The Secret History of 911 & War of Terror

[Peter Lemkin]

Watch this first.....



Then follow up with the better and harder-hitting interview with Niels Harrit!



And then push all the buttons you can from wherever you are....

....we were all lied to.....it has all been a sham....

Most who come to this website already know this...but do your friends? family? fellow citizens?

[Peter Lemkin]

The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report: The 9/11 Document that Launched US-NATO's "War on Terrorism" in the Middle East

By Prof. Niels Harrit
Global Research, March 21, 2018



We call them the 9/11 wars' the seemingly unending destruction of the Middle East and North Africa which has been going on for the last seventeen years. As revealed by Gen. Wesley Clark,[1] these wars were already anticipated in September 2001.
The legal foundation for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been challenged in several countries. The best known is the Chilcot Inquiry in the UK, which began in 2009 and concluded in a report in 2016. The inquiry was not about the legality of military action, but the British government was strongly criticised for not having provided a legal basis for the attack.
Even though the invasion of Iraq was planned[2] prior to 9/11, most observers note that the attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was a required precursor.
However, the legal basis for attacking Afghanistan has attracted almost no attention. One obstacle in addressing this has been the assumption that the key document was still classified.[3][4]
But as demonstrated below, this document was apparently declassified in 2008.
On the morning of 12 September 2001, NATO's North Atlantic Council was summoned in Brussels. This was less than 24 hours after the events in USA. The council usually consists of the permanent ambassadors of the member states, but in an unprecedented move, the EU foreign ministers participated as well.[5]
Lord Robertson, Secretary General of NATO, wrote a draft resolution invoking Article 5 in the Washington treaty the famous musketeer clause' as a consequence of the terror attacks. The decision to do so had to be unanimously approved by the governments in all 19 NATO countries. This general agreement was obtained at 9.20 pm and Lord Robertson could read out the endorsements at a packed press conference:[6]

"The Council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."

There was a reservation. Article 5 would not be formally activated before "it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad".
Apparently NATO had a suspect. But the forensic evidence was still pending, and hence also the formal invocation of Article 5.

Formally, this evidence was provided by Frank Taylor (image on the right), a diplomat with the title of Ambassador from the US State Department. On 2 October he presented a brief to the North Atlantic Council, and Lord Robertson could subsequently conclude:[7]

"On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined that the attack against the United States on 11 September was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."
"Today's was classified briefing and so I cannot give you all the details. Briefings are also being given directly by the United States to the Allies in their capitals."

Since the invocation of Article 5 had to be unanimous, Frank Taylor's report would have been integral in the briefings announced to take place.
In Denmark the country of the present author there was a meeting in the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 October 2001, where parliamentarians were briefed by the government about the proceedings in Brussels.
Was America Attacked by Afghanistan on September 11, 2001?




Parallel briefings must have been given in the 17 other NATO capitals. In each city, the resolution must have been approved, since Lord Robertson could announce NATO's unanimous adoption of Article 5 and the launch of the war on terror on 4 October.[8] The first bombs fell in Kabul on 7 October.
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty says:[9]

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,….."

That is, any military action taken by NATO is confined by the restrictions in Article 51, which emphasises the right to self-defence and reads:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,….".[10]

That is, military action is forbidden in the absence of an armed provocation, and the legality of the attack on Afghanistan depends exclusively on the evidence presented in Frank Taylor's report. But it was classified together with the minutes from the pertinent meetings.
However, on 19 May 2008, the US State Department declassified the dispatch which was sent in 2001 to all US representations world-wide, including the ambassadors to NATO headquarters, regarding what to think and say about the 9/11 events.
It is titled: "September 11: Working together to fight the plague of global terrorism and the case against al-qa'ida".
The text is freely accessible here.
The document is dated 01 October 2001. But as hinted by the URL, it seems to have been distributed on 2 October five days before the invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 20101. That is, the day Frank Taylor gave his presentation for the North Atlantic Council and the EU foreign ministers, and the day before the US ambassadors were briefing the governments in the respective NATO capitals.
The text of the dispatch begins by requesting "all addressees to brief senior host government officials on the information linking the Al-Qa'ida terrorist network, Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban regime to the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the crash of United Airlines Flight 93."
The document appears to be a set of talking points'. The recipients are instructed to use the information provided in oral presentations only and to never leave the hard copy document as a non-paper. Specifically, there is reference to "THE oral presentation".
These instructions are followed by 28 pages of the specific text.
Tellingly, a section of this dispatch is copy-pasted into Lord Robertson's statement on 2 October:[SUP]7[/SUP]

"The facts are clear and compelling[…] We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were part of the world-wide terrorist network of Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban."

