufficient to establish the 911 Commission as committed to
Secretary Norman Mineta's 9/11 Testimony
Ghulam Uncle Sam is doing the same – trying to cover up the very obvious
truth. He is in the august company of the 911 commissioners and Dr Shyam Sunder of NIST. He is a proven truth denier and Ghulam Uncle Sam
If GUS is referring to my calling him “The truth denier and
windbag Ghulam Uncle Sam” let me say that my description
of him is truthful and exact. How could he possibly deny it?
GUS says : "The order still
stands," obviously refers to shooting down the passenger plane.
it shot down then? Why wasn’t a single ground to air missile fired? Do you
think the young Officer while saying the plane is 50 miles away, then 30 miles
away and finally 10 miles away which considering
the plane’s speed was roughly 5, 3 1and 1 minutes away, was trying to get the order
to shoot down the plane reversed? Or knowing that two other similarly hijacked
planes had hit the two WTC buildings, he was getting desperate because the
plane was getting within striking distance of the Pentagon and yet there was no
order to bring it down? And remember that they had full 47 minutes after it was
known that it was hijacked to shoot down the plane and it was not shot down.
Why is the
testimony blanked out in the final Report?
truth denier and windbag Ghulam Uncle Sam has no answers to any question since any answer that he gives incriminates Uncle Sam. The
911 plan is Uncle Sam's own Operation Northwoods plan which it
has executed with a few changes replacing Cuba by Al-Qaeda as the fall guy.
Watch the Commissioners of the 911 Commission doing their utmost to cover up the truth in the video below. Transport Secretary
Mineta’s revelation and embarrassing elaboration make both Commissioners Lee
Hamilton and Tim Roemer to do their best to shut him down and up, and to blur
and blunt and smother its significance. Such intervention by the Commissioners
is by itself sufficient to establish the 911 Commission as committed to
repeated questioning of Cheney by the young man whether "the orders still
stand" had to be about whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching
plane still stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers
using the commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane
approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not be
subject to question by the young man as the plane approached.
Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching the
Pentagon, the anti-aircraft capacity of the Pentagon, would have sufficed to
take out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that
plane. Neither a shoot-down nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and
since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change in orders by Cheney, the
only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend the
Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military defense that
it, and it alone, explains the repeated questioning by the young man.
The 9/11 Commission Report discarded Norman
Mineta’s testimony without an explanation. We know why. They were not
investigating but doing a cover up job and Mineta’s testimony didn’t fit what
they set out to establish.
Cheney disabled NORAD on 911 is another story..
was apparently sent off to Booker Elementary to be with the kids as he could
not be trusted to perform publicly in a high-pressure domestic covert
operation. He dutifully stuck to his assigned role even though an official
whispered in his ear that the nation is under attack twice when the planes hit
WTC1 and 2. He remained unfazed!
have no explanation for anything. You would rather let the questions remain unanswered
because the obvious answers that fit the facts are what Uncle Sam is guilty of but
that the collapse of the three buildings was assisted by Controlled Demolition
is unassailable which makes Uncle Sam complicit in the 911 events. What exactly
happened can only be answered by Uncle Sam. The possibilities are:
1. Uncle Sam did it on its own and
2. The FBI devised the plot of hijacking
of planes, trapped Muslim Youth into it, facilitated their training, hijacking
etc and set up the buildings for Controlled Demolition using private contractors
who can keep secrets
3. The FBI discovered the plot to hijack,
and unknown to the plotters, made their plot a sub-plot of its own and set up
the buildings for Controlled Demolition using private contractors who can keep
had the motive to stage the 911 event as an excuse to execute their pre-planned
war on 7 countries, curtail freedoms of their own citizens and empower the
state to carry out extensive surveillance of its citizens. This is brought out
in my comment “Why was there a 911 event?”
external terrorist plan had zero probability of being successful. The fact that
four planes over 2 hours could carry out their plan without being challenged by
scrambled air force fighter jets and the fact that even the Pentagon could be
hit without a single ground to air missile being fired by Pentagon’s protective
shield, is further proof of Uncle Sam’s complicity. The order to “stand-down”
was not reversed by the Vice-President even though two planes had struck the
WTC buildings and a third was heading towards the Pentagon and his orders were
sought while the plane was 50 miles away, then 30 miles away and finally 10
miles away from Pentagon. The VP did not give the order.
One has only
to read about the Operation Northwoods to know that such a plan was never beyond
the imagination of Uncle Sam. According to documents declassified in 1997, the
US did plan something like the 911 event to create a pretext to wage war
against Cuba. The plan was code named Operation Northwoods. If this plan had
been executed, the US would have given us lies in explanation, and the
documents containing the plan and the truth would have remained secret, and GUS
would have defended those lies.
Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that
originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to
commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military
targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war
against Cuba. The plans detailed in the document included the possible
assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high
seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent
terrorism in U.S. cities.
operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it
for terrorist acts that would be perpetrated by the U.S. Government. To this
end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed
by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban
government. It stated:
resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States
in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and
irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a
Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.
authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the pacifist President JFK rejected
the proposal. A hawkish president at the helm like Lyndon B Johmson who was
JFKs successor, or someone like George W Bush may have approved it. Indeed the
911 plan appears to be Operations Northwood revised. This time, the idea may
have originated from the President himself.
This is a case of the intelligent asking questions that the criminals cannot answer truthfully without exposing their crime. The Empire State Building was accidentally hit by a plane in 1945. There was no secrecy surrounding that event as there was nothing to hide. If the collapse was indeed caused by what Uncle Sam says is the reason, there would have been no need for any secrecy in this case also.
The matter has been investigated and
resolved. The answer may not satisfy everybody.
This is a lie. 911 Commission is
silent on the collapse of WTC7. NIST is silent beyond saying what initiated the
collapse in WTC1 and 2 and did not explain what caused the complete collapse. NIST
simulation ignores observed, recorded and admitted free fall in stage 2 of WTC7
besides fudging other data. It has also withheld the data used for simulation
as that would expose their manipulation of data.
If private investigators feel they are
being obstructed, they should go to court.
They are prevented from going to
court by legislation as well as the US government bearing the entire burden of
compensations from tax-payers money.
Peer review is done for academic and
research papers. NIST report is a governmental agency report and the question
of peer review does not arise.
Why does NIST not make its analysis
with complete data available to the Universities and let them learn how this extraordinary
and miraculous event defying the laws of physics took place? Why is it
depriving the world and its own universities from learning from this event?
(4) NIST concluded that
the collapse of each tower resulted from the combined effects of airplane impact
damage, widespread fireproofing dislodgment,
and the fires that ensued. The sequence of failures that NIST concluded
initiated the collapse of both towers involved the heat-induced sagging of
floor trusses pulling some of the exterior columns on one side of each tower
inward until they buckled, after which instability rapidly spread and the upper
sections then fell onto the floors below.
They concluded what they want the world to believe.
Trade Center Building 7 (7WTC), which was never directly hit by an airplane,
collapsed as a result of thermal expansion of steel beams and girders that were
heated by uncontrolled fires caused by the collapse of the North Tower and
failure of the fire-resistive material.
We have seen worse fires than the
fire in WTC7 such as the Grenfell Towers which was completely ablaze for much
longer and did not collapse. In the case of WTC7, with small fires on a few of
the floors, it was known to all, that the building would come down hours before
it did. And yet, even after 5 years, NIST said that they were not able to get a
handle on what caused its collapse! They finally fudged the data to produce
simulation of the collapse which bears no relationship to what we see in the
video and NIST’s own recorded data.
non-disclosure agreement is binding on both parties.
Why is a NDA required? Why the secrecy?
who agreed to accept compensation are bound by the rules that such agreements
are subject to.
Where is the need for the rule to remain
silent? The rule prevents those affected or likely to be affected by the after-effects,
and the families of those killed, from speaking out, or protesting in any
manner. Any movement against Uncle Sam for revealing the complete truth must
have the support of those affected. Uncle Sam through their legislation, has
made impossible a movement with the support of the affected. The silence of the
affected and their families has been purchased by Uncle Sam.
(8) There was no evidence
(collected by NIST or by...the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or
explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building
sections began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
The NIST and the 911 Commission
did not ask the questions the answers to which they did not want to hear. They
went about establishing the lie rather than trying to find out the truth. Neither body examined the debris or visited
the site before the debris was cleared.
If Uncle Sam was a common citizen and made to answer the following
questions on oath, Uncle Sam would have invoked the fifth amendment and the response
would have been:“ I decline to answer the questions on the grounds that the
answers will incriminate me”. Uncle Sam’s refusal to answer the questions and
lack of transparency is simply because an open inquiry and honest answers to
the questions will incriminate Uncle Sam and show Uncle Sam to be complicit in
bringing down the WTC buildings. At
least an individual accused of a crime has no control over the investigation
but Uncle Sam controls that also! GM sb knows very well that there is no valid
excuse for not providing answer to any of the questions except that the answer
incriminates Uncle Sam. He being a dedicated blind devotee and worshiper of
Uncle Sam, can deny the truth and also ignore the laws of Physics. He can do
anything in the service of Uncle Sam.
1. Why hasn't a full and convincing explanation been found? Why isn’t
anything being done to find the full explanation?
2. Why are private investigators such as the insurers barred from their
own investigation which is normal whenever they are required to settle
3. Why is the NIST Report not peer reviewed? Why has the NIST not shared
the data that it has used for computer simulation?
4. Why has the NIST not gone beyond what initiated the collapse in WTC1
and 2? What basis is there in empirical or theoretical science for them to say
that the complete destruction of the buildings became inevitable once the
5. Why has the 911 Commission left out WTC7 from its report?
6. Why have the testimony of eye-witnesses taken under non-disclosure
agreements preventing them from disclosing to others what they saw and what
evidence they gave?
7. Why are the first responders, the affected and the family of the
killed prevented from speaking out, with clauses that prevent them for doing so
as a condition for availing compensation now or in future?
8. How does Uncle Sam explain the visual, audio and eye-witness
evidence of melted steel, secondary blasts and of explosives going off? The
answer is by denying what everybody can see even today in the videos showing
Why is there such secrecy and a massive cover-up to prevent the truth
People have good reason to believe, that Uncle Sam is behaving like a
conspirator, by taking every step including legislation, to ensure that it is
the sole arbitrator of truth which cannot be questioned in any court while what
it is trying to pass off as truth, defies the laws of physics. If Uncle Sam was
telling the truth, and indeed the buildings collapsed solely because of the
plane crashing into two of them and the third from falling debris, then there
was no need for any secrecy. Uncle Sam would have thrown open the investigation
and every University would have participated in studying this “extraordinary
and miraculous” phenomenon and advanced their best explanation of it and
written papers in scientific journals and won awards. But if the facts are otherwise,
Uncle Sam cannot risk an open investigation and get exposed. Uncle Sam’s
behaviour points to a massive cover-up of the truth and of falsehood being
Once we know the truth, and if it is established as widely believed on
good evidence and reasoning, that the collapse of the buildings was assisted by
controlled demolition, then we will ask ‘who did it, how and why’. Let Uncle
Sam answer the questions.
First step is to demand for a fresh investigation into the causes of the
collapse of the three WTC buildings. The only way to protect democracy and our
rights and liberties, is to not allow the government to get away telling us
“Proportionality bias,” our innate tendency to assume that big events have big causes, may also explain our tendency to accept conspiracies. This is one reason many people were uncomfortable with the idea that President John F. Kennedy was the victim of a deranged lone gunman and found it easier to accept the theory that he was the victim of a large-scale conspiracy.
"Another relevant cognitive bias is “projection.” People who endorse conspiracy theories may be more likely to engage in conspiratorial behaviors themselves, such as spreading rumors or tending to be suspicious of others' motives. If you would engage in such behavior, it may seem natural that other people would as well, making conspiracies appear more plausible and widespread. Furthermore, people who are strongly inclined toward conspiratorial thinking will be more likely to endorse mutually contradictory theories. For example, if you believe that Osama bin Laden was killed many years before the American government officially announced his death, you are also more likely to believe that he is still alive."
1. Why hasn't a full and convincing explanation been found? Why isn’t anything being done to find the full explanation?
2. Why are private investigators such as the insurers barred from their own investigation which is normal whenever they are required to settle insurance claims?
3. Why is the NIST Report not peer reviewed? Why has the NIST not shared the data that it has used for computer simulation?
4. Why has the NIST not gone beyond what initiated the collapse in WTC1 and 2? What basis is there in empirical or theoretical science for them to say that the complete destruction of the buildings became inevitable once the collapse began?
6. Why have the testimony of eye-witnesses taken under non-disclosure agreements preventing them from disclosing to others what they saw and what evidence they gave?
7. Why are the first responders, the affected and the family of the killed prevented from speaking out, with clauses that prevent them for doing so as a condition for availing compensation now or in future?
8. How does Uncle Sam explain the visual, audio and eye-witness evidence of melted steel, secondary blasts and of explosives going off? The answer is by denying what everybody can see even today in the videos showing the collapse!
Why is there such secrecy and a massive cover-up to prevent the truth from emerging?
People have good reason to believe, that Uncle Sam is behaving like a conspirator, by taking every step including legislation, to ensure that it is the sole arbitrator of truth which cannot be questioned in any court while what it is trying to pass off as truth, defies the laws of physics. If Uncle Sam was telling the truth, and indeed the buildings collapsed solely because of the plane crashing into two of them and the third from falling debris, then there was no need for any secrecy. Uncle Sam would have thrown open the investigation and every University would have participated in studying this “extraordinary and miraculous” phenomenon and advanced their best explanation of it and written papers in scientific journals and won awards. But if the facts are otherwise, Uncle Sam cannot risk an open investigation and get exposed. Uncle Sam’s behaviour points to a massive cover-up of the truth and of falsehood being peddled.
