WHEN HISTORY SPOKE THE TRUTH
ABOUT 9/11/01

By: Nathanael

About one year ago, events in Teterboro, New Jersey and Madrid, Spain pulled back the covers on what really happened at the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. On February 02, 2005 a Canadair Challenger 600 corporate jet failed to get airborne during takeoff, skidded off the end of the runaway and crashed in a warehouse. Eleven days later, a thirty-two story office building in downtown Madrid was fully engulfed in flames and did not collapse.

Some or many would challenge, "Just what do these news stories have to do with 9/11/01?"

First let’s deal with the crashed business jet and how it provides a comparative analysis for what did or did not happen at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The official story from the Bush Administration, Defense Department and Congress is that American Airlines Flt. # 77, a Boeing 757-200, crashed into the Pentagon that morning. Some simple physical statistics about the two planes will help uncover the deception.

Boeing 757-200:

Maximum Takeoff Weight – 255,000 pounds

Length – 178’ 7"

Wingspan – 124’ 10"

Tail height – 44’ 6"

Exterior Body Width – 12’ 4"

Pratt and Whitney PW2000 Engine Tip Diameter 78.5"

Pratt and Whitney PW2000 Engine Length Flange to Flange 141.4"

Pratt and Whitney PW2037 Tare Weight 7160#

Canadair Challenger 600:

Maximum takeoff - 43,100 pounds

Length - 68’ 5"

Wingspan - 64’ 4"

Height - 20’ 8"

Exterior Body Width – 8’ 2"

Please review the impact images of the Canadair Flight (found here) with those of AA Flight 77 (as found here).

The commonly accepted size of the original impact hole or signature in the Pentagon is 16-20 feet across. This is for a Boeing 757-200 with a wingspan of 124’ 10", two massive outboard engines located about 30-35’ out from the center of the fuselage, each engine weighing over three tons and the jet flying at 250+ miles per hour. Given that the supposed crash occurred at an angle of about 45 degrees to the wall face, the impact signature should be at least 75’ to 170’ with a primary hole for the fuselage and with considerable damage from each wing and from each of the two outboard engines.

Based on the dimensional information of the jet and the images supplied by CBS News, the impact signature of the Canadair is shown from the pictures to be about 36 feet – the body diameter, 8’ 2", plus the length of the right wing, 28’ 1". And the Canadair Challenger 600 was skidding across the road slowly enough that all 11 passengers were rescued with the most serious injury being a broken leg suffered by the pilot.

Images of the North Tower from American Flight 11 and the South Tower from United Flight 175 at the World Trade Centers show dramatic evidence of the typical impact signature from the crash of an intact jet airliner. It imprints essentially the full wingspan of the aircraft not just the fuselage.

Furthermore and what has been raised in numerous investigative web sites is that there was virtually no leftover debris from the crash of AA #77. To that point, where is the tail section? In virtually all known jet liner crashes the tail section, the most structurally robust portion of the plane, survives to some degree intact and recognizable. This was the case in the Cypriot Helios Airways jet that crashed on Aug. 14, 2005 - see the images here. Why not at the Pentagon? Where is the tail of AA #77?

The rules of physics did not change on September 11, 2001. Without saying what actually did hit the Pentagon or what happened to AA#77, it is necessary to conclude that it was not a Boeing 757-200 that struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

"You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda." GWBush - May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY.

Less than two weeks after the Teterboro jet accident, a major fire broke out and totally engulfed the 32-story Windsor building in Madrid, Spain but it did not collapse. Even a construction crane on the roof remained in place. Please view the images at this site. There was concern that the weakened steel skeleton would collapse and fall over on to the surrounding buildings.

However, it did not fall over and did not implode coming to rest in its own footprint as did WTC I and II. In relative comparison to the Windsor building, WTC I and II had no fire damage whatsoever and yet they "failed" catastrophically "supposedly" due in large part to heat induced metal fatigue. What is far more plausible and likely is that WTC I and II were intentionally "pulled" as was WTC 7.

No airliner on 09/11/01 impacted WTC 7 but it was intentionally demolished later that day. Why? So when were the charges set for the controlled implosion of WTC7? Were they set earlier on September 11, 2001 or days before? Were the occupants of the building informed that their office building had been rigged with explosives?

Publicly unasked and unanswered questions abound, which seriously raise doubt about the "official story" of what really happened on 09/11/01. In 2004 a Zogby poll showed that … Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act.

It is not unreasonable to hold the perspective that 09/11/01 was an inside job. Below is a short list of web sites worthy of serious consideration.

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

Steve Jones, Professor of Physics at Brigham Young who wrote Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? by Morgan Reynolds

Two more questions should be asked when the likelihood of 09/11/01 being an inside job is considered.

  1. Can it be possible that the FedGov and the US Military would consider attacking its own citizens?
  1. To what end or goal would such a treasonous attack be executed?

As to question 1, in March of 1962 the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted for consideration to JFK a murderous scheme titled Operation Northwoods as reported by ABC News and George Washington University. This plan recommended the attack on American cities by clandestine American military forces as a ruse and pretext for going to war with Cuba. An "inside job" visited on Americans by the American military had already been considered four decades earlier. Why was no one in the US military who took part in this concoction arrested for treason and conspiracy to commit mass murder?

As to question 2, would the fraudulently constructed War in Iraq have been emotionally/politically possible if the massive psychology mind warping of The People caused by 09/11/01 had not occurred first? No. If the current Administration is capable of executing an illegal war of aggression, based on "a hoax " in which hundreds of thousands die needlessly, then it is not a stretch to conclude that 09/11/01 was an inside job resulting in the desired New Pearl Harbor needed to launch a war in Iraq and other places.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Joseph Goebbels

"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play." Joseph Goebbels

Whether it happens here and abroad, is not mass murder perpetrated by your elected agents without provocation at least a theological matter?

Who will fill the shoes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Martin Niemoller?

Is the no need for another expression of the Confessing Church?

Matthew 10:27-29 (New American Standard Bible)

27 "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops.

 28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

 29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.





"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."


Nathanael is self-employed and lives in Dallas, Texas. He had only ever been a life long registered Republican but changed to the Constitution Party in May of 2004. It would jeopardize his career if his real name was used, hence the pseudonym of Nathanael.  He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Nathanael can be reached at nathanael4551@yahoo.com

Published in the February 15, 2006 issue of  Ether Zone.
Copyright 1997 - 2006 Ether Zone.

We invite your comments on this article in our forum!