The conclusion is inescapable this dispatch IS the Frank Taylor report. It is the manuscript that served not only as the basis for Frank Taylor's presentation, but also for the briefings given by US ambassadors to the various national governments. Identical presentations were given in all 18 capitals on 3 October, four days before the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan
Is there any forensic evidence provided in this document to serve as a legal basis for the invocation of Article 5?
Nothing. There is absolutely no forensic evidence in support of the claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan.
Only a small part of the introductory text deals with 9/11, in the form of summary claims like the citation in Lord Robertson's press release. The main body of the text deals with the alleged actions of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the nineties.
On 4 October, NATO officially went to war based on a document that provided only talking points' and no evidence to support the key claim.
We are still at war seventeen years later. Five countries have been destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people killed and millions displaced. Refugees are swarming the roads of Europe, trillions of dollars have been spent on weapons and mercenaries and our grandchildren have been shackled with endless debt.
At the opening ceremony for the new NATO headquarters on 25 May 2017, all the leaders from NATO's member states attended the inauguration of a 9/11 and Article 5 Memorial'.[11]
*
Prof. Niels Harrit is a retired Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Notes
[1] The Plan according to U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE
[2] Bush decided to remove Saddam on day one'. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/12/usa.books
[3] The Unanswered Questions of 9/11. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-unanswe...61?print=1
[4] Was America Attacked by Afghanistan on September 11, 2001? https://www.globalresearch.ca/was-americ...01/5307151
[5] Being NATO's Secretary General on 9/11. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2011/11...ertson/EN/ (from which you can deduce that the NATO-ambassadors eat lunch at 3 pm).
[6] Statement by the North Atlantic Council, https://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-124e.htm
[7] Statement by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson. https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011002a.htm
[8] Statement to the Press by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, on the North Atlantic Council Decision On Implementation Of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty following the 11 September Attacks against the United States. https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm
[9] The North Atlantic Treaty. https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/offic..._17120.htm
[10] Article 51, UN charter. http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/
[11] Dedication of the 9/11 and Article 5 Memorial at the new NATO Headquarters, 25 May 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...ugh1WqTqFs


--------------------------------------------------
And here is the actual document that launched the War on Afghanistan and the War of Terror - both....read and weep.

[Peter Lemkin]

[Peter Lemkin]

The really great four part series on Demolition Access to the WTC by Kevin Ryan!

Part I HERE - read and download all four! This is how the thermate and nanothermite were put on the beams and other parts of the building! Explained.....no mystery - from the official version only lies and silence...

[Peter Lemkin]

https://shoestring911.blogspot.com/

---

At least three notable anomalous events occurred at the World Trade Center in the weeks and months leading up to September 11, 2001, which may have related to the imminent terrorist attacks but could not have been caused by al-Qaeda, the group supposedly responsible for 9/11.
There was an increase in security at the Trade Center in the two weeks before 9/11, for reasons that are unclear, which only ended the day before the attacks. Also, the fire alarm system in World Trade Center Building 7 was placed on "test condition" every morning in the seven days before the attacks and on the day of 9/11. While it was in this mode, any alarms would be ignored. WTC 7 was a massive skyscraper located just north of the Twin Towers, which mysteriously collapsed late in the afternoon of September 11. And some of the elevators in the Twin Towers were out of service in the months before the attacks, supposedly due to maintenance work or modernization.
It seems odd that these events happened at the World Trade Center just before the Twin Towers were the target of a terrorist attack and three of the Trade Center buildings collapsed. It would have been notable if just one of them occurred in the period leading up to 9/11. The fact that all three did is remarkable.
Osama bin Ladenthe man who supposedly ordered the 9/11 attacksand his al-Qaeda terrorist organization would surely have been unable to bring about these events. Therefore, if the official account of 9/11 is true and they were responsible for the attacks, then it must have been just a coincidence that these events occurred before September 11. But if the events were related to preparations for the attacks on the World Trade Center, this would cast serious doubt on the official narrative of 9/11.
A new investigation of the attacks would be necessary to determine if the unusual events at the World Trade Center in the period leading up to 9/11 were significant and, if they were, what their purposes were. All the same, we can at least consider possible reasons for them.
It is possible, for example, that they related to efforts to secretly prepare the Twin Towers and WTC 7 to be brought down with explosives as part of the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps the heightened security at the World Trade Center and the supposed maintenance work on the elevators were intended to create cover stories for the men who were planting the explosives. If a person inquired about mysterious workers they had seen at the Trade Center, they could be falsely told these men were there to repair the elevators or help out in response to the heightened security. Or if someone asked about unusual work they had noticed being carried out in the buildings, they could be told this work related to repairs on the elevators, even though it in fact related to the preparations for demolishing the buildings.
Security At The World Trade Center Was Increased Just Before 9/11

