Controlled demolitions during 9-11 of World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7 show that a demolition team, not located on the planes which collided with the towers, installed the demolitions and explosive squibs.
An analysis of the squibs forms a statistical pattern, consistent with an explosive signature. It's unclear whether the NSA or FBI reviewed this signature when identifying communications or records connected with potential handlers of this class of explosives.
An FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (LEB) shows before 9-11, twenty percent of the "known hijackers" had contacts with law enforcement in the months before 9-11.
It stands to reason there are similar law enforcement and communication records connected with the demolition team members. It remains unclear whether the 9-11 Commission reviewed, requested, or was denied any records related to any demolition team members, plans, or equipment.
It remains unclear which NSA selector sheets exist related to a 9-11 demolition team, and what review, if any, the FBI Directorate of Intelligence or National Security Branch made of records related to this demolition team.
Diary outlines basis for conclusions, and recommends a method to analyze traffic patterns and communications to identify the time when the demolition team placed explosives and coordinated their pre- and post-incident coordination.
Updates:
A. Basement demolitions aren't adequately addressed: Should be some law enforcement analysis of those pre-incident-related events. Where are they?
B. See (below): [ Update: Responses Inadequately Addressing Law Enforcement (Communications, Records) Evidence ] for other comments.
C. It's important to consider this view; and that DailyKos is a forum to improve oversight of government. This diary hopes to contribute to that governance goal.
D. Another view, Fireproofing sprayed.
E. Tags removed by administrator, see: this comment. Not helpful. Perhaps the tags could be re-posted without the prospect of re-removal.
F. Thanks to out of left field for your (helpful, constructive, thought provoking) comments: In re this comment, Article on NYC structural renovations; and views of engineers on controlled demolition.
Original Diary
Architects and Engineers conclude there were controlled demolitions bringing down WTC 1, 2, and 7. [Video, PBS. ]
We reject the conclusion of the 9-11 report that the there were only 19 hijackers; there had to be a team of demolition exports who controlled the demolition after the planes collided.
People on the ground, not in the planes, knew that the WTC 7 building was wired with explosives and was about to collapse.
Nobody on either of the flights which collided with WTC 1 or 2 had an ability to communicate information to the ground.
The 9-11 Commission Report does not include a specific reference to demolitions, only a reference to a concern about a collapse of WTC 7, "7 WTC":
"At about 9:57, an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of
Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked
that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse."
FootNote 136. For the fifth alarm, see FDNY records, computer-aided dispatch report, alarm box 2033, Sept. 11, 2001, 09:54:29.On numbers dispatched, see ibid., Sept. 11, 2001,08:47:20–09:54:29.For the paramedic,see FDNY interview 32, Chief (Feb. 9, 2004).
The demolition team is different than those who were on the planes.
The FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin identifies a group of people (supposedly) involved with the 9-11 hijackings. The thinking behind identifying their pre-9-11 contacts with law enforcement is to justify law enforcement vigilance.
However, there's another way to look at the group: They show us that in a group of "19 hijackers", a substantial portion of that group had pre-incident contacts.
Therefore, it is likely that the group of people involved with the demolitions also had some police contact.
There should be some record -- before 9-11 occurred -- of a portion of the demolition team in and around NYC. Law enforcement may not (yet) know which information they have corresponds to a specific demolition team member.
However, there is a method to identify when the demolition team would have most likely established a staging point at the base of the WTC towers, collected equipment, and moved all the items for final placement into the WTC Towers 1, 2, and 7.
Simulations of traffic movement between 1991 and 2001 could identify the "normal" or "steady-state" conditions of the NYC-traffic patterns in and around the WTC towers. Just as the demolition team arrives, there would be a change: A time when cargo would be uploaded, and vehicles would enter the facilities or create an obstacle in the street.
Those "nodes" of activity are like adding new rocks to a river: There's a change in how the water flows.
That change will be important to identify possible times when the public can share photographs of the traffic in and around the WTC Towers. The vehicles identified in those photographs may point to specific people who may have observed unusual entries, vehicles, or uploads near and around the WTC Towers, in time to successfully place the demolitions before 9-11.
