understanding 911
This day, 18 years ago, the world watched aghast as arguably the worst terrorist attack in history supposedly unfolded before out eyes. The shock and anger generated by 9/11 was understandable. Nearly three thousand innocent people, citizens from across the world, lost their lives that day. Many thousands more have perished, and will perish prematurely, due to the toxins in the dust they inhaled on 9/11. It is truly a day we should never forget.

Many people believe that the official account of 9/11 is totally unbelievable. We are going to look at some of the reasons why. For considerably more people, even suggesting this is a gross act of disrespect. At least that is what the mainstream media would have us believe. If so, it is a disrespect shared by many of the families of 9/11 victims who have been fighting for answers to numerous unresolved questions for nearly two decades.

911 concrete
In truth, the allegation of 'disrespect' is preposterous. If you believe you witness a murder and the wrong person is then convicted, is it an act of disrespect to the victim to point this out? It doesn't matter if you are wrong, what matters is that you believe the evidence of your own eyes and act upon it in good faith. In such circumstances, saying nothing is the true act of disrespect for the victim. Those who question 9/11 aren't disrespecting anyone's memory. They are fighting for the truth they believe the victims deserve.

9/11 - The War On Terror In Perspective

9/11 Propelled the world into the global "War on Terror." Research shows that, to 2018, more than one million people have been killed in the resultant U.S led wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, with the number of lives subsequently lost in Pakistan also notable in the study. Further wars and conflicts, linked to the war on terror, in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, Chad, Palestine and elsewhere have killed at least one million more since 9/11. There is also considerable evidence that this horrific post 9/11 death toll has been grossly underestimated.

The estimated, tax payer funded, cost of all this killing is at least a $6 trillion in the U.S alone. Again, many question this figure. In truth, it is impossible to know. Recent research from Dr. Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University and Catherine Austin Fitz (former Wall Street Banker) indicate that, as of last year, there was an estimated $21 Trillion unaccounted for in U.S government spending. The seemingly inescapable conclusion is that there is a global black economy existing beyond the one we are allowed to know about.

defence contractors
Very few people benefit from this spending. Certainly the millions killed, and the millions more who have their lives devastated, are victims rather than benefactors of all this hard earned tax expenditure. Similarly, the troops who die fighting foreign wars, many wounded in the line of duty, those psychologically scarred, who return to crumbling support services and a lack of support, gain nothing. Too often they face lives ravaged by deteriorating mental and physical health, frequently abandoned into broken relationships, poverty and homelessness.

9/11 was the antecedent for all these human losses. We have been told that the War on Terror is designed to 'keep us safe.' Does this justify the deaths and the tax burden placed upon struggling families? Seemingly not.

When U.S President Obama announced U.S forces were going to "downgrade and destroy ISIS" in Iraq the U.S led coalition, with notable support from the UK, France and Germany, flew more than 800 bombing raids against supposed ISIS targets. This resulted in ISIS territory more than doubling across both Iraq and Syria.

America's longest war in history is in Afghanistan. Recent moves by President Trump to negotiate with the Taliban illustrate the apparent futility of this war. After 18 years of conflict and occupation the Taliban control an estimated 61% of Afghan districts, according to independent analysts.

Afghanistan influence
Prior to 9/11 the Taliban had almost eradicated opium production. The U.S led coalition war saw a huge increase in production. The vast majority of Afghan opium finds it's way onto the black market. The U.S, along with the rest of the western world, is currently in the grip of a one of the worst public health crisis in post war history. Opioid addiction driven by a cheap and plentiful supply of opium.

Global terrorism, including domestic terrorism in the West, has increased significantly since 9/11. There isn't any legitimate rationale to believe, following 9/11, the War on Terror has kept anyone safe. On the contrary, it has made many of the problems we face far worse.

Afghan poppy growth
9/11- Who Are the Beneficiaries of the War On Terror?

Essentially this is a war against a concept, an idea. Terror has been used as a weapon throughout human history, usually by those who wish to exert the dominance of one idea over another. Perhaps a political, theological, national or even economic ideology. While human beings remain capable of violence, in support of a cause, it is difficult to see how any "war on terror" can ever be won.

911 wreckage
Many believe, myself included, that it isn't supposed to be won. For some it is far too lucrative. The global military industrial and intelligence complex has seen its budget increase significantly since 9/11.

Much of this tax revenue finds its way into the coffers of privately owned defence corporations such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, BAE systems and many others. Private military contractors have also been benefactors of the post 9/11 War on Terror, securing lucrative 'security contracts' in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere.