It is striking, in light of the fact that the World Trade Center was about to become the scene of a massive terrorist attack, that security at the Trade Center was suddenly increased around the end of August 2001.
Security at the checkpoint leading to the garage under the Trade Center complex, through which "deliveries and everything" had to pass, was "markedly increased about two weeks before" September 11, firefighter Timothy Brown, a supervisor at New York City's Office of Emergency Management, has recalled. Extra measures included "a lot more Port Authority police officers" at the checkpoint, and "[bomb-sniffing] dogs running around and checking all the trucks." 1 At the same time, security personnel at the Trade Center had to work extra-long shifts due to the heightened security. 2
And Ben Fountain, who worked for a company on the 47th floor of the South Tower, recalled that in the "few weeks" before September 11, he and his colleagues were evacuated from the building "a number of times." It is unclear whether this was because of the heightened security. All the same, the amount of evacuations was "unusual," Fountain commented. 3 Brown similarly said the increased security measures were "unusual." "We had wondered if something was up," he remarked. 4 "I think they had an inkling something was going on," Fountain said. 5
The additional security measures were withdrawn in the days before 9/11. Bomb-sniffing dogs were "abruptly removed" on September 6 and September 11 was "the first day there was not the extra security," Daria Coard, a guard in the North Tower, said.
No clear reason was provided for the increase in security. While Coard said it occurred in response to "numerous phone threats," the London Independentreported that "no explanation has been given" for it. 6 And when Brown and his colleagues asked people "in the intelligence area" if something was going on, they were told, "No." 7
Fire Alarm System Was On 'Test Condition' In The Week Before 9/11

While these extra security measures were being implemented, another anomalous event occurred at WTC 7, a 47-story office building located 370 feet north of the North Tower. Specifically, every morning for the seven days before September 11, the building's fire alarm system was placed on "test condition." On September 11, it was again put on test condition, at 6:47 a.m., and only returned to normal monitoring, automatically, eight hours later, at 2:47 p.m.
Test condition was usually requested when maintenance or testing was being carried out on the alarm system. Perhaps significantly, when the system was in this mode, any alarms that were received would be considered the result of the maintenance or testing and were therefore ignored. Additionally, any alarm signals would not appear on the operator's display, although they were still recorded in the system's history file. 8
Anything unusual that took place at WTC 7 deserves scrutiny since this building collapsed completely at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, even though no plane hit it, after being set on fire by debris when the Twin Towers came down and then burning throughout the day. The New York Times called its collapse "a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world," and noted that WTC 7 was "the first skyscraper in modern times to collapse primarily as a result of a fire." 9
Official explanations have ruled out or ignored the use of explosives as a possible cause of its collapse. 10 Many people, though, have commented that its collapse resembled a typical controlled demolition and suggested that explosives were indeed used to bring it down. 11
Elevators Were Out Of Operation Before 9/11

The third unusual event at the World Trade Center was that some of the elevators in the Twin Towers were out of service in the months before September 11. This anomaly could be particularly significant in light of the possibility that the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives, since it has been indicated that the availability of unused elevator shafts would have made it easier for demolition workers to plant explosives throughout the buildings.
At least one elevator that went all the way up the North Tower was out of operation before 9/11. Each of the Twin Towers had two passenger elevators that went from the base to the top of the building. 12 Referring to one of these elevators in the North Tower, journalists Kevin Flynn and Jim Dwyer wrote that the "elevator that ran directly from the ground" up to Windows on the World, the restaurant on the top floors of the building, "was out of service" on September 11. 13 Apparently referring to the same elevator, ABC News correspondent Don Dahler reported on the morning of September 11 that "a major elevator that went all the way to the top ... has been malfunctioning for at least a month." "They've been having a lot of trouble with that," he added. 14
In fact, according to a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), both of the elevators that went from the base to the top of the North Tower were out of operation on September 11. "Elevators 6A and 7A were out of service for modernization," the report stated. 15
Some people who worked in the North Tower have recalled problems with the building's elevators just before 9/11, but it is unclear whether they were referring to these two elevators or to other ones.
Susan Frederick, who worked on the 80th floor, said two elevators "had been out of service for more than six months" before September 11, "as renovations were taking place." 16 Nancy Cass, who worked on the 44th floor, stated that the "passenger elevators on the west side of the building had been out of order for the past five or six weeks" before September 11 "and the elevator company had a crew of men working on the scene." 17 And Monica Goldstein, who worked on the 101st floor, told her sister that in the weeks just before 9/11, "elevators skipped floors and went out of service." 18
At least two elevators in the South Tower were out of operation just before 9/11. Each of the Twin Towers had 10 elevators that went up from the concourse to the 78th floor sky lobby. 19 Judy Wein, who worked on the 103rd floor of the South Tower, recalled that two of these in her building "had been out of service for months" before September 11. 20 And someone who was on the 78th floor of the South Tower when the plane crashed into the building on September 11 mentioned "elevators that were being repaired" there at that time. 21
Did The Unusual Events Relate To Preparations For 9/11?