Details
The transcript from a law enforcement bulletin training video identifies the pre-9-11 contacts:
May 2001—Nawaf al-Hazmi reports being robbed to law enforcement in Fairfax County, Virginia; September 11, 2001 - Nawaf al-Hazmi hijacks American Airlines flight #77, which crashes into the Pentagon.
July 2001—Mohammed Atta is stopped in Tarmac, Florida, fined for driving without a valid license; September 11, 2001 - Mohammad Atta hijacks American Airlines flight #11, which crashes into the World Trade Center.
August 2001—Hani Hanjour is pulled over for speeding in Arlington, Virginia; September 11, 2001 - Hani Hanjour hijacks American Airlines flight #77, which crashes into the Pentagon.
September 2001—Ziad Jarrah is stopped by a Maryland State trooper for driving 90 mph in a 65-mph zone on his way to Newark; September 11, 2001 - Ziad Jarrah hijacks United flight #93, which eventually crashes in a field in Pennsylvania.
Source
Analysis
In just a few months before 9-11, four (4) of the (supposed) nineteen (19) hijackers had pre-9-11 contact with law enforcement. That's 20%. Those are people attempting to maintain a low profile to do something. A demolition team member would also have the same profile.
Between 2000 and 2001, a demolition team of 20 -- in addition to the 19 hijackers -- we would expect about 4 of those demolition team members to have contact with law enforcement.
If we extend the window back, closer to 1991, when the explosives might have been placed, there's a high chance most of the demolition team had had some sort of contact.
Question
1. Where are those records?
From the law enforcement bulletin:
"We all know the people who have a lot of information and are willing to give it. Now, it’s our job to take the time to talk to these people, to gain the information, and to share it once we get the information."
Analysis
There is a "heightened desire" within law enforcement to gather evidence related to domestic acts of terrorism. In theory, placing explosives within the three (3) WTC Towers would fall within the area of "interest" of domestic law enforcement.
However, we've learned since 9-11, that the US government encouraged the destruction of CIA video tapes of prisoner interrogations, despite there "usefulness" for intelligence training.
Questions
2. What people did the Department of Justice or local law enforcement "discuss" evidence related to demolitions, demolition team members, or their travel/communications before or after 9-11?
3. What records within the FBI National Security Branch (NSB) specifically mention intelligence related to demolition team members?
4. When did the NSA contractors receive direction to destroy evidence related to electronic communications related to the details of the demolition team members?
5. How was information related to "controlled demolitions" provided to the FBI?
6. How was this information handled within the NSB?
7. Was there direction given to anyone -- in law enforcement, the contracting community, or anyone else with knowledge of the demolition team evidence/communication intercepts -- to "not act" on that information, destroy it, or to provide the (original, full) information to "another agency"?
The FBI's National Security Branch
brochure identifies the mission of the Counter Terrorism Division (CD):
"The Counterterrorism Division (CTD) provides a centralized, comprehensive, and intelligence-driven approach to address both international and domestic terrorism-related matters. CTD works with its trusted partners from the intelligence and law enforcement communities, and oversees the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which are multi-agency task forces around the country that the FBI established to address terrorism."
Analysis
Once the WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed, that demolition team had to exist in physical space.
Questions
8. Is it the position of the FBI, when the United States was conducting warrantless surveillance, that there was no communication, record, or any evidence of any demolitions, explosives, or other post-9-11-event discussion, clean-up, or other evidence destruction in, around, or beyond NYC?
9. How does the US government explain -- when there was warrantless surveillance -- how there is "no record" of any demolition team member communication before or after 9-11?
10. How did the communications of those people -- in re explosions, demolitions, or other things related to the collapse of WTC Towers -- get compared with the existing law enforcement records obtained before 9-11?
The
FBI Brochure also identifies an intelligence-sharing mission linking the federal and local law enforcement:
"The Directorate of Intelligence (DI) is the FBI’s dedicated national intelligence workforce with responsibility for all FBI intelligence functions. The DI carries out its functions through embedded intelligence elements at FBI headquarters and in each field division through the Field Intelligence Groups (FIGs). The FIGs also have personnel embedded in fusion centers around the country to share information with the FBI’s federal, state, and local law enforcement and intelligence partners."
