9/11 federal investigation held back by White House attitude
The aeronautical company has been asked hundreds of questions about the terrorist
EDUARDO MARTÍN DE POZUELO
XAVIER MAS DE XAXÀS
13 July, 2003
Nearly two years have passed since 9/11, but practically no details are known about the biggest
attack in history against the United States. The federal commission investigating the breakdown in
security which led to the attacks in Washington and New York is openly complaining, not only about
the lack of resources, but also of being intimidated by the White House and hence prevented from
getting to the truth. This lack of transparency has led "The New York Times" this week to compare
the Bush Administration to the Kremlin during Soviet times.
The official version continues to be that a group of 19 terrorists, led by Mohammed Atta, a member
of al-Qaida, were able to hijack four commercial airplanes, crashing two into the Twin Towers, one
into the Pentagon and causing another to accidentally crash in woodland in Pennsylvania on its way
to Washington. The life histories of the terrorists in the months leading up to the attacks are
public knowledge and well documented, but there is practically nothing on the investigations prior
to or after on the part of the American security agencies, on the daily reports that the CIA
prepares for the President, or on the National Security Council meetings. Neither is it known what
the relations between these agencies were. The federal commission, which must complete its work by
May next year, accuses the Pentagon and the Justice Department (on which the FBI depends) of
refusing to provide vital information and of placing a monitor in all interviews to intimidate the
These obstacles are preventing, among other information, light being shed on the possible
manipulation of the fuselage of the aircraft which struck the south tower of the World Trade
Center, reported by this newspaper in our 22 June edition. When La Vanguardia asked Boeing's head
office in Seattle about the strange forms to be seen in the photographs, the company spokesperson
offered to cooperate fully in clarifying the matter. However, after studying them for several days,
Boeing (whose engineers are taking part in the official investigation) declined to give an opinion
citing reasons of national security.
Two of the shots inspected by Boeing's engineers (sent to Seattle via Internet as the company had
agreed) are lateral views of the last few seconds of the flight. In acknowledging receipt, the
spokesperson said they would answer the query and explained that since the attack they had received
hundreds of inquiries from all over the world on various aspects of the attack. The majority of
queries, they said, were about the Boeing which crashed into the Pentagon, the existence of which
has been refuted by a French researcher, the author of several best-sellers on the issue. In this
case Boeing stated firmly and without hesitation that the object that struck the famous military
building was one of its aircraft. However Boeing has not shown such adamance on the reiterated
occasions that La Vanguardia has requested a reasonable explanation for the patches which appear on
the aircraft that hit the south tower of the World Trade Center in New York.
The frames in question have been the object of a digital contour-detection analysis carried out at
the Escola Universitària Politècnica de Mataró. The study determined that what
can be seen on the aircraft are shapes and volumes and not reflections, which could suggest that
the craft was carrying some unknown device at the time of impact, the nature of which obviously
takes us into the realm of hypotheses. One possibility is that, despite the analyses, the shapes in
question are due to an optical phenomenon. Another is that the terrorists attached something to the
aircraft to increase its destructive effect. The notable lack of security at Boston's Logan
airport, where the two Boeings that destroyed the towers took off, strengthens that possibility.
Manipulation of the fuselage, however, would have meant more terrorists taking part than have been
detected. The hypothesis that the al-Qaida kamikazes had more help on the ground was put forward by
terrorism experts on 11 September itself, but it has never been proved.
Boeing has not clarified the enigma of the second plane
News from "the Pod"
What really hit the South Tower. Was it a plane
from the terror drills?
Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy
(scroll down 1/3 page)
Ghost Gun UA175
Were some of the photos and videos from 911 fake
This is a very well
done presentation, and well worth the reading.
It makes one wonder who and why someone would go through the trouble
of faking media surrounding September 11th ?
WTC flight 175 planebomb photos
Team 8 + News
several views (and analysis) of the second hit in flash format
www.globalresearch.ca :: View topic - Pictures examined
theories, plane photos, and video analysis
The Nautilus Institute: The Matrix of Deterrence