It is certainly curious that at least three anomalous events occurred at the World Trade Center just before September 11, when the Twin Towers were the targets of a massive terrorist attack and these two buildings, along with WTC 7, unexpectedly collapsed. It is at least plausible that it was a coincidence that these events all took place just before 9/11. However, while it would have been notable if even one of them occurred, for all three to happen at that time due to chance would have been extraordinary.
It seems quite likely, therefore, that there were more sinister reasons for these events. If, as some people have suggested, the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down with explosives, the events may have related to work carried out to prepare the three buildings to be demolished on September 11. It is consequently worth considering what purposes each event could have served if this was the case.
Security Alert Could Have Provided A Cover Story For Operatives Preparing The Attacks

It is unclear what the heightened security at the World Trade Center in the two weeks before 9/11 might have achieved. Perhaps there were a large number of people at the Trade Center at that time, helping to prepare for the attacks on September 11. This could have meant there was a danger that security guards or others who worked there would get suspicious if they noticed all these unknown people around the place. The heightened security could have been implemented so if anyone questioned what these people were doing, it could be claimed they were there to help deal with this.
Another possibility is that the security alert was intended to create a pretext for bringing to the Trade Center operatives who would make sure the explosives planted there weren't discovered at the last minute. Men disguised as security guards could have been brought there under the cover story that they were helping to implement extra security measures. Their actual role, however, would have been to guard areas where explosives were planted or work was being carried out to prepare the buildings to be demolished.
'Test Condition' Could Have Prevented Fire Alarms Drawing Attention To Preparations For 9/11

The purpose of placing the fire alarm system in WTC 7 on test condition in the week before 9/11 could have been to prevent any last-minute work preparing the building for demolition from setting off the alarm. Had the alarm gone off, it could have drawn attention to this work and perhaps led to the sinister plan for September 11 being uncovered.
Even if the work had caused the fire alarm to go off, the fact that the system was on test condition should have meant the alarm would have been disregarded and therefore not draw attention to the work preparing WTC 7 to be demolished. As NIST pointed out, when the fire alarm system was on test condition, "any alarms received from the system were considered the result of ... maintenance or testing and were ignored."
Perhaps work was being carried out that involved drilling or other activities that created a lot of dust, which could have got into the smoke detectors and set off the fire alarm. NIST, in one of the reports it produced on the collapse of WTC 7, confirmed that dust could set off the fire alarm. Specifically, it suggested that the presence of a large amount of dust from the collapse of the South Tower could have been the cause of the alarm system in WTC 7 registering a "fire condition." Referring to an alarm at 10:00 a.m. on September 11, NIST stated that it "could not determine whether this fire alarm was triggered by smoke from a fire or by dust entering smoke detectors." 22
It is harder to come up with possible reasons why the alarm system was on test condition on the day of 9/11, since any work preparing the building for demolition presumably would have been completed by then. Perhaps the system was on test condition that day so investigators would subsequently have less information with which to determine the sequence of events that led up to the collapse of WTC 7.
The amount of information available to investigators would in fact already have been limited due to the way information from the fire alarm system was recorded. The fire alarm system in WTC 7 recorded information at the fire command station in the building's third-floor lobby. It was also monitored away from the World Trade Center site by AFA Protective Services, a New York-based company that designs, installs, and services fire alarm systems. 23 However, NIST noted, "specific fire information beyond the fact that a fire condition has been detected is rarely sent to the monitoring site."
For example, the record in the system's history file, of the alarm in WTC 7 that occurred at 10:00 a.m. on September 11, showed that the fire condition existed in "AREA 1." However, AREA 1 was not a specific location within WTC 7, but instead referred to the entire building.
While the fire alarm equipment in WTC 7 could have provided "a much greater amount of information" than the history file recorded at the monitoring site, NIST stated, "None of that information was recovered from the building systems, which were destroyed in the collapse." 24
Elevators Could Have Been Out Of Use So Explosives Could Be Planted In The Shafts