Source
Analysis
There's a federal function or mission which would connect local law enforcement data -- collected from the 4+ demolition team members presumably stopped before 9-11 -- with the results of the NSA-DOJ domestic surveillance under President Bush's unlawful domestic surveillance, which the telecoms received immunity for cooperating.
Questions
11. When did "warrantless surveillance" after 9-11 identify communications from the demolition team?
12. When did the FBI receive, request, or provide information to local law enforcement related to these NSA intercepts?
13. Why were these results not included in the 9-11 Commission Report?
14. What role did the telecoms play, if any, in cooperating with the FBI or local law enforcement in identifying the demolition team communications before and after 9-11?
15. Were the names of any demolition team members ever on any "selector sheets" used for targeted surveillance by NSA, contractors, or other allied nations monitoring electronic communications?
Conclusions
1. Controlled Demolitions, Traffic Stops
The Official 9-11 Commission Report is incomplete, and does not adequately explain the post-collision demolitions inside WTC 1, 2, and 7. Engineers and Architects conclude the buildings collapsed because of controlled demolitions.
A separate team, unrelated to those supposedly on the planes, placed the explosives, monitored the plane collisions with WTC 1 and 2, and ensured the detonations properly destroyed/collapsed the three buildings.
Law enforcement information shows a substantial portion of people involved with 9-11 were stopped in the months before 9-11, creating law enforcement records. It's unclear whether law enforcement, receiving information from the FBI or NSA, properly retained or improperly destroyed records connected with those on the demolition team.
2. Traffic Patterns Related to Demolition Team
Traffic simulations around WTC 1, 2, and 7 can identify the likely times when increased cargo and traffic could accommodate a team and their equipment vehicles to place the explosives.
Ground-level photographs near those dates can identify people who may have specific information related to the demolition team's activity, transportation, and equipment.
It's unclear whether a computer-upgrade could provide sufficient cover to properly wire the three complexes before 9-11 to successfully wire the buildings for detonation and controlled demolition on 9-11.
3. NSA Collection of Demolition Team Communications
The NSA gathers information and other government agencies and contractors can access that information. Twenty percent (20%) of the hijackers were stopped in the year before 9-11. Law enforcement should police reports connected to those personnel linked with the demolition team.
Disclosures about the Terrorist Surveillance Program show us that there was data mining of NSA-collected information. To conduct "data mining," everything has to be collected, then minimized/mined.
The NSA would have likely collected domestic communications connected with the demolition team. It's unclear whether there was specific direction to have all communications connected with the demolition team permanently removed from the NSA repositories, or expunged from the NSA's "selector sheets," used when conducting targeted surveillance.
4. Analysis of Demolition Team Communications by FBI
The FBI's National Security Branch has the legal authority to connect the dots between (a) NSA intercepts of persons connected with the demolition team; with (b) police records before and after 9-11 connected with those demolition team members.
It's unclear why these records were not provided to the 9-11 Commission; or whether someone outside the FBI's NSB directed the destruction or "non review" of records linking (a) NSA communications; (b) demolition team activity; and (c) law enforcement records related to the demolition team members.
What You Can Do
1. Ask for the NSA "selector sheets" related to monitoring of demolition team communications.
2. Review the Squib Explosion Video Evidence During WTC 1, 2, 7 Demolition
When explosives are purchased, created, or placed, the demolition team knows the accuracy and power of that explosive charge. A specific type of explosive squib would have a known confidence level related to its stability, explosive power, and reliability in responding to a detonation command.
Examine the squib-explosion videos, and calculate the type of explosives required to create a specific distribution of explosive power. Each squib-explosion shows material projecting from the point of explosion outward. That explosive power is not consistent, but forms a normal frequency distribution with a specific confidence level.
