MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
As you all know, tomorrow will mark the 20th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11. Every year, I make a promise not to talk about the attacks because everyone has a pet theory that they want to produce which muddies up the real investigations and facts the mainstream media selectively overlooks. When someone with the right kind of research speaks up, they are immediately shut down and asked if they believe in the undefinedno planeundefined theory, or the Directed Energy weapons theory undefined or even if they want to get nasty, they ask you if you are a Flat Earther.
But oh, how they pretend to treat the 911 attacks with an err of religiosity and government worship when someone takes the official narrative to task and demonstrates that the 911 affair is one of misinformation that was actually reported by the left-leaning media who I believe are responsible for the so-called conspiracy theories as their narrative changed over the days and weeks after the attacks on this country.
Questioning the official narrative of the 911 attacks is a bipartisan affair, back when cynical Americans noticed that government became the civic religion overnight, They were the so-called protectors of the flock even though they allowed planes flown by terrorists to attack New York and somehow used a way to confuse people about the attacks on the Pentagon.
There have been many polls. Comparing and compiling the results is very difficult since the same questions are seldom asked, in precisely the same words, in different polls. It is, however, possible to set forth grounded estimates.
In 2008, WorldPublicOpinion.org polled over 16,000 people in 17 countries. Of the total population of 2.5 billion people represented in the survey, only 39% said they thought that Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.
The belief that Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks is an essential component of belief in the official narrative of 9/11. If only 39% is willing to name Al-Qaeda as responsible, then a maximum of 39% can be counted as believers of the official narrative.
This WorldPublicOpinion.org poll is, for the most part, supported by other polls, suggesting that the U.S. official narrative is, globally, a minority view. If these figures are correct, of the current world population of 7.5 billion, roughly 2.9 billion people affirm the official view of 9/11 and 4.6 billion do not affirm it.
Now, of the 61% who do not affirm the official view of 9/11, a large percentage says it does not know who carried out the attacks (by implication, it does not know what the goals of the attackers were, and so on). But the number of those who think the U.S. government was behind the attacks is by no means trivial. The figure appears to be about 14% of the world’s population.
If this is correct, roughly 1 billion people think the U.S. government was behind the attacks. Of course, this figure includes children. But even when we exclude everyone under 18 years of age we have 700 million adults in the world who think the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks.
For 20 years, people have been screaming for the truth and now with so many theories people will never know or will not be satisfied if their pet theory is not acknowledged by those who have done their homework.
Do these poll results prove that the official narrative is false? No. Do they prove that blaming elements of the U.S. government is correct? No. But these figures suggest two things. First, the official story, despite its widespread dissemination, has failed to capture the imaginations of the majority of people on the planet. Second, the minds of 700 million adults have no trouble embracing the possibility that elements of the U.S. government were behind the attacks.
Most peculiar and disturbing is the tendency of left activists and leaders to join with state intelligence agencies in using the term “conspiracy theory” to dismiss those who raise questions about official state narratives. Back then, the left spun their own conspiracy theories as well undefined and this is what we get undefined confusion and anger 20 years later.
Those who attack conspiracy theorists seem to not to realize that they are employing a propaganda expression, the function of which is to discourage people from looking beneath the surface of political events, especially political events in which elements of their own government might have played a hidden and unsavory role.
Many people agree that the attack was the result of multiple persons planning in secret to commit a crime. That is, the attack was the result of a conspiracy. The question is not, undefinedWas there a conspiracy?undefined The question is, undefinedWho were the conspirators?undefined
In the case of the 9/11 attacks, it is important to remember, when the “conspiracy theory” accusation is made, the argument tends to be settled by those who do not wish to hear what was happening behind the scenes when the terror unfolded on that day 20 years ago.
What I want to tell you is the whole story undefined by my observations.
20 years after the fact, the obsession with 911 and the so-called truthers is the controlled demolition of Building 7. Not the towers or even Building 6 and what happened as the planes made their mark.
When I appeared at Conspiracy Con 2011 in Santa Clara, California, I had a very interesting experience. During a Q&A period, I was asked what I would be talking about during the September 11th Anniversary, more specifically what I felt needed to be discussed.
I paused for a moment and then I stated that while there are many people fighting over whether or not there was a plane at the Pentagon or Thermite at the towers, they seem to be missing out on investigating the most overlooked puzzle pieces in the 9/11 case. I said that I believe our focus now should be on Flight 93 in Shanksville and Building 6.
Almost in unison, the group assembled at the hotel where I was appearing said “Building 7.” I said no Building 6—one guy piped up “Clyde you mean Building 7” I said no – everyone is talking about Building 7 and everyone is focusing on what brought down the towers – I want to know what happened to flight 93 and why Building 6 exploded immediately after United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the South Tower, at about 9:03 a.m.