Once we know the truth, and if it is established as widely believed on good evidence and reasoning, that the collapse of the buildings was assisted by controlled demolition, then we will ask ‘who did it, how and why’. Let Uncle Sam answer the questions.
First step is to demand for a fresh investigation into the causes of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The only way to protect democracy and our rights and liberties, is to not allow the government to get away telling us lies.
Ghulam Uncle Sam says “the
position of the civil society is to accept the official findings”! Even when it
contradicts and/or omits the relevant evidence and what it says defies the laws
of physics. Even though Uncle Sam has done everything necessary to prevent an
open inquiry and did a massive cover-up job. And even though Uncle Sam has a
history of deception and lies! Has anybody seen a more devoted and servile
slave of Uncle Sam? Isn’t Uncle Sam greater in his estimation than Allah whose
Book and word he doubts?
You asked for my opinion and I gave it but there is no necessity for any
opinion or theory. You can ignore it.
I am demanding answers to why Uncle Sam has done what it has done and
neither you nor Uncle Sam will answer them because these expose the lie. The
fact is that there is both secrecy and massive cover-up. Uncle Sam is lying and
covering up its lies and behaving like a conspirator. As I said, once we
know the truth, and if it is established as widely believed on good evidence
and reasoning, that the collapse of the buildings was assisted by controlled
demolition, then we will ask ‘who did it, how and why’. Let Uncle Sam answer
the questions. What is the need for any opinion or theory?
The first step is to demand for a fresh investigation into the causes of
the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The only way to protect democracy and
our rights and liberties, is to not allow the government to get away telling us
You have once again provided evidence of being a devoted and committed Ghulam
Uncle Sam by saying “the position of the civil society is to accept the
official findings”! Even when it contradicts and/or omits the relevant evidence
and defies the laws of physics? Haven’t you yourself admitted that Uncle Sam
often lies? Those who value democracy and liberty say that the price of liberty
is eternal vigilance. Willing slaves, Uncle Toms and Ghulam Uncle Sam like you
alone barter liberty for their security, safety or for a few crumbs.
GUS can answer the following questions:
3. Why is the NIST Report not peer reviewed? Why has the NIST not shared
the data that it has used for computer simulation?
8. How does Uncle Sam explain the
visual, audio and eye-witness evidence of melted steel, secondary blasts and of
explosives going off? The answer is by denying what everybody can see even
today in the videos showing the collapse!
People have good reason to believe, that Uncle Sam is behaving like a
conspirator, by taking every step including legislation, to ensure that it is
the sole arbitrator of truth which cannot be questioned in any court while what
it is trying to pass off as truth, defies the laws of physics. If Uncle Sam was
telling the truth, and indeed the buildings collapsed solely because of the plane
crashing into two of them and the third from falling debris, then there was no
need for any secrecy. Uncle Sam would have thrown open the investigation and
every University would have participated in studying this “extraordinary and miraculous”
phenomenon and advanced their best explanation of it and written papers in scientific
journals and won awards. But if the facts are otherwise, Uncle Sam cannot risk
an open investigation and get exposed. Uncle Sam’s behaviour points to a
massive cover-up of the truth and of falsehood being peddled.
Ghulam Uncle Sam does not have an answer to my questions nor does anyone
else have. The europhysicsnews article was written 7 years after Shyam Sunder’s
final Report based on an invitation by the editors who say “since some
controversy remains, even among more competent people in the field, we
considered that the correct scientific way to settle this debate was to publish
the manuscript and possibly trigger an open discussion leading to an undisputable
truth based on solid arguments”.
“Some controversy” is an understatement. There is no acceptance by
the scientific community but only “controversy” or more correctly
rejection. Apart from the authors of the article, the editors also
therefore think that there is a need for an open discussion to establish the
undisputable truth based on solid arguments. The editors are therefore of the
view, that the NIST report is clearly lacking in convincing evidence and
conclusions based on solid arguments and has failed to establish the
undisputable truth. The NIST Report, to put it plainly, is pure fiction and has
no resemblance to what happened.
Europhysicsnews editors would not have entertained such doubts, if the
scientific community in general, had accepted NIST’s Report as sufficient and
convincing explanation of what happened. The fact is, the scientific community
by its silence, has rejected the Report as unscientific.
Can we first have the truth of what happened before we proceed to the
next step? It is not WTC7 alone that was brought down by Controlled Demolition
but all the three buildings. The focus is on WTC7 only because there are fewer
fig leaves to cover up the truth in this case with accurate recording of stage
2 of the collapse.
The massive cover up and denial of the physical, visual and eye-witness
evidence, and silencing of all the first responders, those affected, the
families of those who died, and those who gave evidence to the government,
clearly shows that Uncle Sam is afraid of the truth. They achieved this cover
up through 911 event specific legislations as discussed in my comment with the
heading “How the Truth is Covered and Bottled up”.
Once the truth of what made the buildings collapse is established, and
if it turns out that the collapse was assisted by controlled demolition, it is
for Uncle Sam to investigate and tell us how this could happen. It is not for
me to answer the question. My job is to nail the lies. Investigation and
finding the truth is the government's job.
I do not see any answer to my questions. I repeat them below:
Has the final report while acknowledging the free fall in stage 2
explained it? What took away the steel structure for 8 storeys below which
according to Shyam Sunder’s own admission is necessary for free fall? How do
you explain free fall in stage 2 except by accepting that this was controlled
demolition? Why does the computer model that was used to give the conclusions
not show the free fall? The conclusion then is not based on what happened but
by faking data.
Shyam Sunder’s explanation is not
“consistent with physical principles” and he has himself dropped the
pretension that it is. So, let us first have an explanation which is consistent
with physical principles and observed behaviour.
Anyone except one who is deaf, dumb and blind can see that Uncle Sam is
behaving as a conspirator with plenty to hide and has taken every step to
ensure that light is not allowed to shine on what happened. Why, if it has
nothing to hide and is telling the truth?
The ones like GUS who are convinced that Uncle Sam is lying are supporting the massive cover-up and arguing against a truly scientific and
impartial investigation because they fear that the conspiracy theories will be proved right.
If Ghulam Uncle Sam did not believe in the conspiracy theories, he would have supported the call of the thousands of architects, engineers, scientists and demolition experts who are only asking for a truly scientific and impartial investigation. All that is required is to allow the sun to shine on the truth and once the truth is known, there will be no need for any speculation or theories. He is afraid that such an investigation will expose the lies of Uncle Sam. Why is the NIST report not peer reviewed by say the four top departments of structural engineering of the Universities?
Uncle Sam wants us to swallow the final submission of Al Capone's lawyer to the
jury as proof of the defendant's innocence!
has read the report and did not find the answers and therefore cannot answer
them. The fact is that the questions are unanswered. The computer simulation by
not reproducing the observed and recorded data, does not explain what happened,
but something else altogether.
Sunder was told that a cow did fly and to explain as best as he could, how this
happened, so that people will believe that a cow can fly. He struggled with the
job for years. As late as March 2006, four and a half years after the event, he
was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble
getting a handle on building No. 7.”
he cobbled together a story, and grandly announced to the world, that he had
figured out how the cow flew, and that this was no longer a mystery! Why is
this breath-taking discovery and explanation not hailed by the scientific
community? Why Dr Shyam Sunder has not been showered with awards from
professional bodies during the ten years since his brilliant finding? While he received
the Walter L. Huber
Civil Engineering Research Prize in 1991 from the American Society of Civil
Engineers, why hasn’t he received an award for this brilliant explanation of a most
extraordinary and miraculous event? Why isn’t he the most sought-after speaker
in the Universities explaining his great discovery? Why has the scientific
community not embraced such a brilliant analysis and explanation and giving it
the cold shoulder? Because, the Report is a scientific fraud.
Expectedly, the Government has rewarded him with awards, while earlier,
he had received no award from the government. He has received the Presidential
Rank Award of Distinguished Executive (2017) and the Gold Medal Award (2005)
from the U.S. Department of Commerce, its highest honor, for distinguished
leadership of the federal building and fire safety investigation of the World
Trade Center Disaster. Please
note that the government award is also only for the safety investigation and
not for his analysis of the causes of collapse.
Ghulam Uncle Sam can
read whatever he wants to read and provide answers to the following questions:
Has the final report
while acknowledging the free fall in stage 2 explained it? What took away the
steel structure for 8 storeys below which according to Shyam Sunder’s own
admission is necessary for free fall? How do you explain free fall in stage 2 except
by accepting that this was controlled demolition? Why does the computer model that
was used to give the conclusions not show the free fall? The conclusion then is
not based on what happened but by faking data.
These are the questions
that the authors of the article in europhysicsnews and thousands of architects,
engineers, scientists, professors and demolition experts are asking. There is no answer except by accepting that it
was controlled demolition that brought down the buildings and the fires and the
planes crashing could never have been enough to cause the collapse at the speed
at which these buildings collapsed.
Uncle Sam, you have still not found the answer to the question that nails Uncle
And who says Al Capone's lawyer is any less
honorable than Shyam Sunder? Nobody ever said that those who defend the
criminals are not honorable people - not even if they lose the case and much
less when they win. They are doing their job and what they do is perfectly
legal as long as they do not perjure themselves or lie under an oath. Will
Shyam Sunder answer the question that I have asked under an oath? Uncle Sam has
passed necessary legislation to ensure that Shyam Sunder cannot be taken to
court and asked any questions regarding his report under an oath. The Report
cannot be used as evidence in any case. Uncle Sam is far more resourceful than
Al Capone and has provided protection to SS for his misleading conclusions
amounting to a lie.
The final Report
describes the collapse in 3 stages. The free fall in stage 2 is the distinctive
signature of a controlled demolition. If you find an alternate explanation to
controlled demolition for what is recorded in the final report for stage 2,
then talk. Otherwise you are wasting my time.
Even the most powerful government
on this earth could prove nothing against its own criminal; the notorious mafias
don Al Capone, and could only pin tax evasion on him. Should we then say
that all talk of his involvement in numerous murders, drug trade, prostitution,
human trafficking and gambling are only "conspiracy theories?"
If so, everyone on this earth is a conspiracy theorist.
In the case of 911,
Uncle Sam is both the accused and the investigator, without allowing recourse to
the affected to the pre-existing law, as the same is superseded by fresh
legislation to aid Uncle Sam to fully cover up the tracks and become the sole
arbitrator of the truth of what happened. Why is there such secrecy if what
Uncle Sam is saying is the truth? Why prevent any light from being shone on the
happenings even 17 years after the event? Why cannot the US government make
available the evidence collected to all and let the Universities study the phenomenon
and derive necessary learning from the physical laws defying "extraordinary" miraculous event and modify
Newton’s laws and replace action= reaction by reaction is unrelated to action
and anything can happen?
earlier comment provides a link to the NIST Report:
comment is based on the acknowledged fact of free fall through 8 floors or for
2.25 secs in the NIST Report.
is not even a mention of this free fall in the link provided by Ghulam Uncle
Sam let alone an explanation for it.
the free fall was acknowledged, Shyam Sunder had said that his analysis was “consistent
with physical principles.”
he was prevailed upon by the evidence presented to acknowledge the free fall,
he dropped the pretension that his analysis is consistent with physical
computer model, by not incorporating the free fall, does not explain what happened.
Sunder, the NIST report, Popular Mechanics and every supporter of the Official
Lies ignores the free fall since there is no alternation explanation to it
except Controlled Demolition.
Sunder keeps calling it an “extraordinary event”. Indeed, it is more than
extraordinary – it is a miracle that defies the laws of physics if we are to believe in the official lie. He is asking the
knowledgeable to believe in miracles. Plainly, he is just doing his job of
rubber stamping what the government wants him to say as much as what the 911
Commissioners were doing.
Uncle Sam, if you do not have an explanation for the free fall for 2.25 secs,
you do not have an answer. Stop posting irrelevant noise produced by the
supporters of the Official Lie.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."
Conspiracy theorists have long pointed to the collapse of the 47-story structure as key evidence that the U.S. government orchestrated or abetted the 9/11 attacks. No planes struck the building, and the commonly available views of the exterior didn't show significant damage. Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. "It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.
Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.
The Proof that WTC7 was
brought down by Controlled Demolition
Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, claimed that in NIST’s structural model the
visible portion of WTC7 fell for a distance equivalent to 17 floors in 5.4 s,
which is 1.5 s or 40% longer than a time of 3.9 s that would be the case for
free fall. NIST had stated that this is “consistent with physical
principles.” All this while, NIST was
steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined
conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7
underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical
briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “A free-fall time would be an
object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7,
he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after
being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics
professor Steven Jones, who had measured the fall on video, did NIST
acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.
incorporated a value of 2.25 s of free fall, into its ﬁnal report and quietly
removed the statement about its analysis being “consistent with physical
principles”, indirectly acknowledging that its analysis was no
longer consistent with physical principles. The NIST’s computer model does
not show such period of free fall which is an indirect acknowledgement that what they
are saying is the cause for the collapse is inconsistent with the observed free
fall of the building. There is therefore
indirect acknowledgment that what they are saying is what they are made to say and
bears no relationship with recorded data. The government has
facilitated the NIST to behave in this manner with appropriate legislation, since
it was not their objective to use NIST to ascertain the truth, but to use it to
rubber stamp what the Government wanted all to believe.