Sqib-Explosion Analysis Tasks
1. Examine the sides of the WTC building in the demolition videos [Sample];
2. Notice and calculate precisely the distance that the objects are moving away from the side of the building as each squib explodes;
3. Using that observed distance, calculate the exact explosive power or force required to move objects that distance for each detonated-exploding squib;
4. Create a chart/table showing (a) the tower number, (b) the squib number (top to bottom), (c) observed horizontal distance, and (d) calculated explosive power for that squib.
5. Consult statistics to develop a range of squib explosive forces. The range of explosive powers for all the squibs -- as a group -- is not the same, but will form a specific signature for that class of explosives.
6. Compare the range of squib-data with known available squibs. The explosive signature for that class of squibs matches specific industry standards, military specifications, and requirements for specific types of requirements, jobs, missions, or architectural objectives.
7. Compare the calculated squib specifications with industry standards available for purchase or use, and the connected transportation, handling, and installation requirements. The comparison will give insight into what as commercially available; and then give insight into the timing-mechanism of the detonation-control system used to coordinate the timing of the squib explosions for that particular building.
8. Compare the squib specifications with the installation, handling, and upload parameters at the base of each WTC tower. A "tolerable level" of deviations from a defined goal will be consistent between the class of squib (1) used during the demolition, (2) purchased after the approval decision, and (3) desired during the planning stages. The handling requirements for that squib will give insight into the volume/size of the shipping and storage containers in transit and storage, and while offloaded in/around NYC before final placement within the WTC 1, 2, and 7 towers.
9. Use the calculated explosive signature for those squibs to narrow the review of who would be in a position to acquire that squib, and the overlap between the law enforcement contacts, NSA intercepts/selector sheets, and the traffic flow patterns before 9-11.
Update: Responses Inadequately Addressing Law Enforcement (Communications, Records) Evidence
Comments
1. Deleted Tags
Original Diary Tags (deleted by an Administrator) relate to the law enforcement bulletin, something like: [ODNI, Law Enforcement Bulletin, National Security Division, Counter Intelligence, FISA, NSA, selector sheets, 9-11, Counterterrorism Division, Field Intelligence Group, FIG].
The (deleted) tags relate(d) to communications intelligence which, we believe, should exist if there was a comprehensive review and intelligence gathering related to the controlled demolitions. There nothing in the 9-11 Commission Report related to column or basement demolitions, or review of demolition-related communications.
The tags are intended to highlight the DOJ-NSA communication issues related to this Law Enforcement Bulletin [link to Transcript of video].
2. Combining Domestic Surveillance With Incident Analysis
One of the lessons from law enforcement [external link, FBI LEB] is that they should use "all" means to gather and share that information. That evidence of sharing should exist, especially given the FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin.
However, the results are wanting. Rather than demonstrate that they've reviewed SIGINT related to the placement of devices causing reports of basement explosions, there's a distraction into something else. We need to put more emphasis on what the DOJ/FBI has or hasn't done; otherwise, there's doubt about whether they're serious about really understanding what happened, much less sharing that information.
Since 9-11, we've learned more about the domestic surveillance. If that demolition were real, then we would expect the same records -- related to the hijackers before 9-11 -- to also exist related to that demolition team. Demolitions -- as the Architects conclude, which we accept as a premise for this diary -- should be connected with a demolition team; and likely pre-incident contact between that demolition team and law enforcement.
In our view, it defies reason to have only 19 hijackers stopped, but "none" of the members of the demolition team member having any mention of getting stopped. It's not possible, in our view, to point to law enforcement records before 9-11 for only the hijackers, but say nothing about records which, on odds alone, should point to a demolition team member.
However, the comments below tend to side-step evidence related to basement explosions as a distraction from whether the NSA or FBI properly reviewed pre-incident communications related to those explosions. Our focus in not on whether there was or wasn't a demolition, but what review the government has done of the (should be) existing law enforcement records related to pre-incident device placement, not limited to the basement, but appears to include the upper floors.
Indeed, it's a matter of speculation whether the failure mode was through a device or a compound applied to the walls as "fireproofing"; yet, that debate does not address the question of law enforcement examination of records related to pre-incident communications and stops of those connected with the pre-incident (basement-connected) demolitions.
