9-11 and Iran: Did They
Have a Hand in It?
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.
Do We Bomb Thier Nuclear Productions Facilities or Not? — Listen to This Vital
Cut to the Chase Interview for the Answer
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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!