The link between military decisions, taken by politicians, and corporate war profits is abundantly clear. When, in April 2018, the former UK Prime minister Theresa May convinced the U.S led coalition to support reprisal airstrikes against Syria, some people did very well out of the decision.

Theresa May's husband Philip is a senior executive for the global investment firm Capital Group. They have significant shareholdings in defence contractors including Lockheed Martin and BAE systems. The airstikes, instigated in no small measure by his wife, saw his company's share value soar. All in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack for which there is next to no substantive evidence.

911 fire
Post 9/11, while the so called 'War on Terror' has been an unmitigated disaster for billions of people around the world, some extremely wealthy individuals have done very well out of it. But it isn't just financial profit which provides value for some. The political capital of 9/11 has also been beneficial for a select few.

Following the 9/11 attacks a slew of legislation has emerged across the West aimed at curtailing freedom of speech and the free and open sharing of information. For those who seek to control public opinion and avoid any widespread criticism of their policies or actions, accept it or not, 9/11 delivered.


9/11 - Questions Remain


Following 9/11, It is clear who the winners and losers are. The losers are the vast swathe of the human population, particularly the families of the deceased and those forever scarred by the War on Terror. The winners are the global military industrial and intelligence complex, the private companies that feed off it, their shareholders and the politicians who have exploited it to gain ever more centralised social and political control.

So stark is this contrast that many ask if anything we have been told about 9/11 is true. Not without good reason. The story is so full of holes you have to wonder how anybody could ever swallow it. The suggestion that 9/11 was a false flag operation designed to start the War on Terror, is not without merit.

firetruck 911
The simplistic narrative of 19, mainly Saudi, terrorists, hijacking 4 aircraft and then flying them without being intercepted, one for more than 90 minutes, through the most heavily defended airspace on Earth is frankly unbelievable. While those who question this story are all labeled 'conspiracy theorists' you have to be an ardent 'coincidence theorist' to believe it.

If you unquestionably accept the official narrative of 9/11 you have to hold to the following:

19 terrorists armed with nothing more than Stanley knives (box cutters) overcame 4 military trained pilots, and their crews, on 4 commercial aircraft; after some time flying around, they flew 3 of these into their targets, achieving a 75% mission success rate; the fourth plane disappeared, in its entirety, into a field; despite being unable to fly crop dusters, the terrorists managed incredible feats of aviation, some defying the laws of physics; they managed to smash hollow aluminum tubes through box section steel girders; this caused fires apparently so hot they deformed steel, despite the fact that the fuel was observably combusted upon impact and the black palls of smoke witnessed indicated relatively low temperature office fires; two steel constructed skyscrapers collapse completely at near free fall speed, through the path of greatest resistance, as a result of nothing more than fire; a third building which wasn't even hit with a plane, also collapsed at free fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance as a result of office fires; collectively these are the only three steel constructed tower block on Earth to ever collapse completely as a result of fire; despite being of different design this world first occurred to three buildings in the same place on the same day; nobody knew what was going on for hours and no one was in a position to respond; the command structure just happened to be completely absent that day and the entire Eastern air defences of the United States were otherwise engaged in a dizzying array of simultaneous exercises, some of which precisely mimicked what was happening, in reality, at the same time; there is no footage of any aircraft striking the Pentagon; all the evidence was removed from ground zero and disposed of before anyone could examine it and, despite no formal investigation, politicians around the world knew who was responsible within hours of the 9/11 attacks.

The questions this narrative pose are just a few of the many that remain unanswered 18 years after 9/11. So let's look at just some.

9/11- Unanswered Questions

False flag events are an extremely common way for governments to to create the casus belli to start wars. Examples include the German's use of a false flag attack at Sender Gleiwitz to legitimise the invasion of Poland in 1939; the Japanese used the Mukden Incident to justify their invasion of Manchuria, the British facilitated the sinking of the Lusitania to bring the U.S. into WWI; The U.S. falsified intelligence reports of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to start the Vietnam War; the U.S. Operation Northwoods recommended a series of false flag attacks to start a war with Cuba and NATO ran a 40 year long campaign of false flag terrorist attacks across Europe called Operation Gladio.

1.Given all this provable historical precedent, is it not reasonable to suspect that 9/11 was yet another state sponsored false flag attack, used to start conflict? Why would anyone rule out this possibility?

NIST pic
The official account of how the Twin Towers collapsed stems solely from the National Institute of Standards and Technology's supposed findings, the NIST report. It isn't a peer reviewed and many scientists, architects, engineers, eye witnesses (including first responders) and academics reject it is as scientifically illiterate nonsense.