It is perhaps easiest to think of possible reasons why rogue individuals who planned to bring the Twin Towers down with explosives as part of the 9/11 attacks would have arranged to have elevators in the towers out of service in the months before September 11.
The group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth pointed out, "The architectural drawings of the WTC North Tower ... indicate that most of the [building's] core columns would be easily accessed from the elevator shafts in order to plant explosives." 25 And Tom Sullivan, an explosives technician, commented: "Looking at the [World Trade Center] building, [demolishing] it wouldn't be a problem once you gained access to the elevator shafts. Then a team of loading experts would have access to all the core columns and beams." 26
We can see, therefore, that a reason for having elevators in the Twin Towers out of operation before 9/11 could have been to enable demolition workers to plant explosives in the unused elevator shafts or make it easier for them to access areas where they needed to plant explosives.
In light of this possibility, it is notable that one or two of the elevators in the North Tower that were out of operation went all the way up the building. Therefore, if demolition workers wanted to plant explosives in the elevator shafts or in areas accessible from the elevator shafts, having these particular elevators out of use would presumably have enabled them to rig the entire building, from the bottom to the top, with explosives.
Similarly, the fact that two elevators in the South Tower that were out of service went from the base of the tower to the 78th floor presumably would have meant demolition workers were able to plant explosives on over two-thirds of the building's floors.
An additional reason for having elevators out of service could have been to create a cover story for the demolition workers who were planting explosives in the Twin Towers. If anyone got suspicious and inquired about what these men were doing, they could have been falsely told the men were maintenance workers, there to work on elevators that were supposedly malfunctioning or being modernized.
Elevator Mechanics Were Away From The Twin Towers When They Collapsed

In light of the possibility that demolition workers planted explosives in the elevator shafts in the Twin Towers or used the elevator shafts to access the areas where they were planting explosives, it is curious that elevator mechanics at the World Trade Center appear to have been particularly fortunate on September 11, such that none of them died in the attacks.
ACE Elevator, the company responsible for servicing and modernizing the elevators at the World Trade Center, had 83 employees working at the Trade Center on September 11. Remarkably, these elevator mechanics "left the buildings after the second jet struck, nearly an hour before the first building collapsed," according to USA Today, even though, at the time, "dozens of people were trapped in stuck elevators." The mechanics were consequently about a block and a half away from the towers when the first collapse occurred. "Our people miraculously left when the second plane hit and it saved our lives," Ron Baamonde, ACE Elevator's president, commented.
The departure of elevator mechanics from a disaster site is unusual, according to USA Today. "Nobody knows the insides of a high-rise like an elevator mechanic," Robert Caporale, editor of Elevator World magazine, told the newspaper.
Baamonde said the mechanics left the towers "on their own [initiative] because they were in danger." James O'Neill, ACE Elevator's supervisor of maintenance, said they left to "assess the damage and come back in as needed." Their plan, he said, had been "to return to the building later in the day to help with rescues." 27
However, according to elevator history expert Patrick Carrajat, no clear reason has been provided as to why ACE Elevator personnel were away from the towers when they collapsed. "We have heard several versions of why ACE personnel were not at the Trade [align=center]," he wrote, and "most revolve around a labor management dispute." 28
Furthermore, if the elevator mechanics left the World Trade Center on their own initiative after the second crash, their actions apparently violated protocol. The New York Port Authority, which owned the Trade Center, said its "emergency plan called for mechanics to stay and help with rescues." Port Authority spokesman Allen Morrison said, "There was no situation in which the mechanics were advised or instructed to leave on their own." 29
Considering the conflicting explanations that have been offered as to why the elevator mechanics were away from the Twin Towers when they collapsed and the fact that the mechanics' actions appear to have gone against standard procedures, it is surely possible that there was a more sinister reason for the mechanics' apparent good fortune on September 11.
Perhaps someone at ACE Elevator, due to the company's involvement with maintaining the elevators at the World Trade Center, knew demolition workers had been planting explosives in the elevator shafts in the Twin Towers or using the elevator shafts to access areas where they were planting explosives. If so, this person may have consequently taken actions that ensured the company's workers were out of harm's way when the towers came down on September 11.
The Unusual Events At The Trade Center Before 9/11 Are Suspicious And Need To Be Investigated