If there were controlled demolitions (plural) -- and (implicitly) a demolition team -- as the engineers conclude, then there should be an explanation why "some" of the hijackers had contact, but "none" of the demolition team members had any contact. Again, the answer isn't in saying, "See, no evidence, so no demolition team," but to ask,
"Was there or was there not any review within the FBI re demolition-related communications; and was there a reason why the communications were not mentioned in the 9-11 report?"
This doesn't mean that the law enforcement records specifically say, "This person we stopped is a member of the demolition team," only that the same argument the law enforcement community uses to justify intrusions -- "because we might stop a terrorist" -- should also apply to the law enforcement records related to stopping a demolition team member.
Without evidence, we conclude that the LE-IC claim is spurious. . .for a reason: Deception.
A failure of the 9-11 Commission to account for the basement explosions implies that the FBI and NSA have not fully disclosed to the public all records related to communications to place the basement explosions; indeed, in that nexus, there's no prospect NSA or DOJ will release records related to demolitions or incendiary material that are (arguably) above the basement.
3. Communications Evidence Exists
Nothing below discusses the prospect of reviewing the comprehensiveness of the FBI investigations of the communications before and after 9-11 related or unrelated to demolitions.
Even if one were to reject the premise that the WTC were toppled by column-mounted demolitions, there's been no discussion about the communications evidence related to the ground-based demolitions.
4. Debate Over Demolitions Unrelated to Communications Evidence related to Basement Explosions, Which Should Exist
It's a side-show, in our view, over whether the towers did or did not collapse because of a controlled demolition. Regardless the collapse-mode, there should be some NSA-collected communications related to the pre-incident planning, especially back/reverse views within NSA and DOJ over the selector sheets.
5. Diary Premise
We accept for the sake of discussion in the diary and comments, that the theory of the controlled demolition -- from the perspective of the PBS video -- is valid. This doesn't mean that it is a fact, only that the evidence (in our view) tends to favor that conclusion; we're using that as a premise for this diary.
However, the comments below are not helpful in analyzing the flaws of the diary. Indeed, there are no compelling reasons provided in comments to refute/dismiss the conclusions of the engineers related to a controlled demolition.
However, regardless whether there were or were not controlled demolitions, we have no information from the government whether they fully reviewed communications related to 9-11; nor whether ground-communications related to the basement explosions and subsequent collapse were or were not examined.
6. Collapse-Modes Different Than Whether Communication Evidence Examined
We're open to other views about why the demolition-theory is invalid; or that the demolitions occurred in a different manner. These "other views" have not been raised in substance in the comments.
Indeed, there's no solid attack on the engineers' conclusions. It's difficult to believe that there isn't something that should be there if there were demolitions and a demolition team communicating before and after the events of 9-11.
However, regardless whether there was or wasn't an explosion, it's unclear -- based on the comments and reaction to this diary -- whether the FBI, National Security Division did or did not adequately review the NSA collections related to the pre-9-11 planning:
- Did they examine all communications-evidence related to vehicles that might have dropped off equipment;
- Why are only hijackers getting stopped before 9-11, but there are not records of anyone connected with the placement of the explosive/incendiary devices;
- What was the result of communications-analysis related to the reports of basement explosions;
- Were the reports of basement-explosions substantiated or not using communications evidence;
- How do they explain the basement explosions, but there is no public discussion of the FBI analysis of communications requited to place those devices connected with the basement explosions and the (apparent) squibs in the WTC columns?
7.
Communications Evidence: Is it there, admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence
The substantial focus on the diary isn't the theory of a controlled demolition -- whether there were or were not demolitions placed -- but in the evidence that should exist related to a demolition team if the Architects and Engineers have a valid theory.
The focus isn't on a demolition, but on the electronic evidence that should exist, if the demolitions occurred as the engineers concluded, within the NSA communications intelligence and local law enforcement.
