For Late Breaking Developments: Read the 2012 and Planet X News Blog
If You Get It and Want to Get Through It: Join Planetxforecast.info

9-11 and Iran: Did They
Have a Hand in It?

YOWUSA.COM, 14-February-2006
Marshall Masters

Usama Bin Laden’s primary financial partners in the 9-11 attack were Wahabbist Saudi princes.  That fact is so well established it now tasks us to explore the possibility that the 9-11 terrorists had a technology partner as well.  Given the scope of this attack, it would be Pollyannaish to presume that box cutters were the only technology used. 

This is because the circumstantial evidence clearly implies the use of specially formulated high explosives; no doubt supplied by a nation with the means, motive and opportunity to participate as a technology partner.  After looking at the facts and the maps, one answer connects the dots better than the rest.  Iran was Al Qaeda’s 9-11 technology partner, and this is why Iran is risking confrontation to build a nuclear weapons program.  The hands of their Islamist Mullahs are washed in the blood of America’s 9-11 innocents, and Bush knows it.

Is Tehran the Next Nagasaki? — WWII Vets Wayne Green and Robert Reiland, and Physicist Jacco van der Worp

Now that Katrina has struck, no American alive can say, “I simply cannot imagine the total destruction of a major American city.”  It has happened!  Likewise, the radical Islamist mullahs of Iran can do the same. The spent fuel from their Bushehr reactor offers a perfect WMD dirty bomb for someone like Al-Qaeda.

Before Katrina’s deadly hurricane-force winds churned across the Gulf of Mexico, WMD threat watchers were intently focused on Iran’s clandestine nuclear program.  Like Katrina, Iran’s threat to the USA will eventually be borne upon the wind, and it will come in the form of an anonymous dirty bomb.  Delivered by Islamist terrorists supplied by Iran, a simple bomb made of conventional explosives and spent Nuclear fuel will certainly bring death and horror to all Americans within reach – men, women and children alike.  As with 9-11, there will be no mercy.  GO

Melted WTC Steel is the Smoking Gun

At the heart of any riveting French detective novel is the old adage, "Cherchez la femme,"– look for the woman.  Do that, and the rest of the story of will unravel about your discovery.  Likewise, when we apply this same singular logic to the 9-11 attack, our femme becomes the melted steel of World Trade Center towers.

Did the “Jet A” kerosene fuel used by the airliners flown into the towers burn hot enough to melt the steel?  No.  Look at it this way, the gasoline we use in our cars and “Jet A”  kerosene both have one thing in common.  They are both ignited inside the metal engines that burn them.  If the fuel burns hot enough to melt the metal of your engine, you’re not going very far. 

This is why the “official” explanation is that the “Jet A”  inferno is what caused the furnishings and office supplies to generate sufficient heat to melt the steel.  As plausible as that sounds, many people don’t believe this explanation passes the smell test, because the black smoke that came out of the building contained a lot of soot, which indicates incomplete burning.  This explanation lends credence to the option stated in Fire Engineering Magazine that “No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire; the investigation was a half-baked farce.”

For this reason, we find a significant possibility that something other than jet fuel and furniture was involved in weakening the steel.  Likewise, the reopen911.org web site is also convinced of this, and they’re offering a $1,000,000 reward for anyone who can “prove explosives were not used” in the 9-11 attack. 

While the reward strikes us as a come-on to build interest in the site, it does nail the 9-11 "Cherchez la femme" question right on the head.  What really melted the steel?  As to the rest, you decide.  Regardless of what you think about their site and this program, it is thought-provoking and well-produced, so please take a moment to view it before reading on.

This brings us to the vital question.  What, besides jet fuel and furniture, could have been in the building before the impact or carried in the aircraft?  C4 plastic explosives.

Cherchez la C4

In terms of portability and handling, two explosives often used by terrorists and capable of generating temperatures sufficient to melt the steel are C4 and TNT.  We feel that C4 is the more likely candidate for the following reasons:

• C4 can be easily molded into shaped charges and can generate temperatures in excess of 3000F when detonated.

• C4 does not always explode.  Assuming it was used in the 9-11 attack, it could have burned at high temperature thereby increasing the heat of the kerosene and office furnishings blaze.  Note: TNT may have withstood the initial impact of the jetliner, but not the ensuing fireball.

• C4 can be specially formulated for specific needs.  Regardless of the manufacturer, the explosive formula remains the same.  However, the moldable putty used to make C4 malleable can be formulated with an explosive stabilizer to make the explosive element burn, as opposed to detonating violently as it would in weapons-grade formulation. 

The key thing to remember about C4, is that the putty element will have a unique chemical fingerprint.  If a well-equipped crime lab can collect sufficient residue samples from a crime scene, it can use these samples to trace the explosive straight back to its manufacturer, and perhaps even the product line and specific production batch.

Assuming that a special formulation of C4 was used in the 9-11 attack, how was it planted, and where? 

Scroll down to continue...

Yowusa.com Companion Sites

Yowusa.com/Radio	www.Yowbooks.com
www.PlanetXForecast.com	www.PlanetXForecast.info
www.2012PlanetX.com	www.2012PlanetX.info
www.Kolbrin.com

Planting the C4 Charges

There can only be two possible explanations of how and where the C4 was placed.  Low Tech: The C4 was planted in the jet liners before their departure.  High Tech: The C4 was pre-positioned in the World Trade Center itself.  Interestingly enough, these two explanations are not mutually exclusive. 