Initially NIST refused to issue any report at all on the collapse of the other building, World Trade Center 7, which also completely destroyed itself that day. The report they eventually released in 2008 was also widely rejected as complete rubbish. A 4 year long study by Scientists and engineers at the University of Alaska has now released its initial findings. They appear to prove that the NIST report of the collapse of WTC7 cannot be true and their conclusions are largely groundless.

2. Why should anyone believe any of NIST's highly criticised reports on the collapse of either WTC7 or the twin Towers? Are NIST even credible? Doesn't this logically infer that there is no credible official explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11?

Western governments have a longstanding history of supporting Islamist Terrorist groups. This support has continued to this day with the west arming training and equipping fighters for groups like Jabhat al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and ISIS.

Prior to 9/11 the C.I.A financed the Pakistanis intelligence agency (the I.S.I) to forward funds to the Islamist terrorist funding organisation Maktab al Khidamat (MAK). MAK ran a number of operations in the U.S. notably the Al-Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn, New York. Osama Bin Laden was one of the MAK leaders and MAK received funding, via the U.S backed I.S.I, throughout the latter years of Operation Cyclone.

3. Why were the U.S and its other western allies working directly with the terrorist organisations, and in some cases individuals, who were later allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Why has the U.S. led coalition continued to support the terrorist groups which supposedly attacked the U.S. on 9/11?

On 9/11 none of the four hijacked aircraft were intercepted by a military flight. Once it was known that a potential hijack situation existed, standard operating procedure, and well practiced drills, dictated that interception should have taken no more than 10 minutes. Yet, despite Air Traffic Controllers (ATC's) alerting to that possibility in accordance with required procedure, not a single hijacked aircraft was intercepted.

F18 jet
Among official excuses given for this failure was the high volume of exercises, confusing the situation, and the absence of available responders. Indeed a number of unfortunate circumstances just happened to coincide on the morning of 9/11.

Counter terrorism resources and first responders (the joint FBI - CIA Anti-Terrorism Task Force), responsible for defending the North Eastern United States, were all on a training exercise in California; the National Reconnaissance Office in Chantilly, Virginia were running simulations of planes striking high rise buildings, causing confusion when identical events simultaneously occurred in reality.

Operation 'Southern Watch' placed the 174th Fighter Wing of the New York Air National Guard in a training exercise in Saudi Arabia; Operation 'Northern Watch' dispatched 6 interceptors from Langley to Turkish skies; Operation 'Northern Guardian' had more Langley interceptors chasing fictitious Russian bombers around Iceland; F15's from Langley and the 121st Fighter Squadron from Andrews AFB were in Nevada participating in 'Red flag;' Operation 'Northern Vigilance' diverted more fighters and support crews to Alaska to monitor a scheduled Russian bombing drill; Operation 'Global Guardian' was busy simulating a computer network attack by hostile hackers and Operation 'Vigilant Guardian' had ATC's and Federal Aviation Authority personnel engaged in a simulation of multiple hijacked aircraft, in the same airspace, at the same time, as precisely that scenario was unfolding in the real world.

4. What are the realistic chances of all these training exercises, at least two of which closely mimicked reality, all perfectly coalescing to leave the U.S. Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS) uniquely exposed on the specific day that terrorists chose to launch an attack? Were the terrorists just unimaginably lucky?

Indira Singh was an AI software developer for J.P. Morgan Chase, consulting on the development of advanced operational risk management software capable of predicting investment risks. During the course of her work she dealt with the Saudi funded software firm PTech. PTech, based in Quincy, Massachusetts, provided software for client list of staggering power and influence. This included the CIA, FBI, the White House, the Department of Energy, the U.S. Air Force, the Navy, IBM, Enron and the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) among others.

Indira Singh

Indira Singh
One of PTechs major funders was Yasin al-Qadi, head of the Saudi-based Muwafaq Foundation, a known al Qaeda funding organisation with close links to MAK, Osama bin Laden and other prominent al Qaeda leaders. al Qadi often spoke of his close relationship to former U.S Vice President Dick Cheney and PTech had high level security clearance enabling it to undertake sensitive contracts for the defence industry and other U.S. government agencies.

Operation Greenquest revealed that Yasin al Qadi, a U.S. listed terrorist, was also associated with an Islamic charity called Care International. Care was implicated in several al Qaeda operations including the bombing of American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Ptech's customer services manager was Muhamed Mubayyid, the treasurer of Care International, linked to al-Qaeda. In fact PTech list of investors and senior management appears to have been primarily comprised of people with links to listed terrorist organisations.