It seems reasonable to assume that the occurrence of at least three anomalous events at the World Trade Center just before September 11, when the Trade Center was the scene of a massive terrorist attack, is significant. These events therefore ought to be looked into as part of a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
There are many questions that need to be addressed. To begin with, were these events indeed connected to the attacks that subsequently occurred at the Trade Center? If so, what were their purposes? Did they relate to preparations for bringing down the Twin Towers and WTC 7 with explosives? Who was responsible for bringing them about?
It ought to be fairly straightforward to find out who arranged to have the fire alarm system in WTC 7 put on test condition in the days up to and including September 11. Currently, the identity of this person is unclear. AFA Protective Systems, the company that monitored the alarm system, usually placed the system on test condition in response to a request from the building manager, according to NIST. 30 And Mike Catalano, chief engineer for Salomon Smith Barney at WTC 7, said the building manager was a man called Ed Campbell. 31 However, the monitoring station history tape record for the alarm system on September 11 stated that the system was placed on test condition that day at the request of a person with the surname, "Williams." 32
Also, was it usual to have the alarm system in WTC 7 on test condition every day for a week? Surely this was quite a drastic and risky action. If there had been a fire in WTC 7 during the week before 9/11, while the system was in this mode, would the alarm have failed to go off or, if it did go off, would it have been ignored because people assumed this was due to testing? Would those in the building therefore have stayed where they were instead of evacuating, thereby potentially putting themselves in danger? And would it have taken longer for the Fire Department to be alerted, such that the fire grew more and caused more damage before firefighters were able to bring it under control?
It has been claimed that elevators in the Twin Towers were out of service before September 11 for reasons such as "renovations," "modernization," or because they were "malfunctioning" or "being repaired." And according to people who worked in the Twin Towers, some elevators were out of use for months. But why would it take months for an elevator to be repaired or modernized? Was it usual for such work to take this long? If not, were any suspicions raised at the time about the elevators being out of operation and, if they were, what explanations were given?
Since it is plausible that the increased security at the World Trade Center, the placing of the fire alarm system in WTC 7 on test condition, and having some of the elevators in the Twin Towers out of service were connected to preparations for bringing down the Twin Towers and WTC 7 with explosives on September 11, it is surely important that these events be investigated thoroughly. Closer examination of them could help determine how the 9/11 attacks were carried out and who was responsible for them.

---

Notes

1 Tim Brown, interview by Jim Whitaker. Project Rebirth, June 30, 2002.
2 Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner, "Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted." Newsday, September 12, 2001.
3 "Hell on Earth." People, September 24, 2001.
4 Tim Brown, interview by Jim Whitaker.
5 "Hell on Earth."
6 Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner, "Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted".

Andrew Gumbel, "Bush Did Not Heed Several Warnings of Attacks." The Independent, September 17, 2001.
7 Tim Brown, interview by Jim Whitaker.
8 Therese P. McAllister et al., Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2008, pp. 68-69.
9 James Glanz, "Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel." New York Times, November 29, 2001.

James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "Burning Diesel is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower." New York Times, March 2, 2002.

Eric Lipton, "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says." New York Times, August 21, 2008.
10 Therese McAllister (Editor), World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2002, pp. 5-1 - 5-32.

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2008, pp. 26-28.
11 Ted Walter, Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Berkeley, CA: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 2015, p. 2.

For a short video that compares the collapse of WTC 7 with the known controlled demolitions of some high-rise buildings, see "WTC 7: Side-by-Side Comparison to Controlled Demolition." Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, February 4, 2013.
12 Dennis Cauchon and Martha T. Moore, "Elevators Were Disaster Within Disaster." USA Today, September 4, 2002.

Jason D. Averill et al.,Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005, p. 34.
13 Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn, 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers. New York: Times Books, 2005, p. 151.
14 "ABC Sept. 11, 2001, 11:18 a.m.-11:59 a.m." ABC 7, September 11, 2001.
15 J. Randall Lawson and Robert L. Vettori, The Emergency Response Operations. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005, p. 43.
16 Susan A. Frederick, "9/11 Survivor's Tale: 'It Was Not my Time,' Holyoke Native Susan Frederick Says." The Republican, September 18, 2001.
17 Damon DiMarco, Tower Stories: An Oral History of 9/11. Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Press, 2007, p. 59.
18 "Lives Remembered, by the Families and Friends Who Shared Them." New York Times, September 25, 2001.
19 H. S. Lew, Richard W. Bukowski, and Nicholas J. Carino, Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005, p. 169.
20 "Interview With Judy Wein, AON, 3/24/04, Hollis Hills, Queens." 9/11 Commission, March 24, 2004.

"Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Judy Wein." 9/11 Commission, March 24, 2004.
21 Jason D. Averill et al., Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications, p. 102.
22 Therese P. McAllister et al., Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, pp. 68-70.
23 June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2004, p. 93.

"Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Part IV: Life Safety." National Institute of Standards and Technology, April 5, 2005.
24 Therese P. McAllister et al., Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, pp. 69-70.
25 "The Twin Towers: Gallery of Evidence." Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, n.d.
26 "Tom Sullivan: Explosives Technician, Loader." Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, March 19, 2011.

"Explosives Technician Blows Away Official WTC Conspiracy Theory." Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, June 15, 2011.
27 Dennis Cauchon, "Mechanics Left Towers Before Buildings Collapsed." USA Today, December 19, 2001.

Dennis Cauchon and Martha T. Moore, "Elevators Were Disaster Within Disaster".

Robert Jones, "The Elevator Man's Tale." Times Herald-Record, September 8, 2002.
28 Patrick A. Carrajat, The Past as Prologue: The History of the Elevator Industry in America, 1850-2001. Privately printed, 2005, p. 162.
29 Dennis Cauchon and Martha T. Moore, "Elevators Were Disaster Within Disaster."
30 Therese P. McAllister et al., Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, p. 69.
31 Responding to Horror: Operating Engineers in Action at the World Trade Center Disaster. Washington, DC: International Union of Operating Engineers, 2003, p. 27.

"Memorandum for the Record: Meeting With Mike Catalano, Former Head of Salomon Smith Barney Security, Building 7 WTC." 9/11 Commission, January 16, 2004.
32 Therese P. McAllister et al., Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, p. 69.

[David Guyatt]

The below documents, NSPD-9 has probably been posted in the 9/11 folder before - but in case it hasn't, it's posted below. This document was "presented to principals" on 4th September 2001, 7 days before 9/11 and was signed by Bush on 25 October 2001.

It is the timing that stands out. The doc is from the Federation of American Scientists website

NSPD-9: Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States

October 25, 2001
[Text Posted Here]

---

On April 1, 2004, the White House releasedthe following characterization of this document:

• The NSPD called on the Secretary of Defense to plan for military options "against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics." The NSPD also called for plans "against al Qaeda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities."
  

In testimony before the 9-11 Commissionon March 23, 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld presented this description of the strategy contained in NSPD-9:

• "The objectives of the new strategy were:
  • To eliminate the al-Qaeda network;
    
  • To use all elements of national power to do so -- diplomatic, military, economic, intelligence, information and law enforcement;
    
  • To eliminate sanctuaries for al-Qaeda and related terrorist networks -- and if diplomatic efforts to do so failed, to consider additional measures.
    
  The essence of this strategy was contained in NSPD-9. It was the first major substantive national security decision directive issued by this Administration. It was presented for decision by principals on September 4, 2001 -- 7 days before September 11th. The directive was signed by the President, with minor changes, and a preamble to reflect the events of 9/11, on October 25, 2001."
  

[Anthony Thorne]

Rumsfeld's full statement notes that the document was devised around June of that year, shaped through several meetings, then presented to the folks cited that final week before the attacks.

I'm surprised there hasn't been any comments from others about the triggering event' transcript and Ikle's contemplation of a dramatic external event' being required for a desired military expenditure buildup in Peter's thread about early war on terror speculation from 1976. To my knowledge, that transcript has never before been posted online anywhere. The meeting was full of Team B / Committee on the Present Danger folk, plus close associates of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld later took over the running of the same think tank that staged the conference. It's an important signpost on the route to the REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENCES document, with attendees close to the signatories of that statement, but I think I'm getting the impression most 9/11 researchers - and I'm talking generally, not singling out members from this board - prefer discussion of the same dozen or so topics.

[David Guyatt]

Rumsfeld's full statement notes that the document was devised around June of that year, shaped through several meetings, then presented to the folks cited that final week before the attacks.

I'm surprised there hasn't been any comments from others about the triggering event' transcript and Ikle's contemplation of a dramatic external event' being required for a desired military expenditure buildup in Peter's thread about early war on terror speculation from 1976. To my knowledge, that transcript has never before been posted online anywhere. The meeting was full of Team B / Committee on the Present Danger folk, plus close associates of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld later took over the running of the same think tank that staged the conference. It's an important signpost on the route to the REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENCES document, with attendees close to the signatories of that statement, but I think I'm getting the impression most 9/11 researchers - and I'm talking generally, not singling out members from this board - prefer discussion of the same dozen or so topics.

I wouldn't worry too much Anthony. I think a lot of people read the forum, but few ever comment. I think many are scared to comment openly while others don't feel confident to do so. There is also the problem of people becoming "conscious" - to coin Caitlin Johnson's recent article [We Are Being Played] which, in turn coins Carl Jung's far deeper understanding. A great many people remain unconscious.

