karuwaki logo

Rethinking 9/11: Do we really know the full story?

Oct. 14, 2020, 6:59 p.m. by David Hilton ( 444 views)

Share via WhatsApp

*Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are the author’s personal opinion and are not endorsed by our page/website. All information has been fact-checked to our full capability and has been attributed to a responsible source.

The current global pandemic has shown that life is never predictable and that we are living in some truly unprecedented times. Events we thought were only possible in sci-fi Hollywood are now part of our reality. Indeed there are many questions around COVID-19 itself and the origins and after-effects of this virus will no doubt be subject to much scrutiny and analysis over the years to come. However today we shall focus our attention on another world-changing event that also radically altered and shaped our world today.

This is the September 9/11 attacks on America and the almost two decades long after-effects. Indeed the newer generations have grown up after this event and this has become part and parcel of accepted mainstream history. But do we really understand and know what truly happened on this fateful day? Do most of us know there are numerous alternate voices (ranging from ordinary citizens to respected professionals) that strongly question the mainstream narrative about 9/11.

In this piece do not want to insinuate any theories and come to any conclusions. We shall only discuss a few facts about this event that are still hard to explain. There is a lot more to this topic beyond these points but that will be beyond the scope of this piece. The reader may draw their own conclusions and carry forward this research independently beyond this point. In the end we only wish for the reader to further understand a critical piece of modern world history that often gets overlooked and taken for granted.

Responsive image

1) Could the two plane strikes bring down the twin towers?

One of main criticisms of the ‘accepted’ version of events is explaining from a structural engineering perspective the two hijacked airplane collisions were enough to bring down both WTC buildings. This topic is a matter of extensive back and forth debate on both sides of the argument. Skeptics argue that the freefall nature with which both buildings collapsed, and given the numerous testimonies from civilians and firefighters about ‘explosive charges’ going off after the planes had hit simply cannot be explained by simply the effect of two collisions. There is an organisation of over 3000 architects and engineers (https://www.ae911truth.org/) who state that the temperatures generated by the jet fuel burning whilsts appearing to be hot was simply nowhere near the temperature required to melt or even weaken the steel column supports.

Responsive image

Evidence of Thermite traces being found in the debris and dust

A further piece of evidence pointing to a cause other than the plane strikes is the evidence of thermite, an advanced pyrotechnic found in large traces in the dust around the collapse site. In theory there is no reason for thermite traces to be discovered as its a very controlled and specialist substance. Quoting Gregg Roberts from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth:

"Given the explosive nature of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers along with the finding of this high-tech nanocomposite pyrotechnic or explosive material in the WTC dust samples, there exists strong evidence which should compel all who are aware to be active in supporting AE911Truth in our effort to obtain a real investigation."

2) Do you know about WTC7? There was a third tower that fell, which no plane ever hit.

Given one accepts despite the debate that the airplane strikes were indeed the cause of demolition. But what will surprise many is there was another building that collapsed (in similar free-fall) WTC7 that had no impact from the planes whatsoever. The official explanation is ‘This was caused by office fires which started from some stray debris flying in through the windows, that led to the collapse of building 7.

Building 7 or the Saloman Brothers building remains the first and last structure of its size to date to collapse from ‘office fire’. Numerous civil engineers and construction experts have stated on record that ‘office fire’ is simply nowhere near the temperature to cause the collapse of a reinforced steel-frame building like WTC7 and moreover the fall of the building looked identical to every other controlled demolition of old buildings they had seen.

Adding to this is the controversial interview clip of Larry Silversteen, the leaseholder of WTC7 (and the twin towers) where he inadvertently seems to say that a decision was made to ‘pull the buildings’ although the official investigation says the building came down purely because of ‘office fire’. This clip of the interview can be found in the following link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y20NjIh5POY.

Another often cited piece of evidence against the ‘accepted narrative’ is this clip of a BBC journalist announcing the collapse of WTC7 while it can still be clearly seen in the background.

Responsive image

3) But wasn’t there a thorough investigation which led to the version of events we all accept today?

The 9/11 commission which produced the official version events after conducting an enquiry has plagued with criticism from the very start. This begins from its choice of panel members to the hasty nature with which investigation was conducted. Given the event was the largest attack on U.S soil one would assume every piece of evidence was meticulously examined. One would be surprised to find that all the metal debris and debris at the site of the twin towers was hurriedly shipped off by 3rd party contractors to shipyards in China for scrap metal. There was no adequate window for independent and government officials to analyze the majority of the metal debris and building rubble. The commission was also in controversy for trying to appoint Mr. Henry Kissinger as its chair, a man with a long history in American and world geopolitics, and known conflicts of interest with Saudi Arabia. Moreover, a number of key pieces of evidence such as the collapse of Building 7 and suspicious share trades before 9/11 have simply not been covered by the official commission report.