PTech software contracts necessarily gave it access to important functional, operational, and technical details of the systems it was asked to improve. PTech's work with the FAA included operational access to interoperability systems run in conjunction with North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD,) responsible for defending the skies on 9/11. Its risk assessment software was developed by running simulations of high risk events, such as hijackings, in collaboration with the FAA and NORAD, prior to 9/11.

Operation Greenquest uncovered a network of terrorist funding linked to PTechs. However, in its 2005 Report the 9/11 Commission wrote that the financing of the 9/11 attacks was of "little practical significance."

When PTech was eventually raided in 2002, a year after 9/11, there were no arrests and Ptech's CEO, Oussama Ziade later said, "Ptech still has government agencies as customers, including, the White House."

5. Given what appears to be a CIA front (PTech) with extensive links to the funding of designated terrorist organisations, including al Qaeda, is it reasonable for the 9/11 Commission to conclude that the financing of the 9/11 attacks was of "little practical significance?" If PTech was a CIA front why were they funding terrorist groups including al Qaeda prior to 9/11? Why was a company with such close links to al Qaeda allowed high level security clearance, affording them access to vital defence systems which all operationally failed on the morning of 9/11?

Prior to 9/11, the Defense Department's Special Operations Command (SOCOM) formed an intelligence and data mining operation code named Able Danger. Headed by the highly experienced U.S Navy Captain Scott Phillpott, who had previously held four U.S. Naval commands. The team also included US Army Lt. Col. Anthony E. Shaffer. Lt. Col. Shaffer had been seconded to Able Danger from the Defense Intelligence Agency (D.I.A.) Their role was to scour all available data sources to track down and identify any potential terrorist cells active on U.S. soil.

911 cleanup
In early 2000, more than 18 months before 9/11, the Able Danger team discovered a Brooklyn based cell headed by the alleged 9/11 plot ringleader Mohamed Atta. They created a wall chart listing the interconnected cell members with Mohamed Atta at the center. Once they had sufficient evidence, Shaffer approached SOCOM (based in the Pentagon) and requested a joint task force with the FBI to take down the Brooklyn cell and Atta.

SOCOM lawyers blocked the request. Shaffer attempted two more times and was consistently stopped from exposing Atta's cell.

Following 9/11 the Able Danger team, and Shaffer in particular, blew the whistle. Shaffer had his security clearance revoked and was suspended pending an investigation. Prior to the 9/11 Commission the Able Danger team were placed under gagging orders by the Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. However, Philpott gave a deposition to the 9/11 Commission in which he revealed everything that Able Danger knew.

The 9/11 Commission Chair, Thomas Kean, said Captain Phillpot's "knowledge and credibility" were not "sufficiently reliable." They also concluded that Able Danger was not "historically significant."

This allowed the 9/11 Commission to conclude, contrary to all the available evidence that, "American intelligence agencies were unaware of Mr Atta until the day of the attacks."

6. Why were the the Pentagon (SOCOM) protecting the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks from arrest?

9/11 - Conclusion

When I watched the Twin Tower collapse on 9/11, I had a number of questions. I had witnessed what I thought was some sort of controlled demolition. I wondered how terrorists managed to get in those building undetected and plant all the necessary charges. However, like most, when the official story stated that the buildings collapsed as a result of fire, I accepted it. It wasn't until later, as more evidence emerged that my doubts resurfaced.

911 cleanup2
So I looked into it further and, for me, the evidence that the official story cannot be true is overwhelming. It was 9/11 that led me to create In This Together.

If you are interested enough to know more you must do the same. You cannot rely upon the mainstream media, official reports or government statements if you want to know why so many question 9/11. You have to dig deeper.

There are no definitive answers and the only hope is that a full and genuinely open public investigation will eventually be undertaken. Perhaps that will finally provide some resolution for the victim's families have been searching for plausible offiicial responses for the last 18 years.

We should never forget 9/11. Not only because it was such a terrible event but also because it poses some fundamental questions about the nature of our society, on both sides of the Atlantic. We must not be frightened of asking these questions and we should treat with suspicion any and all who demand they not be asked.

If we allow ourselves to create a society where the asking of legitimate, evidence based, questions is considered taboo, even outlawed, then we are heading down a very dark path. Whether you think 9/11 was simply the act of terrorists or if you suspect it was more likely a false flag attack, we must be able to openly and freely discuss all concerns.

If we can't then, whatever the truth is, those who seek to impose their will upon us through the use of terror will have the victory they crave. Silencing debate, in a supposedly free and open society, is the true act of disrespect for those who died.