While there have been countless attempts to show that Building 7 was brought down in controlled demolition, the arguments have been made that there was a fire in Building 7 and this is why it came down. Even though the story of a fire bringing down Building 7 does not measure up to scrutiny, and the gullible will say that fires cause freefall demolitions of buildings, the truth about Building 6 is that the building exploded and it was seen on national television and then was immediately covered up.
CNN aired the huge explosion of Building 6, the U.S. Customs building. The smoke and the debris from the building raised 47 floors and was visible and yet it was ignored as we watched the terrible plume of black smoke being released from the south tower. It was confirmed that at exactly 9:04 am Building 6 explode. A CNN archivist confirmed that this is what was recorded. No one could figure out why the building exploded.
Besides being the home of U.S. Customs, Building 6 housed several federal departments and agencies. One agency in particular was the Export-Import bank of the United States. Destroying this building was crucial because there may have been records that would have exposed who provided the investment capital for the attacks on the United States and who would have benefited financially from the attacks. In order to fully understand how this theory can materialize we must go back to a media exchange that has to have been forgotten since I never hear it being cited by independent researchers.
The Building 6 connections to bank exchanges and documentation of these events prior to 9/11 are dismissed outright by the mainstream media and many other truth movements because of links that may lead us to consider that 9/11 may have been financed by Saudi Arabia or Israel. The truth is, that there were many insinuations of this in the beginning during interviews on talk shows. The statements however faded into history because it did not match the findings that would lead the United States into prolonged wars with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, stated on the December 11, 2002 broadcast of News Hour with Jim Lehrer that intelligence was discovered that gave compelling evidence that some of the terrorists were bought and paid for by an unnamed sovereign government. Gwen Ifil was filling in that day and rather than throwing soft ball questions at the Senator about 9/11, she shot a very controversial question that got a surprising answer. She merely asked if there were classified elements that would surprise the American people regarding 9/11. He responded that there were unnamed foreign governments involved in facilitating some of the activities of the terrorists in the United States.
A New York Times report also reported that there was a relationship between Omar al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi Arabian civil aviation authority, and two 9/11 hijackers. Are we to assume that this connection may lead us to who planned and carried out the attacks? Saudi Arabia denied any connections but Omar al-Bayomi helped pay for some of the expenses of the hijackers and had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia.
Seemingly, the destruction of Building 6 could very well have been a way to disrupt the information flow which would have connected the attacks of 9/11 to Saudi financiers.
The destruction of Building 6 was planned to occur just after the plane hit the South tower to cover up the Saudi connections. Building 6 was also home to the El Dorado task force, an interagency money-laundering group from 55 agencies created in 1992. The El Dorado Task Force was responsible for coordinating all major money-laundering investigations in the U.S. In the immediate aftermath of9/11 attacks, these groups would coincidentally be redirected to investigate terrorist financing.
On the same day, the Securities and Exchange Commission declared a national emergency and for the first time in U.S. history invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) and eased regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days. These changes would allow an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.
The destruction of World Trade Center 6 is one of the many unexplained questions of 9/11. This 8-story building suffered a huge crater in its center which went all the way down to sub-basement levels. This is evidence enough that a bomb was detonated under the World Trade center causing Building 6 to topple, however, pulling the building with cables came later.
Although Building 6 apparently exploded at 9:04 a.m., the government-sponsored investigation was steered away from looking into what had actually happened. The Federal Emergency Management Agency funded an investigation by the American Society of Civil Engineers; however, investigators were reportedly blocked from the building by an order from the New York City’s Dept. of Design and Construction.
On the same day, the Securities and Exchange Commission declared a national emergency and for the first time in U.S. history invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) and eased regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days. These changes would allow an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.
It is also interesting side note to indicate that The Federal Emergency Management agency was called into New York on Monday September 10th 2011. FEMA spokesman Tom Kenney in an interview conducted by Dan Rather on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001, stated that FEMA was deployed to New York on Monday night, September 10th, to be ready to go into action on Tuesday morning, September 11th. FEMA had to hurry to come up with reason that he made the statement.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency claimed it did not have urban search and rescue teams in place in New York City prior to the Sept. 11 attacks FEMA officials said Kenney, in the heat of the moment, misstated his team’s arrival date. However, in the interview Kenney is complaining about not getting full access to the site until “today”. Kenney talks about a Monday, a Tuesday, and “today”. That’s three days. After all of the denial a smoking gun statement was made by Rudy Giuliani.
