Was 9/11 an Inside Job?

A huge plume of smoke and fire can be seen emerging from the North Tower. Following the attack on the North Tower, many broadcasters were showing live coverage when a second plane, United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.


According to investigative reporter Jim Marrs, the official story about 9/11 is discredited. That is the sobering conclusion reached by millions of Americans, all across the political spectrum, who have sifted through the evidence uncovered by hundreds of independent researchers.

Many honest citizens are now forced, with sadness and reluctance, to make an almost unthinkable inference: Powerful US officials must have had foreknowledge of the planned attacks, and then acted from the inside to: thwart efforts to prevent 9/11, remove or cover up criminal evidence, and hamper inquiries into what happened.

Were the horrific events of September 11, 2001 truly an inside job? Jim Marrs makes a compelling case that 9/11 marks the intersection of several conspiracies at once, each based on overlapping political agendas. Support for his thesis comes from this sampling of the many disturbing anomalies:

• Standard air defense mechanisms systematically failed, simultaneously.
• Interceptor jets were scrambled too late, too slowly, and from the wrong locations.
• President Bush proceeded with a “photo op” long after he knew we were under attack.
• Fires could not have caused the free-fall collapse of the World Trade Center towers.
• The collapse of Building 7 in the complex was later admitted to be a demolition.
• Vital physical evidence was either removed or has never been released to investigators.
• Key officials claimed warnings never came, despite massive evidence to the contrary.

Jim Marrs shows the independent researchers from across the political spectrum–along with dissatisfied families of 9/11 victims–point to a massive number of anomalies from the official story that have not been adequately addressed in the 9/11 Commission Report or by the mainstream press. Especially notable are the 23 Questions that were formally presented to the government’s 9/11 Commission by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee; almost all of them still remain unasked and unanswered, even after twelve sessions of the US government’s official 9/11 Commission.

Dissenters from the Bush administration account say the official story falls apart on the prima facie evidence–especially regarding (1) Saudi, Israeli, and Pakistani involvement, (2) the apparent stand-down of America’s air defenses, (3) stark factual anomalies from the official stories about the hijackings and the collapses of the towers, (4) removal or withholding of evidence, and (5) President Bush’s bizarre behavior on the day of the tragedy, along with his administration’s overt resistance to a thorough inquiry. These and numerous other disturbing issues have become salient for all researchers, no matter what their political lens.

Even Michael Moore’s documentary entitled, Farenheit 9/11, though praised and bashed by many people, is bone-chilling where President George W. Bush is seen continuing to sit in the Florida classroom next to the blackboard, apparently undistracted by the urgency of the phone calls he has received about planes crashing into the Twin Towers in New York City. Wouldn’t a normal person at least have jumped to their feet declaring “Oh my gosh”  or something worse?

Americans who seriously doubt the incompetence theory promulgated by the government’s 9/11 Commission probably number in the millions. Although many US citizens doubt this level of incompetence, it must be remembered these staffers had never encountered anything previously which was upsetting to their daily routine, of driving to the office, sipping coffee all day long at a desk, snacking on donuts, etc. People are only afraid when they know there is something to be afraid of, but these US staffers had not been exposed to anything fearful. Thus, their ambivalence to act, or incompetance as others would call it, is not that unexplainable.

Update:  Since this article was uploaded, an architect acquaintance explained his co-worker was one of the architects who designed the Twin Towers, and how the buildings had been designed to withstand the impact of an accidental mishap of a plane flying into the side of the building.

According to the architect, the towers were stabilized with large cylinders of water at the four corners and down the center, so that in the accidental event of an aircraft striking the tower, the water in the cylinders would absorb the shock of the crash and the tower would not collapse.

Another acquaintance of mine sent me an e-mail shortly after the Twin Towers collapsed. She said she had just entered the first floor to go have lunch with a friend. She said everyone heard a tremendously loud explosion and thought a bomb had gone off inside the building. She said there was an immediate loud speaker announcement telling people there was nothing wrong, and to stay put, and not evacuate the building.

But she said her instinct was to get out of there, and she walked outdoors as fast as she could on spiked heels. Just as she got outside, the tower began to collapse. She said she would have been killed if she had listened to the announcement and remained inside like the other people.

Skeptically yours,