Shyam Sunder of NIST “A free-fall time is an object that has no structural
components below it.” The question is what removed the structural components
below it. The only explanation that fits the observed behaviour is that the
structural material was removed by external forces which is the same as saying
that it was brought down through controlled demolition. The NIST has failed to
state the obvious, while indirectly acknowledging that their analysis is no
longer consistent with physical principles, and their conclusions about the
reasons for the building’s collapse is inconsistent with recorded data.
How the Truth
is Covered and Bottled up
NIST could do this
and get away with it because their study is in accordance with the law enacted on October 1, 2002,
called the National Construction Safety Team Act (NCSTA) with the clear purpose
of ensuring better safety for such buildings in the future. The objective of
the study is not to establish the cause of collapse of the buildings. The cause
is implicitly understood to be the two planes crashing into two towers and the
third by debris of the collapsing tower falling onto it. The NIST is therefore
under no threat of any action against it for not correctly establishing the
causes of failure. The NIST has limited their analysis to establish what may
have most probably initiated the collapse so that future designs may prevent
such initiation of collapse. The NIST therefore ignores what happened after
what they think initiated the collapse and simply say that complete collapse
became inevitable once the collapse commenced as though partial destruction and
collapse are impossible and unknown!
"How do you know that the
complete collapse became inevitable?" asked Alice.
"It must have been," said
Mad Hatter, "or the buildings wouldn’t have collapsed completely!”
“How did it collapse at free fall
speed when that is impossible without Controlled Demolition?” asked Alice wide-eyed
“Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast.” Answered Mad Hatter
The evidence was collected from eye-witnesses under Non-Disclosure
Agreements. These witnesses cannot therefore disclose to others, the evidence
they gave. Also, the evidence collected was by means of close ended questions
leaving no scope for the witnesses to say what the NIST did not want to hear.
The NIST began its study a year after the event and much after the site
was cleared of all the debris. They are therefore not responsible for any
omissions in what was reported by the witnesses since they had no means of
independently verifying anything.
Under the NCSTA act, the Report cannot be used by any party in any
litigation against any other party. The NIST also solely and exclusively
possesses all evidence collected and are empowered under the act to keep the
evidence to themselves and not to disclose it. Independent investigations are
therefore impossible and therefore there can be no litigation against any party
for their acts of omission and commission.
The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) was created by an Act
of Congress, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (49 USC
40101), shortly after 9/11 to compensate the victims of the attack (or their
families) in exchange for their agreement not to sue the airline corporations
involved or the government even if they are dissatisfied with the compensation.
The government is bearing all the expenses at taxpayers’ expense and therefore
the Airlines and insurance companies are happy and not complaining.
The owner of the WTC is the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey. Larry Silverstein is only a lease holder and he is liable to rebuild.
However, the government agency overseeing the project, the Lower Manhattan
Development Corp., is only factoring the insurance payout into its plans. So,
he does not stand to lose either.
The only losers are the consortium of insurance and re-insurance
companies. In the normal course, the insurance companies do not settle without
a proper investigation, but the government has made independent investigation
impossible through their legislation and unilaterally determined the cause
of collapse as the terrorist event and made this determination of cause
incontestable in any court. The insurance Cos have no choice but to grin and
bear it. Since the government is the owner of the property, and the lease holder
is liable to it and the insurance companies to the lease holder, the government
has full say on how the claims are settled.
Every step has been taken to ensure that the government is in full
control of every aspect and there is no scope for questioning anyone or for any
litigation. In the normal course, what we would
have had are open investigations for the truth to emerge.
thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, demolition experts, professors
who do not accept the Government’s version and all that they are asking for is
an open investigation into the reasons for the collapse. As described, even
NIST is not charged with the responsibility of providing the answer and the 911
Commission Report does not even mention the collapse of WTC7. We are simply to
accept what the Government says as the truth although even NIST indirectly
acknowledges that the observed behaviour is inconsistent with what the
Government would have everyone believe. Uncle Sam is lying and has taken every
step to ensure that the truth does not emerge. After 17 years, why cannot the
government open the matter to independent study by departments of structural
engineering of reputed universities? Because
the truth is too dangerous.
What the Chilcot Report, General Wesley
Clark, and Ambassador Joe Wilson say, disproves your repeated jingoistic assertion
that, “9/11 was never seriously linked to Iraq except in the minds of loony
conspiracy theorists”. What is established through these references, is that Iraq
was always number one in the hit-list, and part of a prior plan that included
seven other countries. This grandiose plan required a cataclysmic event like
911 to execute. Your clumsy strenuous
efforts to delink Iraq from 911 has fallen flat and the laugh is on you.
I have already provided proof that WTC7
was brought down through controlled demolition. If Uncle Sam had said that the
terrorists had also set up the buildings for Controlled Demolition, then I had
no way of disproving that. I cannot however accept Uncle Sam’s explanation that
it came down through office fires. Uncle Sam is lying. The question is why
Uncle Sam is lying.
It is Ghulam Uncle Sam (GUS) who has run out of arguments and therefore
has been using words such as "loony", "idiotic",
"dim-witted", "stupid" etc. These words describe him.
One must have above normal IQ to ferret out a hidden devotee of Uncle
Sam who alternates between extreme cleverness and extreme stupidity as it suits
him. He may not be a real devotee but only a hypocritical one for
self-preservation, and if so, he deserves pity.
Is GUS saying that the Chilcot Report
that directly connects war on Iraq with 911 is also part of a "Conspiracy
Is GUS saying that General
Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander
of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia, and Democratic Party presidential
nomination as a candidate in 2003, is also a “Conspiracy theorist” for saying the
following in the interview and in his book Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003?
In the interview, Clark describes his
conversation with a General in the Pentagon nine days after 9/11 in which the
General called him in and said “We’ve made a decision, we are going to war with
Iraq”, Clark asked him ‘why’ and the General answered “I don’t know, I guess
they don’t know what else to do” Clark asked “did they find some information
connecting Saddam to Al-Qaeda?” The General said “No, no, there is nothing new
that way, they just made a decision to go to war with Iraq. I guess it’s like
we don’t know what to do with the terrorists, but we got a good military and
can take down governments”.
Clark further says that he came back to
see the general a few weeks later and by that time the US were bombing in
Afghanistan and he asked him, “do you still want to go to war with Iraq?”. He replied,
“it is worse than that”, he then picked up a paper and said, “I just got this
from the Secretary of Défense’s office, it is a memo that describes how we will
take out seven countries in five years beginning with Iraq, then Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
The Chilcot Report makes it clear that
Tony Blair prevailed upon Bush not to immediately attack Iraq but create a
better argument for doing so, and after enlisting the support of UN and a
coalition of countries. Blair changed his stand in 3 months and by December, he
was rooting along with Bush, for attacking Iraq claiming it possessed WMD.
Why was there a 911
Joe Wilson, last ambassador in Baghdad before the war, refers to
then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comment: "There are no targets
worth striking in Afghanistan, go strike Baghdad."
Then he recollects the
statement made by Bush at a fundraiser that "they tried to kill my
But the heart of the reason,
Wilson believes, lies in a document called the Project for the New American
Century. In it, a group that came to be known as the "Neo-Cons"
postulate an American military presence around the world, rather like the great
Roman Empire. "It says quite clearly that in order to make their grandiose
imperialistic ambitions come to life, you were going to need a cataclysmic
event along the lines of Pearl Harbor - 9/11 provided them that."
Linked to this, Wilson argues,
is a Middle East policy the Neo-Cons espoused. "They talked in terms of
the way to peace in the Middle East is not through Jerusalem, it is through
The question again - why would
the administration want to link 9/11 to Iraq?
"Nine-eleven got connected
to Iraq because you can't argue with 9/11. Every American out there and most
people worldwide have a gut reaction to 9/11. It is the perfect selling
point" Says Geoff Millard.
Will GUS also say that Joe Wilson is a
What Ambassador Joe Wilson said
fully corroborates what General Wesley Clark said although they are speaking
based on completely different and distinct sources of information. The Chilcot
report also confirms that Bush wanted to immediately attack Iraq but Tony Blair
held him off for sometime although not enough to make him seek the mandate of
the UN for attacking Iraq. Blair aligned completely with Bush by December 2001.
While no one of any consequence, and not even Bush and Blair
delink 911 with war on Iraq, GUS argues otherwise. What motivates him to show
such devotion to Uncle Sam that he has to be more loyal than the King?
Ghulam Uncle Sam wants us to
believe that Uncle Sam had nothing to do with 911, but were fortuitously
presented with the very cataclysmic event that they were hoping and wishing
for! He ignores all the evidence of the acts of omission and commission that
implicate the US government in 911. If the US government did not cause 911, then
why are they afraid of an open inquiry and investigation of the reasons for the
collapse? Can he find even one of the supporters of the Official lies, who have
addressed the question of free-fall of WTC7 through 8 stories for 2.25 seconds?
If there is no explanation for it except Controlled Demolition, then it was a controlled
Uncle Sam has indeed lost all his marbles to think that the war against Iraq
had nothing to do with 911. War with Iraq was part of the US' "War on
Terror", following the 9/11 attack, as set out in a 2003 State Department
document. Both Bush and Tony Blair openly made 911 the cause for a “war on
terror” which included war to change the Saddam regime. A four star highly
decorated General of the US army informs us, based on a visit to Pentagon, a
week after 911, that the US plan was
to wage war against seven countries in the next five years. youtube.com/watch?v=B3B5xzApMZg
one to my knowledge has even attempted to delink 911 from the war against Iraq.
The only exception is Ghulam Uncle Sam. This slave of Uncle Sam is more loyal
than the King!
to the Chilcot report, the 911 incident fundamentally changed" the US and
UK's approach to Iraq, hardening the
pair's (Bush and Blair) view of Saddam Hussein's regime.
report concludes that after the 9/11 attacks, the West abandoned its previous
policy of "containment" in favour of stamping out threatening regimes.
The Chilcot Report says then UK foreign
secretary Jack Straw told the inquiry "that the attacks led to a consensus
across the world that a policy of tolerating failing or failed states was
unacceptable. The perception of risk changed."
says the sheer scale of the carnage wreaked by Al-Qaeda changed the thinking.
GM sb conveniently forgets that Bush tried his best to link Iraq to 911 and when his efforts failed, he accused them of having WMDs and in general accused Saddam's regime as an encouragement for Al Qaeda. The efforts to implicate Iraq to wage war against it started in 2001 immediately following 911.The bombing of Afghanistan started a few weeks after 911 without giving diplomacy a chance.
General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia.
speaks of the prior plan to wage war against 7 countries and the US has waged war against four of them post 911.
Major General Albert Stubblebine is credited with redesigning the U.S. Army intelligence architecture during his time as commanding general of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) from 1981 to 1984. Here him speak on the subject:
The Pentagon, the White
House and Capitol Hill are protected at multiple levels and no plane or missile
can get anywhere near them and not get shot down by ground to air missiles. If
a plane or missile hits any of these targets, it can only be if there is "stand
down" order not to intercept the plane.
Plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania had taken off from Newark Airport
and after being hijacked, turned around and was heading back towards New York
and was most probably meant to hit WTC7. The 911 commission however
say that it was probably meant to hit the White House. This is an obvious red
herring and the flight path clearly shows that it was heading towards NY and
not Washington before it crashed. As
already discussed, WTC7 was in full readiness to be brought down with
Controlled Demolition, but unfortunately the plane that was to hit it, crashed into
a field in Pennsylvania because of resistance put up by the passengers. The WTC7
was brought down nevertheless, blaming
it on fires started by falling debris. The same falling debris did not affect
the two WTC towers standing between WTC1
and WTC7 or the Verizon building standing next to WTC7 and closer to WTC1.
Cases are decided by circumstantial evidence by
weighing the probabilities of occurrences.
is the probability, that on any given random day and time, a flying object
could enter the protected zone around the Pentagon and not get shot down? The
answer is zero.
what is the probability that a plane known to have been hijacked and heading
straight towards the Pentagon, can hit the Pentagon 47 minutes later without
any action being taken to divert it or bring it down? Less than zero if that is
what is the probability, that it is known that two hijacked planes have crashed
into the WTC, and a third hijacked plane is heading straight towards Pentagon,
and the plane hits Pentagon 47 minutes later? Beyond imagination.
What is the probability that after
the unimaginable has happened, no heads roll, no one is held accountable, and
no one is even reprimanded? This is beyond belief.
So, if somebody believes in the official story what
should we call him? We should call him a blind believer and devotee of Uncle
To believe in Uncle Sam’s story, if the person consciously
rejects the Laws of Physics and believes that what has shown to be a physical impossibility
has occurred simply because Uncle Sam says so, then the believer has stronger
faith in Uncle Sam than in Allah and His Laws of Physics.
Ghulam Mohiyuddin is such a believer and devotee of Uncle Sam. He leaves
Uncle Tom far behind and had he been born before, we would have called Uncle
Tom, Ghulam Uncle Sam. From this day, we should call him Ghulam Uncle Sam.
is GM sb who shows that either he is naïve or a knave.
What I have shown is that the FBI can and does
create a plot, trap people into participating in the plot, help them with funds
and material and clear all obstacles.
What is known and admitted
is that all three agencies the CIA, FBI and the NSA were aware of the
possibility of such an incident and the CNN even broadcast an interview, 9
weeks prior to 911, purportedly with OBL, that OBL was planning a major attack.