8. FISA, TSP
The expansive use of the NSA for domestic surveillance makes it appear likely:
A. If there was, in fact, a demolition team and demolition as the engineers suspect/conclude; or there was only a demolition team to place basement explosions; then
B. That demolition team would have had to coordinate that activity, and
C. That coordination would have been captured by the NSA and shared with law enforcement.
Those communications (should have) been reviewed, or accounted for, or an explanation given why (despite those demolition teams coordinating their actions) 9-11 and the FBI didn't review that evidence.
Indeed, this has nothing to do with whether that pre-incident evidence exists; or how the (likely) pre-incident stops of those personnel squares with the ratio of the 20% hijackers stopped.
9. FOIA
Wouldn't it be interesting to receive, as a FOIA response, a comment like, "We cannot provide that information," related to NSA intercepts that were never supposed to be occurring? That's not a conspiracy theory, but a "lack of evidence" where there should be some if the FBI was reviewing the communications for evidence of a demolition team.
10. Law Enforcement Records For All Personnel, not Just Hijackers
The law enforcement bulletin says that 20% of the 9-11 hijackers had pre-incident contact. It's interesting that law enforcement had multiple contacts with the hijackers before 9-11 with the hijackers.
There's been little discussion about the content below, especially the Law Enforcement Bulletin, ["The transcript from a law enforcement bulletin. . .'] discussing the multiple records related to the hijackers. Perhaps that DOJ review could extend that review to the NSA, and the evidence about the demolitions in the basement.
11. Demolition Team: Evidence in Other places
If there is a valid line of physical evidence supporting a controlled demolition, we believe that that evidence should, in part, relate to physical evidence linking the existence of a demolition team, with photographs of that team, and a schedule for when that activity occurred.
We've outlined a series of steps to analyze the (apparent) squib explosions (nothing substantive was raised about why that approach was invalid); and an approach to analyze traffic patterns (again, nothing substantive was raised about that approach).
12. Basement Demolitions: No Discussion on FBI Review of Pre-Incident Communications
We believe the evidence behind a controlled demolition is strong. Even if one rejects the placement of explosive devices in the WTC columns, there's no adequate account for the sounds of explosions from the basement.
Indeed, there's no discussion (below) about basement explosions; nor a discussion about the communications related to the placement of those (apparent) basement devices.
This says nothing of communications related to (apparent) explosive/incindiary devices placed on other floors. To be clear, if there is no evidence of a controlled demolition (despite the basement explosions), and there is no evidence of communications related to a demolition team, then perhaps we can have a discussion about other theories about the (apparent) explosives which created (apparent) squibs and (apparent) free-fall associated with(out) a controlled demolition.
Either way, notice there's a big distraction from the communications evidence that should exist related to pre-placement of the explosives in the basement. Rather than focus on whether the FBI or NSA reviewed those communications, the focus changes from whether or not the there was or wasn't a demolition at the top, going down.
13. Title Remains
Current Title: [9-11 WTC Demolitions: Why Law Enforcement Has Info on Demolition Team]
Possible Rewrite: 9-11 Demolition Team Would Likely Have Law Enforcement Records: Are They There or Not?
That question in that (rewritten) title is a different focus/emphasis than this diary. This diary doesn't focus on the failure mode, but where the communications are; and whether they were or were not examined by the FBI or NSA.
If others have a "different view" of what the title of this diary should be, why not publish a diary about that.
Summation
Based on the comments below, and the independent reports of basement explosions, we conclude:
A. Basement explosions occurred because devices were placed;
B. There's been no (adequate, public) review by the DOJ or NSA related to pre-incident communications related to planting explosive or incendiary devices;
C. NSA and DOJ IG should be able to examine selector sheets to determine whether the US government did or did not adequately target communications intelligence resources to account for the basement explosions;
D. There's no adequate public discussion of whether the law enforcement community can explain why 20% of the hijackers were stopped pre-11, but there's no discussion of stops related to the people who placed devices causing (a) explosion sounds in the basement; (b) apparent squibs in the towers both occurring before the collapse of the buildings; and
E. None of the comments have adequately discussed a game plan to examine whether law enforcement has or hasn't adequately searched data related to the traffic stops of personnel likely involved with placement of basement devices.