In the transcript of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s testimony to the 9-11 Commission during the May 18-19, 2004 hearings he stated that command center was established on Pier 92 prior to the attacks because of a bio terror drill that was being carried out;
“The reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was going to be the place they were going to have the drill.
The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed.”
So why would FEMA deny that their presence in New York the day before the attack?
Was there inside knowledge that the buildings would be attacked and that there would be a major simultaneous controlled demolition of the buildings?
Giuliani also had stated that he was informed prior to the North and South Tower collapse that they would indeed collapse. He was actually caught in Building 7 and was rescued before it was demolished. They were ordered to leave the area because they were told the towers would collapse.
As far as Building 6 and even Building 4 and 5 there was an order issued that the Treasury also had concerns about the about loose gold bullion and cash in the connecting basements of the buildings. The billions of dollars in gold bullion was stored under the World Trade Center was transported out. The amount of what was recovered seems to total a couple of million. The gold was owned by the Kuwaiti government.
It is also believed, however, but not confirmed, that the gold had been moved to a delivery tunnel transported under secret orders. As the gold was being removed firefighters and FEMA incident workers were told not to enter the restricted areas or face lethal force.
A handful of heavy-machinery operators and other workers, under the watchful eyes of more than 100 armed officers, built and graded a ramp into the delivery tunnel.
A small bulldozer knocked down a wall inside the tunnel, and a Brink’s armored truck drove in just before sunset.
There is also another thing to consider, the bombing of Building 6 covers up treasury transactions and the demolition of Building 7 covered up and destroyed all Securities exchange reports. The trail of money to Saudi nationals, Israeli interests and government officials.
There is also the case of Larry Silverstein, the man who had controlling interest of the World Trade Center properties and the man who denies that he demanded that the buildings be pulled and has now retracted his statements saying they were taken out of context.
On July 24, 2001, the Port Authority of New York awarded control of the WTC complex to a partnership consisting of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. Mr. Silverstein was the lead (general) partner and controlled Silverstein Properties. Mr. Frank Lowy controlled Westfield America.
(Representing the Port Authority of New York was Mr. Lewis Eisenberg, Chairman of the Port Authority for New York. Eisenberg, was also former chairman of Goldman Sachs Inc., )
The winning bid from Silverstein and Lowy was 3.2 Billion dollars. Silverstein and Lowy were required to make a down payment of $125,000,000.00. (According to the website “What Really Happened,” Silverstein had two other financial backers, a Lloyd Goldman and a Joseph Cayre, who also put up a portion of the down payment.)
However, contrary to popular belief, Silverstein et.al. did not buy/purchase the WTC. The partnership only gained control of the WTC by obtaining from the P.A.N.Y. a 99 year lease in Buildings 1,2,4 and 5 and 9 and 400,000 square feet of retail space.
Mr. Silverstein immediately insured the complex for 3.6 billion dollars. This was accomplished under contract with Willis Group Holdings Ltd. who arranged and negotiated the coverage with a consortium of 25 insurance companies.
The contracts included coverage in the case of “terrorist attack.” When the attack occurred, Silverstein claimed that there were two different terrorists attacks and therefore the actual amount due under the contracts was double or about 7.2 billion dollars.
Those who cannot imagine this hypothesis to be true will leave it unexamined, and, in the worst of worlds, will contribute to the silencing of it. But it is the truth and it is the full perspective of what happened with the buildings -all of them on that day.
The picture that unmistakably emerges is that the great majority of reporters who witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers either perceived an explosion or perceived the towers as exploding.
This hypothesis of the Twin Towers’ destruction then continued to be prevalent among reporters covering the event, who essentially viewed the destruction of the towers as an explosion-based attack subsequent to the airplane strikes.
Among individuals who witnessed the event firsthand, the more prevalent hypothesis was that the Twin Towers had been brought down by massive explosions.
The controlled demolition narrative was actually reported by 11 TV news broadcasts.
These included the networks ABC, CBS, and NBC; cable news channels CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC; and local network affiliates WABC, WCBS, and WNBC.
Narrative framing, by contrast, tells us how reporters interpreted the event after having more time to process their perceptions and to synthesize additional information from other sources. Narrative reporting thus tells us about the collective narrative that was developing among reporters covering the event.
Even FDNY witnesses were speaking about explosions in the buildings, which were later explained away as something else.
We were then given the story of how airplane fuel melted the steel on the towers and that they fell in pancake descent.
The 9/11 narrative was changed and it worked because of magical propaganda as the thought of an “inside job” was outside people’s conceptual framework. No one would believe that two, 110 story buildings collapsed to the ground from kerosene fires in less than 12 seconds or that Building 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds which hadn’t even been hit by a plane.