Bill Cooper, an independent broadcaster, warned that OBL would merely be the
scapegoat and that something terrible was going to happen and used as an excuse
to take away from the people their freedom. His words proved prophetic and he
relentlessly pursued exposing the government’s lapses. Bill Cooper was shot
dead shortly after 911. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phKiT2-94XU
The FBI was aware of those
taking flying lessons and tapped their conversations. All obstacles to carrying
out the plan were apparently cleared and the otherwise certainty of the USAF
bringing down the planes before they could do any damage was taken care of, and
none of the four planes was intercepted by the USAF.
The first hijack was at 8:14
AM which hit its target 32 minutes later, the second at 8:42 which hit its
target 20 minutes later, the third hijack was at 8:50 which hit Pentagon 47
minutes later, the fourth hijack was at 9:28 which crashed because of
resistance and fighting 35 minutes later. The drama of these four hijacked planes
went on for I hour 45 minutes, and not even the plane that hit the Pentagon 47
minutes after being hijacked, and I hr 23 minutes after the first hijack, was
intercepted by the USAF.
the terrorist plan was part of the government plan, and was helped through
execution. When it comes to making war, there is no difference between the
Democrats and the Republicans and the US media also fully supports it as part
of their nationalist duty. Stray broadcasters
like Bill Cooper are therefore easily eliminated. Bill Cooper is not the only
911 related victim of targeted killing.
Thanks Hats Off for exposing the farcical nature of the discussion that Ghulam Mohiyuddin carried out.
For those who are willing to learn more about the active role the FBI plays in acts of terrorism in the US, read: The Report of The Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/07/21/illusion-justice/human-rights-abuses-us-terrorism-prosecutions
This is a report of incidents since 911. The first bombing of the WTC in 1993 was also with the active involvement of the FBI. An excerpt from the report:
All of the high-profile domestic terrorism plots of the last decade, with four exceptions,30 were actually FBI sting operations—plots conducted with the direct involvement of law enforcement informants or agents, including plots that were proposed or led by informants.
Today’s terrorism sting operations reflect a significant departure from past practice. When the FBI undercover agent or informant is the only purported link to a real terrorist group, supplies the motive, designs the plot and provides all the weapons, one has to question whether they are combatting terrorism or creating it. Aggrandizing the terrorist threat with these theatrical productions only spreads public fear and divides communities, which doesn’t make anyone safer.34 In many of the sting operations we examined, informants and undercover agents carefully laid out an ideological basis for a proposed terrorist attack, and then provided investigative targets with a range of options and the weapons necessary to carry out the attack. Instead of beginning a sting at the point where the target had expressed an interest in engaging in illegal conduct, many terrorism sting operations that we investigated facilitated or invented the target’s willingness to act before presenting the tangible opportunity to do so. In this way, the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals.
In these cases, the informants and agents often chose targets who were particularly vulnerable—whether because of mental disability, or because they were indigent and needed money that the government offered them. In some cases—which have been particularly troubling for American Muslim communities—targets were seeking spiritual guidance, and the government informants or agents guided them towards violence. Relevant aspects of these cases are described below.
In the case of the “Newburgh Four,” for example, a judge said the government “came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles,” and had, in the process, made a terrorist out of a man “whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”
After hearing the recitation of the complete Ramayana, a listener asked,
"who is Rama?" GM sb’s question is in the same league!
What has been established is that what the Government is saying
happened, defies the laws of physics and is impossible.
It is for the government to investigate and tell us what the truth is,
but the US government has taken every step to prevent the truth from emerging.
It legislated laws that make it the sole arbitrator of truth which cannot be
questioned in any court of law, and made every kind of litigation by the
affected parties impossible, to prevent questions from being asked that demand
answers. All affected parties are compensated in accordance with laws enacted
after the event and covering the event. Why did the government have to do this?
Why did it not allow independent investigations by the insurers? Why did it not
allow the family of the passengers killed, to sue the Airlines or the Airport
authority for their lapses? Why did it not allow those killed or injured in the
collapse to sue their lessors, owners or employers for their acts of omission
and commission? Why did it not allow the lessors to sue the company in charge
of security and safety of the buildings? In the normal course, all of this
would have happened bringing out the complete truth and at least ensuring that
proper steps are taken to prevent recurrence. The government knows what the
truth is and does not want it to come out. It therefore takes complete charge
of every aspect to prevent the truth from emerging.
What is known and admitted is that all three agencies the CIA, FBI and
the NSA were aware of the possibility of such an incident.
The FBI was even aware of those taking flying lessons and tapped their
The FBI is known to encourage Muslims to indulge in terrorist acts and
even aid them and blackmail them into doing things they would not otherwise do.
It has proven capability to make a terrorist plan part of its own plan.
The government has proven ability to carry out any act in complete
secrecy through contractors who can ensure perfect secrecy.
What could have upset their plans is if the air force had acted as
expected and scrambled their jets to bring down the passenger airlines before
they could do the damage. The government has no answer why this did not happen
and why even the Pentagon could be attacked hours after the first attack and
forty minutes after it was known that the plane that eventually hit it had
changed its normal flight path. What is clear and established is that specific
acts were undertaken to ensure that the air force did not do anything on this
Expert pilots doubt, that those who can fly a Cessna and not even land
it perfectly, could have flown these aircraft and executed such
perfect manoeuvres. They suspect that the planes were taken control of and
flown by remote control. All the aircraft had systems in place for
being piloted remotely.
Something did go wrong and not as planned. WTC7 was wired up for
Controlled Demolition but was not hit by any plane. It was brought down
nevertheless as planned, and the fact that it was going to come down was known
all through the day. That it had collapsed or was about to collapse was aired
by several news channels the first of which was 70 minutes before the collapse.
The building was evacuated within the first hour after WTC 2 was hit and the
four thousand employees did so using the elevators. The elevators are usually
shut down if there is a fire as these could become death traps. There was
therefore no serious fire when it was evacuated. According to the NIST report,
the fires in WTC7 were seen only about noon. The sprinkler system did not work
nor did the firefighters make an attempt to fight the fire. The fire department
took a decision to pull out several hours before the collapse.
There is a CIA asset who reports that weeks before the incident, trucks
were seen coming at 3 AM after the last Janitorial bus had left and leaving by
5 AM before the first set of people arrived. This activity went on for several
weeks. There are photographs of cartons which appear to contain fuses.
A complete power break-down on the week-end preceding the incident is
reported ostensibly to change the internet cabling. During this period, the
electronic surveillance was down, and all electronically operated doors were
open allowing free access. The elevators were obviously down preventing workers
The building security and surveillance is contracted to a company owned
by Marvin Bush brother of the then President.
The technology to execute a remotely controlled demolition has existed
since WWII. All the first responders comprising personnel of the NYPD and FDNY
have reported hearing secondary explosions when the buildings came down.
The news channels, that first showed visuals of the collapsing
buildings, also commented that these were coming down in the manner of a
perfectly executed demolition job.
events that took place as observed/recorded are impossible for the cause
attributed to them is proven by science. What is possible is that:
1. The government made the
terrorist plan a sub-plan to their own plan and aided and assisted them
2. They carried out the complete
demolition of the buildings with prior planning to create a spectacle and
generate intense horror designed for maximum effect. They created the illusion
that this was entirely because of the terrorists crashing planes into the
buildings. This horrifying event and spectacle were used to wage war and push
through the PATRIOT act that deprives the citizens of the right to privacy.
3. The US government has a
proven/admitted past record of staging events to wage/escalate war and to
spread lies knowingly. That the US
government did stage a Controlled Demolition and made it look as if the
buildings collapsed because of a plane crashing into them, to serve their war
agenda is believable from the speed and eagerness with which they attacked Afghanistan
and Iraq and pushed through the PATRIOT act. It shows prior planning and
The NIST Report makes for interesting reading. The study is in accordance with the law enacted on October 1, 2002, called the National Construction Safety Team Act (NCSTA) with the clear purpose of ensuring better safety for such buildings in the future. The objective of the study is not to establish the cause of collapse of the buildings. The cause is implicitly understood to be the two planes crashing into two towers and the third by debris of the collapsing tower falling onto it. The NIST is therefore under no threat of any action against it for not correctly establishing the causes of failure. The NIST has limited their analysis to establish what may have most probably initiated the collapse so that future designs may prevent such initiation of collapse. The NIST therefore ignores what happened after what they think initiated the collapse and simply say that complete collapse became inevitable once the collapse commenced as though partial destruction and collapse are impossible and unknown!
"How do you know that the complete collapse became inevitable?" asked Alice.
"It must have been," said Mad Hatter, "or the buildings wouldn’t have collapsed completely.”
“How did it collapse at free fall speed when that is impossible without Controlled Demolition?” asked Alice wide-eyed
“Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Answered Mad Hatter
The evidence was collected from eye-witnesses under Non-Disclosure Agreements. These witnesses cannot therefore disclose to others, the evidence they gave. Also the evidence collected was by means of close ended questions leaving no scope for the witnesses to say what the NIST did not want to hear.
The NIST began its study a year after the event and much after the site was cleared of all the debris. They are therefore not responsible for any omissions in what was reported by the witnesses since they had no means of independently verifying anything.
Under the NCSTA act, the Report cannot be used by any party in any litigation against any other party. The NIST also solely and exclusively possesses all evidence collected and are empowered under the act to keep the evidence to themselves and not to disclose it. Independent investigations are therefore impossible and therefore there can be no litigation against any party for their acts of omission and commission.
The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) was created by an Act of Congress, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (49 USC 40101),shortly after 9/11 to compensate the victims of the attack (or their families) in exchange for their agreement not to sue the airline corporations involved. The airlines also cannot be sued.
The owner of the WTC is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Larry Silverstein is only a lease holder and he is liable to rebuild. However, the government agency overseeing the project, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., is only factoring the insurance payout into its plans. So, he does not stand to lose either.
The only losers are the consortium of insurance and re-insurance companies. In the normal course, the insurance companies do not settle without a proper investigation but the government has made independent investigation impossible through their legislation and unilaterally determined the cause of collapse as the terrorist event and made this determination of cause incontestable in any court. The insurance Cos have no choice but to grin and bear it. Since the government is the owner of the property, and the lease holder is liable to it and the insurance companies to the lease holder, the government has full say on how the claims are settled.
Every step has been taken to ensure that the government is in full control of every aspect.
you believe, that on a single day, three events, that defy the easily
understandable laws of physics, and which could not be explained by the
Official spokesperson or reproduced by them either through computer simulation or
through experiments with scaled down models occurred, then you are a believer
in miracles. Such believers can be made to believe in anything, which is why
education means little when it comes to perpetuating falsehoods and blind
beliefs among such people.
after being explained and shown experiments which demonstrate what the Official spokesperson are saying is impossible, you continue to stick to the false story,
then you are an active participant in the perpetuation of the lie. My comments
are not meant to waste time on such people but to educate those who are willing
to learn the truth.
The use of the expression “Objective reality testing” is apparently a
borrowed expression and means nothing to GM sb.
There is an objective fact that is admitted in the official report of
the NIST on the collapse of WTC7. The objective fact is that in stage 2 of the
collapse, the building experienced free fall through 8 storeys for 2.25 secs.
What is the objective reality that explains such a free fall in stage
2? The Objective reality is that only in a Controlled Demolition, we
see a free fall in stage 2 of the collapse.
The Official Liars and their supporters will talk about everything else except what gives away the truth and nails their elaborate lies.
The use of the expression “Objective
reality testing” is apparently a borrowed expression and means nothing to GM
There is an objective fact that is admitted in the
official report of the NIST on the collapse of WTC7. The objective fact is that
in stage 2 of the collapse, the building experienced free fall through 8
storeys for 2.25 secs.
What is the objective reality that explains such a
free fall in stage 2? The Objective
reality is that only in a Controlled Demolition, we see a free fall in stage 2 of the collapse.
The Official Liars and their supporters will talk about everything except what gives away the truth.
GM sb has the gall to talk about objective reality
testing. I do not know what he means by that, but I am willing to listen to him.
Can he take the official NIST report on WTC7 that can be downloaded from: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
and its description of the three-stage collapse, and explain the stage 2
which records a free fall for 2.25 secs through eight stories, and show us how
this is possible through an experiment conducted by any of the Official Liars?
That such a thing is impossible, is very well demonstrated by the experiments as
shown in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hICX2m3mDo4
Dr Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator of NIST, concedes
that such a free fall is impossible without removing the structure below, and therefore,
the free-fall is not a part of their computer simulation explaining the
collapse. What they “explain” through their simulation is therefore not what
happened. This part therefore remains unexplained by the Official Liars,
although recorded as objective fact. The reason for this, as every structural
engineer and demolition expert knows, is that the free-fall is the distinctive signature
of a Controlled Demolition and nothing else. We also know, that the NIST at
first ignored relevant evidence of free fall, and only acknowledged after being
challenged in a public interaction.
Ghulam Mohiyuddin sb provides the proof that education
means very little, and a doctor does not necessarily mean that he has mastered
even school level physics, and that such a person can be both poor in theory
and unable to comprehend even when the principles of physics are so clearly demonstrated
through experiments. Those who propagate lies to achieve their political
objectives understand the limitations of the people very well and therefore go
about their business without a care.
Why couldn’t GM sb learn the stark obvious reality of
destruction by explosives of the Plasco Building in Tehran, Iran on January 19,
2017, on his own? Why did he throw this
non-example to ‘prove’ what does not constitute proof? Again, how does an
abandoned, unfit for occupation Wilton Paes de Almeida Building in São Paulo, Brazil,
meant to be pulled down and completely ablaze provide the proof?