Low Tech: The C4 Was Flown in as Cargo

The first explanation, that the C4 was carried on the jet liners, is credible, given the low passenger loads of each aircraft.  Airlines make their money moving people, mail and cargo.  The more people you move, the less fuel and space you have to move cargo and visa-versa.  In this case, C4 that had been specially formulated to burn could have been stashed in cargo containers and then loaded into the aircraft shortly before departure.

While getting box cutters through passenger screening was obviously achieved, moving hundreds of pounds of C4 through luggage checkout would have been impossible even at that time, considering how Pan Am Flight 103 was downed over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.  

This of course implies that the airline ground crews had been compromised by Al Qaeda operatives, in much the same way as drug smugglers do.  No doubt, the passenger and cargo manifests of several airlines were monitored over time, and the final flights were chosen simply on the basis of statistic sampling.

In this case, airliners loaded with kerosene in their tanks and C4 in their cargo holds would have been more than capable of generating sufficient heat to melt the steel construction of buildings designed to support five times the weight they each bore on the morning of 9-11.

The advantage of this approach is simplicity.  The C4 does not need to be detonated.  Simply hide it in the aircraft’s cargo hold, and it will burn at 3000F once the kerosene ignites.

The disadvantages are that the C4 cannot be optimally placed, and the resultant damage could have caused the tops of the towers to topple off to one side, as opposed to a full collapse, such as those common to controlled detonations.  Also, airports are very busy places, and while pre-9-11 security was questionable, there would have been too many variables to prevent detection with a high degree of confidence.

High Tech: The C4 Was Planted in the Towers in Advance

The high tech explanation is that the C4 was planted in the WTC towers prior to the attack.  While detonators, such as those used with Iranian IEDs, that are killing our troops in Iraq would not be used with burn-only C4, the charges would still need to be shape-planted in places where they could burn most effectively, such as I-beam supports.

Like the airliner explanation, this one implies that either the WTC security or building maintenance departments had been compromised.  However, planting the C4 on the airliners would be more convenient for the terrorists because this option would not require a coordinated attack. 

If the C4 had been planted in the building, it would have been necessary to likewise plant a homing device for the terrorists flying the airliners to ensure a successful coordinated attack.  Alternatively, a small targeting aircraft, such as helicopter or private airplane, could have “painted” the sides of the tower, as is done with laser guided smart bombs. 

Either way,  the hijackers flying the airliners would only need to plug a remote control system, which is similar to those used in short range ballistic missiles and smart bombs, into the remote port of the onboard computer system, position it for an unobstructed forward view, then let the airplane fly itself into the building.

This high tech approach has several advantages.  The C4 charges could be pre-positioned to create a catastrophic failure of the structures similar to the controlled detonation used by the NY Fire Department to collapse the WTC 7 building straight down. 

The hijackers flying the airliners would only need box cutters and the guidance device, which could have easily passed as a laptop computer.  The C4 would be pre-positioned in the buildings where it would be much easier for the terrorists to prevent detection with a high degree of confidence, as opposed to the low tech airport option.

Of the two options, low tech and high tech, we are of the opinion that Al Qaeda chose the high tech option for one simple reason.  John O'Neill.

Al Qaeda Attacked on 9-11 Because of John O'Neill

Before 9-11, President Clinton and his successor had one thing in common.  They  believed that lawyers and politically correct bureaucrats were better at dealing with  terrorists than the one man who knew more about Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda than any other person in America.

His name was John O'Neill, and as the former head of the FBI's counter terrorism office in New York, he led the investigations of the first World Trade Center bombing (1993), Oklahoma City (1995), Dhahran (1996), US Embassies in Africa (1998) and the USS Cole in Yemen (1999).  To Usama bin Laden, O'Neill was America’s dreaded junk yard dog and yet, this hard fighter was forced out of the FBI, simply because he didn’t know how to “suck up” in true pre-911 style.

Two weeks after quitting the FBI, the World Trade Center (WTC) offered O'Neill $350,000 a year to head their security department.  His first full day on the job was 9-11, and he died that day after running into a tower to help rescue office workers. 

How devastating was this loss?  Former FBI Director Louis Freeh and the FBI's Deputy Director Tom Pickard attended his funeral.  So if O'Neill pulled that much weight with the FBI, how much weight did he pull with Usama bin Laden?  Tons! 

Planet X Special Report

“Chance favors the prepared mind."—Louis Pasteur

Planet X Special Report No. 1: Where is Planet X?

We often received emails from people complaining about the mockery and abuse they receive from family, friends and co-workers when discussing this topic.

Our view is that this topic should never be introduced to others, until they demonstrate a geniune interest.

Nonetheless, those with a genuine interest in the topic will feel a natural urge to share their concerns about a possible threat to themselves and those close to them. Consequently, the most common questions they ask are, "where is Planet X, and what is the most likely worst case scenario?" GO

The Big Six Man-Made Catastrophic Scenarios for 2012 and Beyond — Survival Author Matthew Stein and Jacco van der Worp MSc

As moviegoers flock to see Sony's new 2012 film, critics, debunkers and cynics are spewing forth a flood of poison pen pronouncements. 

Taken altogether, it is a bizarre twist on the Biblical story of Noah and the Flood — and with strikingly similar themes. 

For those new to the topic of 2012, the film is great entertainment, but it also drives home an ancient failing of humanity.  That the common folk are often the last to know, whether by their own choices or those made for them by wealthy and powerful elites.   Ergo, many will never ask, "where will I be in 2012?"  They'll just have enough time to ask, "My God, what's happening?" GO

YOWUSA.COM Announcements

STREAM FOR FREE (Cable/DSL/56K Dial-up) Also For Your Listening Pleasure Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial Disinformation About the Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide Full Listing of All Cut to the Chase Shows