I personally considered those pages you posted about a "dramatic external event" to be historically very important. Many of us know why, given the Wolfotwitz Doctrine statement about a "catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbour" and what that absolutely signified. These plans, like the COG & COOP plans were in the pipeline for an awfully long time before the triggering event (9/11) took place.

I haven't the slightest doubt why all this came to be. The elite in the US saw the writing on the wall (back in the Reagan days) that the days of the American Empire were drawing to a close and they chose to try to extend US dollar hegemony by engineering perpetual war. They knew that war always causes panic in the financial markets and that this, in turn, forces the repatriation of externally held dollars - in waves as necessary - back into the US as dollar assets to fund US Treasury debt. This keeps the dollar debt functioning by servicing it, even though it keeps increasing it at the same time --- and ultimately makes it completely unsustainable in the long term. Currently, the US national debt is $21 trillion and growing furiously.

I am certain that the day will soon (relatively speaking) arrive when the US will go belly up and the US as a state will have no choice but to repudiate their debt -- the US elite will simply bugger off to safe havens elsewhere in the world when this happens -- as more and more foreign nations switch from the US dollar and trade between themselves in their local currencies to escape future US sanctions and blackmail (so watch out America when that eventually happens).

In the meantime, the perpetual war strategy has the additional benefit of vastly enriching those few members of the US elite who are in a position to take advantage of this policy -- while encumbering the rest of the American population with a disastrous future. In effect this is a tax funded trickle up mechanism - although it races up rather than trickles.

In the meantime this whole plan was designed to usher in what Chris Hedges calls an "inverted totalitarian" form of government for the USA (that's why COG was enacted on the afternoon on 9/11). That form of government is what you need (if you're the elite) to rob people blind and keep them myopic and uninformed about the actual reality of what is happening to them - and what will happen to them when everything unravels.

In other words, it's a cross between Hitler's and Al Capone's wet dream.

[Lauren Johnson]

The elite in the US saw the writing on the wall (back in the Reagan days) that the days of the American Empire were drawing to a close and they chose to try to extend US dollar hegemony by engineering perpetual war.

Don't forget the schemes for internal wealth extraction -- for profit prisons, etc.

[Peter Lemkin]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]Dear Guns and Butter Listeners and Subscribers:[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]We want to make sure that you know about important events marking the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary of the crimes of 9/11. Note: All three events will be live streamed at noliesradio.org. Days and times posted below announcements.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]In the Northern California Bay Area - The 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Annual 9/11 Film Festival community event will take place at the Grand Lake Theatre in Oakland on Tuesday, September 11[SUP]th[/SUP]. This year's theme, 9/11: The Crime of the Century…..that started the dominoes falling. Doors open at 2:00 pm. Program begins at 3:00 pm. Kevin Barrett will be in attendance and will make an important statement. We look forward to visiting with you there, and will be tabling in the lobby as usual.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]In New York City - Monday, September 10[SUP]th[/SUP], 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm, Jefferson Public Library, 425 6[SUP]th[/SUP] Avenue, Auditorium First Floor 9/11 Truth to 9/11 Justice, Sponsored by Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]In Washington, D.C. - Tuesday, September 11[SUP]th[/SUP], 10:00 am at the White House, 2:00 pm rally at the Capitol, 4:00 pm Congressional Offices, 6:30 pm Busboys & Poets. Sponsored by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 300, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 300, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]All events live-streamed by noliesradio.org according to the following schedule:

New York City 9/11 Lawyers' Committee Grand Jury Petition
Monday, September 10, 2018
3:30 pm Pacific | 6:30 pm Eastern | 22:30 GMT duration 1.5 hours

Washington DC 9/11 Truth Event in front of US Capitol
Tuesday September 11, 2018
11 am Pacific | 2 pm Eastern | 18:00 GMT duration 2 hours

San Francisco Bay Area 9/11 Truth Film Festival
Tuesday September 11, 2018
3 pm Pacific | 6 pm Eastern | 22:00 GMT duration 7 hours

All 3 video streams will be archived for 10 days after the event so you can arrive late, watch it later, watch it again, or pickup any pieces that you missed the first time.

You can watch on your computer, iphone, android phone, ipad, etc.

We will be sending out an update on KPFA's banning and archival removal of the Guns and Butter radio program in our next newsletter. Your letters and emails have been extremely supportive and important. Keep them coming! We will send out an updated email list for KPFA and Pacifica in our next newsletter.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]