The fact that there is no example prior to WTC
collapse although previously there have been thousands of fires and there are two
examples post 911, should make an intelligent person pause and think. The fact
that the USA has completely fooled the world with the WTC collapse story, has
only emboldened others to try something similar. Would the owners of Wilton
Paes de Almeida Building in São Paulo allow it to be occupied by illegal
squatters and not make any attempt to reclaim the land to build a new building?
They would certainly have wanted to pull it down but apparently, they couldn’t get
the necessary permissions for it and destruction by “accidental” fire remained the
only option. Whether this was aided or unaided by human intervention and whether
this was truly an accident, we will never know. Such a building obviously had free
unhindered access to everyone and especially the owners who may have kept part
of the building in their control.
The NIST report makes interesting reading for many more reasons which I will discuss later.
The Plasco Building
One must be blind not
to see the explosives going off. This is a case of a poorly executed demolition
The points to note:
1. Fires were put off completely and
tenants had begun re-entering when the explosives go off
2. A poorly executed demolition job
because of which the columns remain in one piece while the floors collapse.
When the structural integrity is destroyed by a few columns separating from the
rest of the structure, the building topples over. Poor timing and poor
synchronization produce a non-symmetric collapse. The building does not collapse
on its own footprint but the undestroyed part topples over.
Wilton Paes de
This was an unsafe
building, abandoned and occupied by illegal squatters and therefore not
maintained at all. Maintenance requires maintaining the fire proofing of
exposed load bearing steel, water sprinklers and other fire-fighting equipment.
See in the video, that unlike, the WTC and the Tehran building, this building
is complexly ablaze with fire blazing furiously on every floor. The implication
is obvious - the entire building is weakened equally, and if collapse initiates
in any part, the additional stress that the collapse tries to pass on to the remaining
part, cannot be absorbed, as every part is equally weakened, resulting in
complete collapse. There is no healthy non-burning part of the building to resist
the collapse, and the entire building will collapse like a house of cards, when
failure occurs in any part. There is nothing unusual or surprising about this
case. The only surprising part is that such an unsafe building, was not pulled
down by the authorities, who merely abandoned it.
Where is the
comparison with WTC?
As against this,
three WTC buildings collapse in the manner of perfectly engineered and executed
demolition jobs although very few floors are affected by fire and we are to
believe that such perfect examples are not demolition jobs but caused by events
not engineered to cause a perfect collapse on its own footprint!
There is absolute
silence of the government experts on the free fall speed recorded although they
acknowledge the free fall and its implication that it means the building
encountered no resistance. How did this happen when the floors below were unaffected
Questions that arise
Jonathan H Cole
raises pertinent questions based on the official falsehoods about the collapse
of these buildings. If their lies about WTC are to be believed, then the NIST
should declare all high-rise buildings as structurally unsafe to withstand fire,
even if a few floors are affected by the fire, and since such fires can cause
sudden collapse (WTC7), a building on fire should be only evacuated but the fire-men
should not risk their lives by trying to fight the fires even from the outside,
since the debris from the sudden collapse of the building can easily kill those
who are struck by it. NIST and other agencies that are charged with laying down
standards to ensure safety of high-rise
buildings, have no answers.
Soon after the day of the attacks, major media sources published that the towers had collapsed due to heat melting the steel. Knowledge that the burning temperatures of jet fuel would not melt the steel support structure of the WTC contributed to the belief among skeptics that the towers would not have collapsed without external interference (something other than the planes). NIST does not claim that the steel was melted, but rather that the weakened steel, together with the damage caused by the planes' impacts, caused the collapses. NIST reported that a simulation model based on the assumption that combustible vapors burned immediately upon mixing with the incoming oxygen showed that "at any given location, the duration of [gas] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 to 20 [minutes]. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were 500 °C or below."
Since 9/11, at least two steel-framed high-rise buildings have collapsed following blazes — the Plasco Building in Tehran, Iran on January 19, 2017, and the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building in São Paulo, Brazil, on May 1, 2018.
The following statement is a
“Numerous engineers and
scientists have argued that the rate at which the buildings fell is consistent
with the manner in which the towers failed, and that the exact time of total
collapse is hard to pin down reliably in the first place.”
As a matter of fact, it equally applies to “Controlled
Demolition” as shown below:
“Numerous engineers and
scientists have argued that the rate at which the buildings fell is consistent
with the manner in which the towers failed (Controlled Demolition).
The exact time of total collapse is
irrelevant to determining whether it was brought down by Controlled Demolition
In a Controlled Demolition, there are
(1) See the
videos on how nano thermite works. There is no explosion and therefore it
produces no more sound than that produced by a blow torch. As it cuts in the
manner of a blow torch and sufficiently weakens the steel, the building sags
and the structural members reach a breaking point.
(2) In this stage, all the members that are being
cut by nano thermite snap and the building from above the lowest floor on which
nano thermite is used to cut the steel members, experiences free fall.
(3)The free fall (through 8 storeys in the case of
WTC7) is enough to crush the remaining structure below and above and therefore
the entire building. The destruction of this part is using the kinetic energy
of the falling building. Since energy is required to destroy the remaining
building, and no external energy is being supplied for this, the destruction is
by absorbing the kinetic energy or by slowing down the fall. The building
experiences deceleration in this stage although the velocity of fall may not
slow down unless the deceleration is greater than ‘g’. If it is greater than ‘g’,
or for arguments sake equal to 2g, then the fall of the building will be
totally arrested after about another 8 storeys are destroyed. The remaining
building will remain standing. Total destruction is ensured if the deceleration
is not so great as to halt the destruction before it is complete.
The point to note is that even in the case of Controlled Demolition,
free fall is only in stage 2. As explained, if the Controlled Demolition is not
properly planned, the complete building may not be destroyed and therefore when
there is no total collapse, the exact time of total collapse is irrelevant. The
unique signature of a Controlled Demolition is in stage 2, and the WTC7 is
acknowledged by the NIST in its report to have experienced free fall through 8
storeys for 2.25 secs in stage 2. All the three stages reported by the NIST in
its report, are consistent with “Controlled Demolition”
An intelligent reader
quickly focuses on the key information and arrives at the correct conclusion.
The logical argument
the article in europhysicsnews, confirmed by NIST final report on the collapse
of WTC7, we know that:
1. NIST at
first Ignored relevant evidence of free fall and only acknowledged after being
challenged. Their final report includes
in their description of the event, the free fall through the height of 8
storeys or for 2.25 secs. This is therefore acknowledged fact.
NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt
to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it for
eight stories to slow it down”.
There is no alternate explanation for the recorded free fall
for 2.25 secs, through the height of 8 storeys, except controlled demolition
which is why the computer simulation cannot show the free fall without
admitting to Controlled Demolition which the NIST is determined not to accept.
How can the above
conclusion be proved false?
The above conclusion can be disproved by either
establishing that there was no free fall at any stage of the collapse (premises
is false). This is not possible because NIST has acknowledged free fall in its
final report during the second stage of the collapse.
By showing how this can happen in any other
situation which is not a controlled demolition which the NIST has failed to do
since their computer model ignores the observed data of free fall through 8
storeys or for 2.25 secs.
Indeed, a free fall through the height of 8 storeys means
simultaneous (as against progressive) failure of every structural member at
multiple points which is impossible, except when external forces are applied,
as in a controlled demolition. The NIST report for obvious reasons speaks and
can speak only of progressive failure, and not of simultaneous failure, which would
require them to account for the external forces, which they cannot except by
admitting to assisted collapse or Controlled Demolition.
Most people do not even possess this much of knowledge and
intelligence to arrive at the correct conclusion themselves.
My attribution is
accurate. Europhysicsnews is a magazine. I didn't say it is a Science Journal. It
is owned by the European
Physical Society .
The difference between a Science journal and a Magazine is that
the Science Journal is for the scholars and a Magazine is for the general
public. A Magazine publishes scientific ideas and news in layman language.
For reasons that should be obvious, a Science Journal, or the
Department of Structural Engineering of any university, will not say anything
on the subject if what they have to say is against the official story, unless
invited to do so.
A magazine is not necessarily less stringent in its approach, but
even with the NIST not cooperating by making available their model and data,
has to respond to their readers' need for informed and considered opinion on
any subject. The fall-out of publishing such an article would have been a sharp
reaction from official sources and their supporters because of which, they gave
out those statements.
The reason that they even published such an article, is because
the article argues with clinching evidence admitted by NIST and taken on record
in its report. The clinching evidence is the fact that WTC7 experienced
free fall for 8 storeys or 2.25 secs. As
known by everyone who knows high school physics, this is possible only when the
structure below is offering zero resistance which is admitted by Dr Shyam
Sunder of NIST. The only imaginable scenario for such a condition is Controlled
Demolition which is why the NIST does not reproduce free-fall in its computer
model. The computer model of the NIST is after plenty of fitting and fudging
of the data to show an unassisted collapse which is why they will not share
their data and assumptions with anyone.
The magazine Eourphysiscsnews therefore stands on a very
strong ground and can only be pushed around a little, but not to the extent of making
them withdraw their article. It is a serious Science Magazine with an excellent
reputation and not a tabloid.
My comment correctly and accurately gives the source of the article ,“On the
physics of high rise building collapses” published by Europhysics News, the magazine of the
European physics community and owned by the European Physical Society in Vol 47 number 4 of 2016.
Has GM sb found a flaw in the attribution?
He says that the article is not peer reviewed. When thousands of
architects and engineers voice the same concerns, it is as good as peer
reviewed by them. Fifteen years after 911, if the magazine chose to invite the professors who have been exposing the lies to write an article, the reason
must be that its board is also unconvinced of the official story and this article is their
way of supporting the movement for transparency and bringing out the truth. Is
there anything wrong with that? I am glad that the world has not completely lost all honesty and decency.
Has NIST got its conclusions validated by the Structural Engineering
Department of any University to ensure that there is an independent validation and
confirmation of its conclusions? If not, then why not? I bet no department of
structural engineering of any reputable university will endorse its
conclusions. Why is the NIST report taken at face value then?
The article focuses on what NIST has agreed after being challenged and
included in its report but not in its simulation. NIST agreed that WTC7
experienced free fall through 8 storeys or the first 2.25 seconds. Why does the
NIST model simulating the collapse not show the free fall for 2.25 seconds then?
Because, a free fall through 8 storeys only means controlled demolition and
they cannot admit that.
All that NIST must do if it is telling the truth and not lying, is to
invite the Structural Engineering Department of say MIT, to validate its model
and conclusions. I am sure NIST, which could not get its handle on the collapse
mechanism, would have consulted several professors of structural engineering to
help them understand, besides the company that designed the towers, and if
there is not one professor of structural engineering speaking for them, it is
because no professor of structural engineering agrees with their conclusions. Yes,
they have a couple of professors from other disciplines speaking for them in
very general terms carefully avoiding specifics, and especially avoiding
speaking about WTC7 apart from a cursory mention. WTC7 is the smoking gun which nobody wants to discuss in any detail.
Can snopes.com be an arbitrator of truth in this case? What is its
competence to judge on technical issues? How frivolous can you get!
Issues of false attribution aside, the article was written by four authors who have aggressivelypromoted 9/11 conspiracy theories and who are members of groups such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 911 Truth. The paper primarily targets the official conclusion of the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, which argued that fire adequately explained the collapse of all three WTC buildings. The Europhysics Newsarticle relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:
understands Science and Logic, may read the article ,“On the physics of high rise
building collapses” that was published by Europhysics
News, the magazine of the
European physics community and owned by the European Physical Society in Vol 47 number 4 of 2016. While we
may expect official bodies to tell official lies, we do not expect the EPS,
which has its reputation at stake, to indulge in senseless theories especially
when these challenge the official story. We also do not expect the thousands of
Engineers and Architects whose license to practice their profession can be
suspended if they indulged in unscientific speculation, to question the
official story without a sound basis. All of them may have suffered some loss
of good-will and business because of taking up an unpopular position opposing
the official “nationalistic” one.
Excerpt from the article are reproduced below:
The case of
The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown
in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of
an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25
seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories . Its
transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately
one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was
almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s
footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles.
Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given
the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method
should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not
started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST
investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was
caused by fires. Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult.
FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC
7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.
Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential
energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST,
meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to
November 2008. As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was
quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a
handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in
ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most
notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about
that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying,
“[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below
it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance
that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David
Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones, who had measured the fall on
video, did NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final
report. Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did
NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components
below it” for eight stories. Instead, NIST’s final report provides an
elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal
expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining girder off its seat. The alleged
walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor
failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also
due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories,
causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse
of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow
shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and
the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit . NIST was able to arrive
at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural
features in its computer modelling. Correcting just one of these errors
renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with
errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer
model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing
large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and
showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation,
less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s
computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to
release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might
jeopardize public safety.”
repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed
high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three
separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to
support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects,
engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the
conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.
Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this
hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by
4:11 PM CNN News
WTC7 has either collapsed or is collapsing
4:50 PM ABC
News – WTC7 is in danger of collapsing
5:03 PM MSNBC
building is in danger of collapsing
BBC also went
on air saying that the building had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually
collapse actually started at 5:20:33 PM
The News was
spread that the building was going to collapse, and the News Channels were
airing this at least 70 minutes before the collapse started. How did those in
authority know that the building was going to collapse? Did any high-rise
building before collapse because of an office fire? Then what made them think
that it was going to collapse? As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator,
Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve
had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7”. Why does he have such great
trouble getting a handle on building 7 when Larry Silverstein and the fire
department were so sure of the building’s imminent collapse even before it
collapsed? Why didn’t Dr. Shyam Sunder
ask Larry Silverstein and the fire department to educate him about what made
them so certain while he is unable to figure out even after 5 years of
In any case,
the entire area was cleared of people because of the imminent collapse of the
building and therefore, nobody was anywhere near the building when it collapsed
and even the adjoining buildings were evacuated. The question of anybody seeing
or hearing anything when it collapsed does not arise and all videos of the
collapse are taken from very long distances.
said in his own article that” Larry
Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the
phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled
demolition of the building…….Many law enforcement
personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible
option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.”