4) Do you know about suspicious trade, share deals and insurance contracts prior to the event? Were they all just coincidence?

Investigators and Researchers on this event claim that one of the biggest pieces of evidence ignored by the official commission is the abnormal nature of trades conducted just prior to the attacks of stocks related to airlines and other affected companies. Did you know that in the week prior to the attack 6 times more (than usual average) sell orders were placed on United Airlines stock was placed in the New York and Chicago Stock Exchange. This pattern was only for United Airlines and no other airline company. A sell order is placed when the person or entity placing the order expects the companies valuation to go down. The same pattern can be seen with Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch shares whose value is also nosedived in the attack aftermath. The unusual trading activity across major financial hubs and players is a whole topic of investigation in itself but its something that very few are aware of. An interesting point to note is the insurance deal on the trade center buildings which was made only a few weeks prior to the attack specifically increasing payout in case of ‘a terrorist’ attack of this nature. Indeed the lease of the WTC buildings was handed over entirely to a private consortium (lead by Larry Silversteen) only 7 weeks prior to the attacks.

5) Why could the US Airforce and Air-Defence not respond in time on that day?

It should be stated that US airspace at the time (and currently) is one of the most monitored areas of aviation in the world. The NORAD (US Air-Defence organisation) and FAA (Aviation Body) is capable of monitoring even the smallest of planes flying across and around the borders. However, a detailed investigation shows that on that day there was a complete failure to follow standard operating protocol. Firstly the event coincided with a number of ‘simulation’ exercises ongoing on the day which led to mass confusion among regular NORAD and FAA staff over what was happening in reality vs simulation exercises. Even after the news of the hijackings was made clear no attempt was made to scramble jets and monitor the airplanes even though past cases show that this had been done a couple of times when suspicious air activity was reported. Moreover, Washington DC and the vicinity of the WTC were no-fly zones so any aircraft (hijacked or not) would have had air defences activated without fail if standard procedures were followed.

6) A plane hit the pentagon? Really?

Whilst most people associate the 11th of September with the events in New York, what often goes unnoticed is a hijacked plane managed to fly over one of the most secure airspaces in the world (washington dc) and managed to strike one of the most secure buildings in the world (The Pentagon) by performing a shockingly difficult maneuver and living little to no debris and footage of it happening. Pilots have repeatedly come on record to state that maneuvering a large commercial airliner to strike the Pentagon like it was reported is next to impossible, especially given the hijackers were known to be very incompetent pilots at their air training school. There is hardly any conclusive footage of the plane hitting the pentagon. A retired Major General of the United States army, Albert M Stubblebine contended that given the damage on the pentagon building and what was meant to have caused it (a large commercial airliner), there was a major mismatch. The still below is from the only footage to have ever captured the pentagon strike and it was from a gas station across the street.

Responsive image

It should also be interesting to note that the day before, on the 10th of September the Pentagon announced 2.3 $ trillion dollars in unaccounted money in its audit books.

7) Who are the real culprits? Isn’t there enough proof to nail the hijackers?

This again is another whole area for investigation and research. The main theme that stands out though is none of the hijackers stand up to be the cold calculating operatives capable of executing a mission of this scale. Indeed the evidence identifying the hijackers is mostly through ‘spectacular’ finds such as finding their passports intact through an explosion that burned through highly reinforced steel. Indeed some of the original hijackers were later found to be alive and claimed they were not involved at all. FBI officials have also stated that till date there is no conclusive evidence to nail ‘Bin Laden’ (a business associate of the Bush family) on the crime. A lot of the ‘confession’ and ‘evidence’ are based on grainy footage found on a tape months after the American invasion which can’t be verified by independent digital media experts.

Then there is also the ‘Project for New American Century’ a group/think-tank including senior members of the then US Government, including Dick Cheney. Information can be found in this link https://www.newstatesman.com/node/192545.

There were calls for reforming and resetting the U.S military and security set up within this think-tank but they concluded only a year prior to 9/11 that this would not be possible without ‘a new pearl harbour’ event happening. Conveniently one year later, this exact scenario did take place.

- David Hilton

-He is a Bachelors (Hons) in History and Religious Studies.

-He currently works as a vertical lead for Advertising and Marketing firm in the U.K. Outside of work he still maintains a keen interest in history and current affairs

-Alternative History and Modern Geo-Political trends are his two main research interests.

-Besides this he is also passionate about brand management and increasing engagement with digital audiences.

(a little bit about the author:David Hilton)

Comments (0)