Had he known that
Controlled Demolition takes months to plan, he may have suppressed this
information. My comment says, Shapiro is
an ardent defender of the official 911 story and so GM sb reproducing Shapiro’s
defense of the official story is
redundant. The point that I am making, is that everyone knew that Controlled
Demolition of the building was under active consideration, and this of course
required the insurers to authorize it.
1. How was Controlled Demolition considered
as an option, if the building was not already wired for it?
2. What made everyone so sure of the
buildings collapse, so much so, that the news channels were airing the news a
good 70 minutes before actual collapse, but the lead investigator from NIST is
unable to understand what caused the collapse even after detailed
investigations for 5 years?
"Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.
Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.
The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
In no instance did I ever once talk to one source who even hinted the American government had any foreknowledge or involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. As an investigative reporter who survived the collapse of Building 7 and doggedly investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories in the wake of the attack, I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies.
I was there.
I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks. Governor Ventura has discredited himself, and dishonored and defamed his country by promoting these intellectually dishonest views. He should be ashamed of himself."
And how the
supporters of the Official lies distort! If what Larry meant was to tell the Chief
of Fire department to “pull out” his men, he should be saying “pull out” and not
“pull it”. What is “it” here - the fire fighting men or the building?
to Fox News journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, an ardent defender of the
official 9/11 story, Larry Silverstein had controlled demolition on his mind on
September 11, 2001, and it was no secret to the NYPD and others on the ground
that day. In an article entitled ‘Shame On Jesse Ventura!’ Shapiro wrote:
before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers
told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial
Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would
authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was
already unstable and expected to fall.
controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s
imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel,
firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There
was no secret. There was no conspiracy.”
Shapiro is apparently unaware of, is that it takes months of planning and setup
to demolish a skyscraper, and this was not an option, unless the building was
already wired up for controlled demolition.
video from 12:41 in which Larry says “Got a call from the fire department
commander telling me that they were not sure they’ll be able to contain the
fire. I said you know it had such
terrible loss of life. If it is policy, just do it. Just pull it. They made
that decision to pull. Then watched the building collapse.”
of Pull is clear. Who are these people to whom “Just Pull it” means “Just
evacuate it?” And why would the fire chief seek Larry’s permission to evacuate?
Do not the fire alarms go off if there is so much as smoke forcing the tenants
to evacuate? Does GM sb think that after
WTC1 And WTC2 had collapsed and WTC7 had caught fire, people remained inside
the building and were dutifully waiting for the fire chief to tell them to
evacuate? And the fire chief required Larry’s permission to do so? How
ridiculous can GM sb get!
The media knew about the decision to pull down when
Larry Silverstein gave the order to pull it down which is why the BBC (See
video at 11:41) assumed that it was pulled down when it aired the news of its
collapse 20 minutes before it was actually pulled down. In another video, youtube.com/watch?v=vVhsSH4yBa8
see who all had foreknowledge based on Larry Silverstein’s decision, that the
building was going to be pulled down before it was actually pulled down.
Neither does the video nor have I accused Larry Silverstein of Insurance
fraud. GM sb is digressing.
The following is a good video:
Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC
is on record in the video saying that he gave the order to pull down WTC7. The
question is how could they set up the explosives for pulling down the building
in such a short time when it takes weeks to do so? It was therefore already wired
for the demolition. And why does the official explanation continue to be that
it was destroyed by the office fire and not pulled down? Because they cannot
explain how it could be wired up for controlled demolition in a few hours!
BBC announces the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes
before it actually fell!
See at 11:17 how the buildings are
placed. WTC1 is on the north surrounded by WTC5 and WTC6 to its north in the
same compound and a street is to the north of them and WTC7 is across the
street. How come WTC5 and 6 which are closest to WTC1 and shield WTC7 were not
affected but WTC7 was? Also, WTC2 is very close to and between WTC3 and 4 which
were not affected.
GM Sb is a doctor but his education may not
be relevant to what is being discussed. What can I say about his intelligence
when he believes the following without supporting evidence and in fact in the
face of compelling evidence to the contrary?
(1) 9/11 was the
result of a vast and extremely elaborate conspiracy that only the conspiracy
enthusiast can comprehend.
It is GM sb who is trying to make a big
deal about the incident. On the contrary, 911 is nothing new or difficult for
the US to execute. They have built the necessary infrastructure for executing
any monstrosity in complete secrecy and ensuring that it remains secret. Can
you imagine their dependence on private contractors who are given protection
from legal consequences of their criminal acts? Read the black deeds of
Blackwater with which the government agencies have an incestual relationship.
High ranking officials who give business to Blackwater are eventually absorbed
by Blackwater in high positions. The government contracts are extremely
lucrative. And what exactly was Pentagon doing with unaccounted expenses
running upto $2.3 trillion?
After having read the above, is there any
doubt that Blackwater can carry out any black deed in complete secrecy?
It is GM sb, who is incredulous in the face
of evidence because he is simply incapable of understanding simple physics and
the history of deceits practiced by the US government and the fact that every
American president was a great liar with very few exceptions. Lyndon B Johnson
was a compulsive liar under whose watch the fake Tonkin incident was made the
cause for escalation of war on Vietnam, George W Bush took the art of deception
and lies to new heights, Bill Clinton was a most earnest and believable liar,
“Nixon is a shifty-eyed goddam liar and the people know it,” Harry Truman ……..
What should be clear to any sane person is
that the official lies are obvious with the official liars having contradicted
themselves or other official liars. NIST will not talk beyond what happened
after the initiation of collapse because they have no explanation for how the
entire building collapsed.
The official liars first said that the
steel melted but since it was easy to prove that this was not possible from the
fire caused by the burning of aviation fuel, they went back on it and said it
did not melt. They came up with the pancake theory but since this theory does not
account for how the steel columns collapsed, they came up with the pile-driver
theory. The pile driver theory also does not explain how the steel columns were
cut. Steel can bend completely and take a U shape without fracturing. How did
it fracture like brittle bone then if it wasn’t melted? What explains the free
The perfect answer to all the questions
explaining what happened is Controlled Demolition but if GM sb prefers to bury
his head in sand, even God cannot help. God also gives up on such people saying
that the “Deaf, Dumb and Blind will not believe”. Not that they are deaf, dumb
and blind but choose to deliberately bury their head in sand. God has given
them ears, eyes and intelligence which they refuse to use.
(2) That man
could have independently generated moral precepts.
The evidence from the history of philosophy
starting from 600 BC, is that it has not given us a single moral principle
although ethics and morality are subjects philosophy is obsessed with. All
moral principles have come exclusively from religion. So, what is the evidence
that man could have independently generated moral precepts when he has
(3) Islam had no
influence in abolition of slavery.
It is a well-recognized fact that under
Islam, slavery was not what it was under any other culture/civilization. Slaves
rose to high places in the army and administration and even became rulers. They
ate the same food as their masters sitting alongside them. The masters shared
the burden with the slaves and never overworked them. The Quran explicitly
encourages marriage of free people with slaves removing any social stigma
associated with salves. Freeing of slaves is encouraged and even made
incumbent. The prophet and his followers bought slaves only to free them. One
such slave was Hazrat Bilal, a black Abyssinian, who rose to a very high
position and was the first muezzin and the first to give the call for prayer
from Kaaba. Enslavement of free people, except prisoners of war was put an end
to. While the Muslims did not ban slavery and the Christians did, what is
indisputable is that Islam influenced the attitude of the rest of the world
towards slaves. The other areas of influence were in making divorce acceptable,
reducing the influence of priests since Islam has no concept of priest, in laws
enabling women to inherit, the madrasa system becoming a model for public
schools and in every other area.
Islam influenced every other culture it
came in contact with. While the Europeans took all the best practices from Islam
and took each one of them further, the Muslims remained stuck at the point
Islam had taken them.
“That the influence of Islam is forgotten
and goes unacknowledged, is not very surprising. When exposure to a different
culture creates social change in society, the new view becomes an integral part
of the society's culture. This results in the source of the other culture’s
influence that led to change being forgotten, which is known as social
cryptoamnesia. The influence of other cultures can be successful if people can
dissociate between the socio-cognitive activities of resistance that are
induced by the source and other activities of resistance that develop from the
content of the message. The process of dissociation is explained by social
cryptoamnesia: what was originally considered different is gradually
constructed as an alternative (Perez, 1995). The Europeans absorbed the message
of Islam while dissociating from the Muslims and even hating them.
A person can be affected by influence
whether directly or indirectly. However, if one is not aware of the influence,
the influencing ideas could be taken as one's own while disregarding where the
original idea came from. Social cryptoamnesia explains that thoughts and ideas
that challenge or shock are stored in latent memory without retaining the
ownership of the idea. Ideas that were supposedly forgotten have reappeared in
the person's mind as his or her own belief or thought. This major attitude
change takes place when the zeitgeist has changed. In history, exposure to
other cultures have changed the attitudes of society, and the attitudes of
society have changed the personal opinion of the majority in that society.
Although such influence may not affect a person immediately, one's beliefs and behaviours
may change over time due to social cryptoamnesia.”
We’re not aware
of changing our minds even when we do change our minds. And most people, after
they change their minds, reconstruct their past opinion
— they believe
they always thought that. (Daniel Kahneman)
The lack of acknowledgment of Islam’s
influence on ideas that led to the banning of slavery is not proof that it had
no influence. The proof is in the fact that Europe’s renaissance is built on
ideas from Islamic civilization and taking the same a step further and in the
fact that Islamic civilization presented a stark contrast to the European
civilization giving them many new ideas to mull over and absorb. The Europeans
studied every idea that made Islamic Civilization great and took the same ideas
GM sb is however a slave and blind believer
of western scholarship and if this scholarship has failed to give credit to
Islam, he also vehemently denies it. He is the quintessential brown sahib, and
the reason why Muslims resist western education seeing what such education has
done to people like him. There are very few who can think independently.
(4) The Quran
does not make a distinction between Kafir and Mushrik.
GM sb may clarify his position. Is he
saying that all the Mushrikin are Kafir according to the Quran? He is on record
having having flipped-flopped many a time on this question. What is his latest
take on the question?
Oh really? What does GM sb
comprehend? That any random destructive force or fire can cause a high rise
building to collapse along the path of the greatest resistance (the path for a building to collapse on its own footprint, is the path of the greatest resistance)? This is impossible even as a
coincidence and for all three buildings to collapse in this manner is truly the
mother of all miracles! He has no idea how foolish such thinking is – ignorance
is bliss for him!
The mafia is an example of an organisation
that can keep its secrets and commit crimes with impunity. The US government
uses contractors to do its dirty jobs. The contractors build mafia like
organizations as far as maintaining secrecy is concerned to carry out the dirty
jobs for the government. Outsourcing solves the problem of maintaining secrecy.
How is the government’s mafia financed? One
day before 911, Donald Rumsfeld talked about unaccounted expenses of $2.3 trillion
spent by the Pentagon. The next day, the building housing the accounts
department of Pentagon was destroyed by an “aircraft” crashing into it and
nobody heard further about the unaccounted expenses of the Pentagon! If the
money spent on the contractors who do the dirty jobs was ever audited, the government
would be hard pressed to justify it.
Just hear two retired US army Generals
speak on the subject of 911:
Albert Stubblebine is credited with redesigning the U.S. Army intelligence
architecture during his time as commanding general of the U.S. Army
Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) from 1981 to 1984. Here him speak on
Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO
during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia.
The physics part is very well explained in
the video below, with practical demonstration of what is possible and what is
CNN News broadcast on the 28th June 2001 (11
weeks before the attack)a story claiming that its reporter with camera crew got
into Osama’s secret hideouout and
interviewed him and based on this interview, said that within 3 weeks, Oasma was
going to attack the US and Israel. Bill Cooper another broadcaster warned the
same day, that “whatever is going to happen, they will blame it on Osama, and don’t
you even believe it”!
Bill Cooper was shot dead less than two months later on Nov 5, 2001 by
Susan Lindauer, a CIA asset says in the
video, that between August 23rd
to about September 02, trucks were seen arriving at the WTC at 3 AM after
the janitorial trucks had left and leaving at 5 AM before people started
arriving. They tried convicting Susan Lindauer on various charges of espionage
and treason failing which; they declared her a nut case!
David Chandler, retired physics teacher analyses
the collapse of WTC 1 with visual evidence. He shows clear evidence of corner
columns being cut with “cutter charge” or explosives.
John Gross leading engineer for NIST says Steel did not melt.
Yes, it cannot melt from the fire alone but
only with explosives.
Metallurgist, shows clear evidence of molten steel
physicist – evidence of nano thermite used as explosive for cutting the steel. Demonstration
of how thermite cuts steel. Government experts claimed that thermite cannot cut
– Pentagon cannot account 25% of its expenses. Cannot account for 2.3 Trillion
public has believed in the mother of all miracles of not one, but three WTC
buildings, collapsing to the ground on their foot-print, in the manner of a
perfectly executed job of controlled demolition, and not in the manner of a
demolition job gone awry as it should have been, is hardly surprising. The government went
about its business taking the gullibility of the people for granted. To crown
it all, WTC7 was not even hit by a plane, and it is the only building in the
world, that collapsed because of an office fire, if are to believe what we are
told! To uncover the falsehoods takes very little knowledge, but even this very
little knowledge is too much for most people. The government knows this and cynically
makes use of this weakness.
economists and evolutionary psychologists have demonstrated that most human
decisions are based on emotional reactions and heuristic shortcuts rather than
on rational analysis. Not only rationality, but individuality too is a myth.
People rarely think for themselves. Rather, they think in groups.
they know a lot, because they treat knowledge in the minds of others and in the
books as if it were their own. This is the illusion of knowledge. We rely on
the expertise of others for most of our needs. This is the result of extreme
specialization facilitated by globalization. We consume very little of what we
produce and most of what we consume, is produced by others. Most people know
very little beyond what they produce. We have progressed as a civilization by
developing the ability to place our trust in others and cooperate with them. From
an evolutionary perspective, trusting in the knowledge of others has worked
extremely well for us
of the people – inability to think for themselves from lack of knowledge and their
complete reliance on groupthink placing their trust in experts, is cynically
exploited by the powerful government supported by the media and the establishment
experts. The gullible public unsurprisingly consumes whatever the government backed
by its crony “experts” produces. After all, they put their trust in the
government by voting it to power, and they would not like to appear stupid by
being proved wrong. To distrust the government or their parents or other loved
ones is extremely painful for people, and they will rather believe in delusional
myths, than face the truth.
suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: “Do you actually think
there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some
reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only
disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together – on park
benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms,
Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at
the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference
rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they
consciously plot – though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” – and they
do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No
one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their
hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically
active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that
expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.”
― Michael Parenti,
American political scientist, historian and culture critic.
normally refers to a controlled demolition technique. However, this theory has
also been forwarded to explain the collapse. The collapse of a floor drew the
outer columns inward causing an implosion is how they try to explain. It is a
strange theory. The collapse of one floor was enough to cause an implosion while
the remaining 109 floors could not prevent it! Even if such an impossible event
did take place, you would still have the 59 columns 362 feet high in one piece
collapsing on the neighbouring buildings and not breaking into hundreds of smaller pieces
and collapsing in a heap on the footprint of the building. The difference
between a controlled demolition and an unplanned collapse caused by a disaster
is precisely in the way the building collapses.
buildings, are destroyed by building implosion using explosives. This is very
fast—the collapse itself only takes seconds and it is as fast as a free fall—and
an expert can ensure that the structure falls into its own footprint, so as not
to damage neighboring structures. A dangerous scenario is the partial failure of an attempted
implosion. When a building fails to collapse completely the structure may be
unstable, tilting at a dangerous angle.
worst that could have happened to the WTC building is that the top floors above
the floor that was hit, tilting. Nothing can cause the steel columns to break
in smaller pieces except cutting them with oxy acetylene torch with temperature
of 3773 degrees centigrade which takes considerable time, or faster with explosives.
Just try cutting structural steel by a
fire caused by aviation fuel or kerosene. No amount of burning will have any significant
effect as the temperature will never cross 300 degrees centigrade. Steel loses
half its strength only at 600 degrees. Also, the fire affected only a few floors
and not the entire building and only for an hour before the edifice crumbled. A controlled demolition is the only plausible
explanation else what explains the floors unaffected by fire crumbling as they
WTC collapse, is the most perfect example of a controlled demolition and
nothing else can explain the very orderly collapse on its own footprint in just
a few seconds (in exactly the time that it takes an object falling through thin
air from the top of the building hitting the ground) without leaving any part
of the building standing or any of the 59 steel columns 360 feet long not cut
into hundreds of pieces. A steel column may be melted completely (only
theoretically because this is practically impossible) but how can it get cut
into several pieces? Only by cutting them with oxy acetylene torches (very slow
process) or explosives (extremely fast) as in a controlled demolition.
is a waste of time to discuss anything with GM Sb. He goes by groupthink on
every subject - not this alone, since he lacks the skills and knowledge to think
for himself. In this case, it may not even be groupthink but group position. The
group of American Muslims kowtowing to their new masters can only faithfully parrot the
term Free-fall and Implosion is often juxtaposed. It is highly
technical, scientific, engineering and art skill of using explosives
to collapse a tall building in controlled manner on the ground in
sequence to fall within its own footprint.
1988 two years before 9/11 al Qaida or its affiliates claimed to have
bombed the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dares-salaam; the softest
targets in the world for them at the time. The damage there to the
buildings could hardly be said as skilfully carried out but the loss
of lives of the innocent citizens was phenomenal in comparison!
just in short period of time, for them to belatedly claim to have
acquired the unbelievable skills to accomplished 9/11, seven seas
away can only be accepted by those who believe that Moses
miraculously split the Red Sea just by hitting it with his walking
stick, the Rod/A'saa.
GM Sb says “By the way the best
explanation for the free fall of the World Trade Center was given by Osama bin
Laden himself in a videotape which Naseer sahib should see if he has not seen
it already. As you know Osama was an engineer.”
That is a lie. Can GM sb provide the
proof? Where is the need for Osama to explain the free fall? If at all, he may have
liked to take credit for the attack to bolster his image and go along with the official
story which was giving him full credit for the attack and the collapse. Stop
fooling around GM sb!
The videos/audios of Osama however
appear to have been fabricated en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden
but this is beside the point. The
attack on WTC is a fact, and what is being discussed is not who did it, but whether
the plane crashing into the building could have caused the buildings to
collapse in the manner of a free fall as they did, or whether such a collapse is
possible only by a controlled demolition. If could have been caused by only a
controlled demolition, then the plane crashing into the building although true,
is only a red herring to camouflage the controlled demolition.
Apparently, even school level physics is beyond GM sb . The
experts in the video and I have talked about the lies in the official report to
explain the WTC collapse which the US government and its loyal supporters such
as GM dismiss as “Conspiracy theory”.
There is a very simple way for the US government to settle
the question if they are telling the truth. High rise buildings are demolished
every now and then. For the next high rise building they plan to demolish, let
them create the same situation by stocking a floor with as much aviation fuel
as the plane that crashed into the WTC had or even more, and hitting this floor
with a missile to create an identical or even much greater physical impact and
show to the world why their WTC story is not a lie. This is feasible but the US
government will never allow it as their lies will stand exposed.
In my comments, there is an implicit assumption that GM sb
understands the meaning of “free fall” and its implications, since this involves
knowledge of only school level physics, but I may be wrong. Not everybody who
has gone through school has mastered the school subjects. He may genuinely have
difficulty understanding why no building in the world can collapse in the
manner of the WTC buildings, with the speed of free fall, except when brought
down through “controlled demolition”.
In such a case, my apologies to him.
GM sb as usual, is blaming others for what he
himself describes and dismisses as a conspiracy theory!
By Kazi Wadud Nawaz - 9/8/2018 6:59:04 PM comment does not use the term
“conspiracy theory” but GM responds by saying “Nawaz sahib spins an
intriguing conspiracy theory but does not present any evidence to support it.”
By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 9/8/2018 11:16:05
My comments in response By Naseer Ahmed - 9/9/2018 3:52:32 AM point out that the official story is
not the complete truth without using “conspiracy theory”. My next comment on
the same subject By
Naseer Ahmed -
9/9/2018 3:52:32 AM
also does not use “conspiracy theory”
Also, the experts who speak in the video:
are not talking about any conspiracy, but about the
official lies of what caused the three WTC buildings (one of which was not even
hit by a plane) to collapse in the manner they did, with the speed of free
fall. This they explain is possible only in a controlled demolition, and never
by a fire, no matter how intense, or by a plane crashing into a building.
It is those like GM sb, who oppose the truth, who
call all such attempts to refute the official version, a conspiracy theory. To
call exposure of lies a conspiracy theory and dismiss it, is the tool of the
propagandists and purveyors of political falsehoods.
The dictionary meaning of conspiracy:
a secret plan by a
group to do something unlawful or harmful. The action of plotting or conspiring. synonyms:plot, scheme,
stratagem, plan, machination, cabal;
In the case of Iraq, the secret plan was to create
a pretext for waging war against it. The US and its allies did so by first falsely
accusing Iraq of possessing WMD followed by sham investigations, and finally by
waging war. It was a conspiracy between the
US and its NATO allies. The secret plan was to wage war and not find and
destroy WMDs which they knew did not exist and it was a conspiracy involving
several countries but mainly the US and the UK.
Until the lies unraveled, and the falsehood
became indefensible and the truth widely acknowledged, any talk that the US and
the UK had conspired to wage war on false pretexts, was only a conspiracy
theory since it was denied by the conspirators, who took the moral high ground that
they were ridding the world of WMDs in the hands of a dictator.
There are therefore conspiracies
which have been proved by nailing the lies and accepted as such by the perpetrators and there are
conspiracies proved but denied by the conspirators and false conspiracy
theories. In the case of 911, since a conspiracy is not admitted, it only
enables those who are bent on ignoring the evidence and denying the truth to do
so. GM Sb can therefore to turn a blind eye to the evidence and deny the truth.
It is impossible to make someone who has no concern for the truth, but on the
other hand allegiance to the conspirators, to admit an inconvenient truth!
Conspiracies admitted to or completely exposed are lies, but
conspiracies not admitted to, or those that continue to be denied, are simply
crazy and unsubstantiated! That is as hypocritical as anyone can get.
It was a conspiracy of the US and its allies to wage war on Iraq on the
false pretext of possession of WMDs, and before this lie was completely
exposed, it was only a theory. So also, the Tonkin incident. They also needed a
pretext to attack Afghanistan. From the past record of the US and its history
of interventions, if there is a motive for the US to wage war, the US finds the
pretext or creates one. Maybe a hundred years from now, the US government may
come clean on the truth as they did about the Tonkin incident. Till such
time, the likes of GM sb, can bury their heads in sand, and keep saying that is
“a crazy theory”. If he had an open mind rather than taking a stubborn
political stand in support of his adopted country, he would find plenty of
evidence and expert opinions from physicists, architects, engineers, demolition
experts and experts in fighting building fires. GM sb is not a truth seeker. He
is a political animal. Who else can dismiss all the expert opinions as crazy?
Reproducing the complete section on the meaning of
kufr since people have a tendency to pick up only a part and claim that to the whole.
Who is a Kafir in the Quran? (Part 4) Defining Kufr
By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam
25 Feb, 2015
There are two dimensions to kufr:
Kufr relating to man, society, the world or the temporal dimension
Kufr relating to God or the spiritual dimension
Kufr relating to the temporal dimension
The Quran recognizes certain human rights:
Right to belief and pursuit of one’s beliefs without obstruction or persecution
Sanctity of life and property
Mutual rights and responsibilities emanating from commonly accepted norms of
civil society, agreements, contracts and the laws of the society in which one
Kufr relating to God or the spiritual dimension
The Quran also recognizes the “Rights of God”
The spiritual dimension is covered by the
scriptures which inform the believer about his covenants with God and the
duties and responsibilities emanating from these.
The believer invites a nonbeliever to become a
believer and accept these covenants and become the recipient of divine
blessings and guidance, showing gratitude for the blessings of God and
fulfilling his part of the covenant by conducting his affairs in accordance
with the guidance provided in the scriptures.
Besides God’s blessings common to all, God is
“shaa’ker” (giver of thanks) which God does through His rewards for the acts of
man that are for pleasing God. Man is required to reciprocate with `Shukr’
(giving thanks) through worship and acts that please God such as spending on charity.
For the sins of man against God, his reckoning is with God alone, who will
punish him in the hereafter.
With reference to God, a non-believer
Is guilty of kufr if he rejects the “truth” out of envy, insolence, arrogance
rather than for lack of required evidence or conviction.
He becomes a kafir after the truth becomes manifest to him where his mind and
heart acknowledges the “truth” and yet he rejects it.
And a believer is guilty of kufr if he violates the
prohibitions and injunctions in the scriptures.
Punishment for kufr
A violation of the rights of man and/or God is
The Quran prescribes hadd punishments only for kufr
in the temporal dimension. Kufr in the temporal dimension is also kufr in the
spiritual dimension but not vice versa.
Hadd punishments for kufr relating to God or the
spiritual dimension are not prescribed in the Quran as that would violate the
right of conscience that the Quran clearly grants to man.
Some forms of Kufr may appear to stride both the
dimensions - for example, an apostate who turns hostile and carries on
activities harmful to a section of the society or the state. Such a person can
be punished for the harm that he has caused or can potentially cause but not
for apostasy. Apostasy is merely incidental and irrelevant to the case as
apostasy is not kufr in the temporal dimension.
Usury, if it does not contravene laws of the land,
will only be kufr in the spiritual dimension. Through legislation, usury could
be made a punishable offence since it is injurious to man as well but it is not
hadd. Legislating punishments for kufr related to the spiritual dimension
alone, violate the freedoms granted to man by the Quran and is kufr.
My definition of Kafir first published in NAI. This
has remained unchanged.
Who is a Kafir in the Quran? (Part 4) Defining Kufr
By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam
With reference to God, a non-believer
Revisiting the Meaning of Kafir
27 December 2017
who are Kafir for their rejection of belief, are not those who have not
accepted “belief” or the “disbelievers” or those who are sinners in their
personal life, but the active enemies of the people of good faith, their
oppressors and persecutors and enemy of God like Satan.
A believer can be a
kafir but a Muslim can never be a kafir because the very meaning of Muslim is
that he acts in accordance with Allah's commands. Kufr is to do with what you
do and not with what you believe.
Rejection of belief
is an act and is kufr and the one who rejects is therefore a kafir. Being a
disbeliever is a state and not an act, and by itself not kufr nor does it make
the person kafir. As long as someone has not rejected belief in a single God after
his inner self has acknowledged the truth and does not actively oppose such
belief, he is not a kafir. The presumption of our theologians that every
disbeliever is a kafir, is a presumption that every disbeliever has rejected
belief after having been convinced of the truth which is false.
The Quran addresses
various audiences but never the Muslim because they are by definition those who
bow to Allah in Islam and not in need of instructions and warnings. The Quran
addresses the believers trying to make a Muslim out of them and warning them
about the behaviors that will make them kafir such as consuming usury,
"shirk", niggardliness, giving charity only to show off, or charity
accompanied by insult. There are therefore essentially three behaviors that
make a believer a kafir - "shirk", consuming usury, not giving
A disbeliever may be
a mushrik and still not be a kafir while a believer who commits shirk is a
kafir. This is because "shirk" is merely prohibited to the Mushrik but
an unforgivable sin for the believers. Similarly, a believer may violate a
prohibition, but that does not make him a kafir, unless he compounds it by
justifying his act and remaining unrepentant.
are differences in beliefs without involving "active and deliberate
shirk" and cannot make any person a kafir even if a person believes in a
prophet after Muhammad (pbuh). The sects indulging in takfir of other sects for their beliefs are barbarians
with little understanding of the Quran.
GM sb has no answer to the questions
posed to him for falsely calling it "spinning an intriguing conspiracy
theory". He should think twice before making false accusations. Perhaps he
is only trying to score nationalistic brownie points defending his adopted
The article is about manipulations of
the truth to achieve political ends and covers only one side and not the other.
Nawaz sb’s comment covers the manipulations of the other side which are far
more radical and perverse and has killed people in millions. Discussing the
other side may be more proper in a separate article than here but that is not what GM said in his comment. He called it "spinning of an intriguing conspiracy theory" in the true manner of a neo-con defender!
Anon-practicing Muslim is an oxymoron. The word Islam means
submission and a Muslim is one who submits or practices Islam. A person can be
a Muslim but not yet a believer according to the Quran. There is immense wisdom
in allowing this as a definition of a Muslim. Belief can precede practice and
belief can also follow practice. It is well established by psychological studies
that it is far easier to make a person adopt desired behavior but very
difficult to change his attitude first, to produce the desired behavior. Organizations
therefore work on changing the behavior of their employees and not on changing
their attitudes which change automatically over a period. A change in our behavior
makes us think about it and reflect on the feelings it generates and if these
are positive, it changes our attitude favorably towards the new behavior making
it permanent. A person who begins to go to the mosque and pray five times will
mix with other Muslims, make friends with some very good people, and will start
looking forward to it. Giving charity will produce good feelings. These
positive feelings about the new practices will positively orient him towards
the new religion affecting his beliefs. There is no requirement that a person
must believe first and then practice Islam. This wisdom of the Quran is completely
lost in our theology which puts the cart before the horse.
Does GM sb need proof
that the charge against Saddam that he possessed WMD was a deliberate lie and a
conspiracy between the US and its NATO allies to create an excuse to wage
war on Iraq? What makes him doubt that they similarly created an excuse to
attack Afghanistan? Does he have evidence that the official version of the US
on 911 is true? Why didn't a much greater fire for a much longer duration not
bring down the building in London?
Why are the twin towers
the only buildings in the world to have collapsed by fires which were not among
the worst fires?
It is a fact that the USA is the devil incarnate which has
carefully planned to destroy the Muslim world by using its weaknesses. The use
of what they call “Islamic fundamentalists” is part of the plan with ideas
given by Bernard Lewis who argued that it was very easy to rip apart the Islamic
world and balkanize it, by leveraging both “fundamentalism” and sectarian
differences. They have succeeded in their plans beyond their wildest dreams
because the Muslims turned out to be more stupid than they had imagined.
The 911 incident was also either staged by them entirely or they
made the plan of the alleged attackers, a sub-plan of their own. What is beyond
doubt is that the towers could not have come down in the manner they did, only
on account of the plane crashing into them, and were brought down through
pre-planned controlled demolition. This means that the attack had the US
government helping the attackers directly or indirectly unknown to them to camouflage
the demolition. They succeeded in fooling the entire Muslim world except their
own intrepid seekers of the truth who systematically exposed the fraud.
Osama could have released a video denying that he had
anything to do with it. He was however flattered and was immensely pleased to
take the “credit” and remained silent. On the other hand, the American
government released a fake video of a look-alike Osama taking credit, to
convince their own people, that a war against Afghanistan was justified,
because there was a considerable public opinion building up against such a war.
The Taliban government asked the US government for proof of
Osama’s complicity for handing him over to them which the US did not have. The
Taliban government could have additionally provided recorded video of Osama
denying any part in the attack which would have made their stand justified.
They did not do so. The Pakistan government could have raised doubts about the
capacity of Osama to carry out such an attack and pointed out to the
impossibility of the twin towers crumbling down merely because a plane had
crashed into them. They didn’t do it but extended their co-operation to the US
in waging the war.
Yes, the US is waging a carefully planned war but the
Muslims are their willing accomplices and even though they may not have had any
part in 911, they foolishly took credit for it and by their acts of commission and/or
There are too many chinks in our ideology and thinking and
our people are easily bought over with a few dollars. We can be easily fooled
with lies, because we are not inclined to speak the truth either and are easily
flattered by the lies. There is no truth, justice or honour in how we conduct
our affairs. It is not false propaganda that Pakistan treats its minorities
shabbily. It is not falsehood either, that the Gulf countries, deliberately
allow expats to overstay illegally, and exploit them as slaves. Saudi Arabia is
at the bottom of the heap on the moral scale and prostituted itself to the
US/Israel. Pakistan is similar. What is it that the Muslims and the Muslim
countries can be proud of today? They can only be proud of their past.
The travails that we are going through are an opportunity to
set our house in order. To pretend that all our woes are inflicted externally,
and we have no part in it, will only destroy us completely. 13:11 “……Allah does not change a people´s lot
unless they change what is in themselves. But when (once) Allah wills a
people´s punishment, there can be no turning it back, nor will they find,
besides Him, any to protect.”
is a fact that the USA, as a deliberate policy, helped by thinkers such as
Bernard Lewis, cynically exploits what they call "Islamic
Fundamentalism", to weaken the Muslim countries, and achieve their
political agenda starting with giving the erstwhile USSR their Vietnam. The
ISIS is also their creation and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are their puppets.
The Afghans supporting the US, also sold out to the CIA for a few million
is also a fact, that traditional Islamic scholarship, is powerless to combat the
twin menace of the designs of the USA/Israel, and their own extremist brethren,
because the ideology common to every sect, is not very much different from the
ideology of the extremists.
is covered in several of my articles:
The Importance of Getting the Story Right on the Divine
Islam's Relationship With The Rest Of The Word - The
Current Problem Of Extremism In A False Ideology And The Antidote From An
Authentic Understanding Of The Truly Humanistic Message Of The Quran
It's a confusing article
likely to create confusion amongst the Muslim community. It has given very
little reference to the Quranic verses confirming its principled stand on
Imaan and A'mal Giving too much emphasis on what scholars say
without taking the Holy Quran and Hadith into account is a sinister approach
towards creating an ideological confusion amongst Muslim community.
The Holy Quran is Very clear on Iman and
A'mal. A’mal is an essential component and integral part of
Iman. Practising and commanding anything that is good and resisting whatever
evil, are the fundamental characteristics of a Believer. There is no doubt about it. Inculcating any conflict between the two will make
a hypocrite, but not a Muslim.
The Holy Quran says:
“ Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good. Enjoining what
is right,and forbidding what is wrong ; they are the ones to attain felicity”( Sura Al-i-Imran, Verse
“Ye are the best of peoples,
evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and
believing In Allāh. if only the
people of the Book had Faith, it were best for them: among them are some who
have Faith, but Most of them are perverted transgressors.” (Sura . Āli-Imrān, 3: 110)
Al-A’mru –bi- al-ma’rūf wa an-nahy an al-munkar (to call to do
good and to prevent from evil deeds), is the central theme of the Islamic call
term is explicitly found in various places in the Holy Quran.
Al-ar’af Ayat 157 (7:157),
At-Tawbah Ayat 67 (9:67), This Verse has
explicitly exposesd the character pof the hypocrites.
Al-Hujj Ayat 41(22:41), the Sura
explains the characteristics of Believers that earnestly help the cause of
The whole article has been written with a sinister design
to hood wink the real culprit and put
the blame on ideological differences amongst the Muslims. Now I would like to ask a few questions to the writer:
Do you think Historical and Geo-political background of the 21st century is the same as was prevailing during the reign of Hazrat Ali (R.A)
Did the past factions emerging from amongst the Muslim Community get any external support?
Who is the Master Mind of the Present day Al-Qaeda
and Al Nusra Terrorist groups?
Who gives them logistic support ,money men and material ? Are they Muslims or Enemies of the Muslim Umma?
In this connection I would like to draw your kind attention to my following articles published in the Newage
Islam . These are
Combat Terrorism and Safe-guard Nation state
sovereignty. Published on 23.09 2016.
Facing the Menace of Corporate Development Models. Published on 16.07.2014
Please allow me to quote a few lines from these articles;
Global War on Terror of the Neo-conservatives in U.S administration aims at
destabilizing the resourceful geo-politically important sovereign nation states
through conspiratorial proxy-war to turn it into a “Failed State” and replace
the established National Government with a Puppet Regime to serve their
Geo-strategic interests.Global terrorism aims at reverting Historical Laws of
Social Development to perpetuate class rule and corporate domination.
It’s a global phenomenon born out of Neo-cons’ strategy for implementing the
"Project New American century "(PNAC), an inhuman reactionary
endeavour on the part of Neo-conservatives to turn back the Wheel of History.
Neo-conservatives’ concept of“ War without Border”, substantially
being the twenty- first century edition of Leon Trotsky’s theory of
“Permanent Revolution”, constitutes the philosophical foundation of so-called
“US War on Terrorism” that we encounter to-day.”[ Combat Terrorism and Safe-guard Nation-state Sovereignty]
Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, “Intelligence Assets for the CIA” as termed by an Ex
CIA Chief, [Ref: America’s War on Terrorism By Mitchel Chossudovsky] was
harnessed to overthrow the communist regime in Afghanistan,
and is still playing in gloves with US Imperialism in creating grounds for US
War of Aggression on the plea of Fighting Terrorism all over the world.
to Chossudovsky , the “ war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on
the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted $40 billion –a-year
American Intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest.
Globalization is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall
Street and US-military industrial complex”
Dear Writer please tell me frankly whom the article really wants to camouflage
behind the Ideological Cover?
Every sect has given its
views on the subject and no sect invokes what I consider to be an eternal,
inviolable and absolute principle in the verse:
"Let there be no
compulsion in religion"
Every sect considers the
non-Muslims to be Kafir and that it is legitimate to wage war against them and the
Kharjites expand the scope of war to include the Muslims who do not conform to
their idea of what makes a Muslim. While the Murji’a take a softer stand,
they do not categorically rebut the nonsense of the other groups.
When I criticize the
past scholars for their barbarianism and mental incapacity to understand the
Quran and their penchant for deliberately distorting the meanings of words and
derive their own meanings, I am told that Islamic scholarship of the past was the
best there was in the world! Even so, it is stuck to this day where it was, and
it amazes me that people even write articles that do not make a distinction
between verses containing the law and verses that are merely transactional and one
time instructions to deal with a problem as it occurred while the revelations
were going on and even though such verses do not violate any law such as the
one on no compulsion!
The debate among the
sects about who can be considered a Muslim is also void of evidence from the
Quran while the Quran makes this very clear.
Can Be Considered A Muslim?
to the Islamic requirement of ritual prayer and giving zakat is the proof Allah
demands of a person when he claims to be a Muslim, and this is the proof Allah
asks the Prophet to ensure. Allah does not ask for declaration of faith or
testimony of faith. In verse 9:5, Allah says that if a person “establishes
regular prayers and practises regular charity, then open the way for them
(accept them in the fold of Islam)”. This is the bare minimum requirement.
There are several other levels that a believer can attain which are described
in the Quran, but the common denominator is as described in 9:5.
"Swear ye not; Obedience is (more) reasonable; verily, Allah is well
acquainted with all that ye do."
testimony of faith is swearing, and Allah forbids swearing and asks instead for
obedience and submission to the religion of Islam and performance of deeds
O Prophet! When believing women come to thee to take the oath of fealty to
thee, that they will not associate in worship any other thing whatever with
Allah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit adultery (or
fornication), that they will not kill their children, that they will not utter
slander, intentionally forging falsehood, and that they will not disobey thee
in any just matter,- then do thou receive their fealty, and pray to Allah for
the forgiveness (of their sins): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful
all the verses, only obedience to the essential tenets of Islam is demanded and
not declaration of belief or the testimony of faith.
Proof that Allah does not demand verbal assertion
of faith but only obedience
There came a time when Islam was in the
ascendant and people were flocking to it in large numbers without belief/faith
entering their hearts. They were admitted by the Prophet to the fold of Islam.
Such people, when they said "Amanna”
(We believe), they were chided by Allah in verse 49:14 and told that faith had
not yet entered their hearts and therefore they should not say that they
believe but only say “we have submitted/accepted (Aslamna)”. They are also assured
that if they obey Allah and His messenger, Allah will not belittle any of their
deeds for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
is clear from this verse is that to be considered a Muslim what is required is
submission to the requirements of the faith or its tenets. Even a declaration
of belief is not required, let alone the testimony of faith!