The Truth about 9/11 that no One Can Deny.

[Winfried Sobottka]

Wonderful Women, dear Men!

The discussion-threads about 9/11 in internet since 2001 surely would reach at least the moon from earth if You would make a long thread of them. What is the result? Nothing, there is no result. What a waste of time!

So I suggest to start the attempt to search systematically for the truth instead of continuing absolutely inefficient procedures.

The undeniable facts are:

1. On 11th of September 2001 the twin-towers of the World Trade Center in N.Y. broke down after two aeroplanes had clashed them , one per tower.
The aeroplanes were stopped by the towers, were stuck in the towers, their full tanks exploded at once and big fireballs around the aeroplanes were to be seen.

That is witnessed by at least some hundred persons who had seen that with their own eyes, that has been seen per TV around the whole world very soon later, there is no hint that those movies were faked.


2. While official quarters demand the responsible actors would have been Islamist martyrs and their religious leaders in Afghanistan (thesis A), on the other hand people demand that act would have been made by skull & bones (thesis B), simply said.


3. The ask for the motive can be answered by both contrary groups comprehensibly: Islamists could have done it because of their hatred of the U.S.A., Skull & Bones could have arranged it to achieve their own political targets: War against Afghanistan according to geopolitical interests, reducing of civil rights in the U.S.A., arming of police and security-services, good profit for Halliburton, Lockheed Martin and so on.

4. Amazingly the discussion, even led rather angrily, deals with a point that is not useful to prove thesis B as wrong: The supporters of thesis B demand the clashes of the aeroplanes would not have been able to let the towers collaps back upon themselves as it happened, there, so the supporters of thesis B, must have been additional action and that would be the proof for thesis B.

- Taken the clashes would give the full explanation of letting collapsing both towers upon themselves that would not verify thesis A/ would not falsify thesis B.

- Taken the clashes would not be able to explain that You wouldn´t have automatically the prove that thesis B would be right: Why shouldn´t Islamists be unable to prepare towers in any case? But of course: The assumption that the responsible persons of research at the place of action were supporters not of the Islamists but of the official quarters cannot be rejected.

Concerning that there is to say:

1. Should it be possible to prove that there had been preparings of the towers and that the official researchers had covered that so that would practically be the proof of thesis B.

2. Should it only be possible to prove that there must have been preparings but without a prove that the official researchers must have taken knowledge of that so that couldn´t prove thesis B as true - of course it couldn´t prove thesis A as true, too.

3. Should it be clear at last there were no preparations so that would prove nothing, too.

The usual discussion turns out to be a discussion concerning point 1. above that can probably proof that thesis B is true but nothing else.

Regarding that it needs a proof that the researchers would have covered proofs for preparing of the towers. So it is probably irrelevant to talk about the point whether preparing the towers was necessary or not: If the researchers would have covered traces of such a preparing then there would have been preparings, one proof would imply the other one. But the assumption that any preparing would have left traces which the researchers would have had to find in any case (!) seems not realistic to me, but I will not proclaim absolute wisdom at this point.


My actual point of view: I think the clashes should have been enough: The backbones of the Twins were built of steel which is a very good conductor of heat. That means the heat of the large fires in the Twins was conducted through their "backbones" from top to down. That means a grave loss of consistency. Furthermore the Twins catched an enormous kinetic energy, and a part of that changed the molecular structure of the "backbones", too, You can take that as an attrition of the steel.

So there were two factors that had the effect to weaken the "backbones" of the Towers significantly. That is just the way experts use for controled detonations of towers: Weakening their "backbones" lets them collapse back upon themselves.

The supporters of thesis B are asked to give proofs (!) that the researchers had found proofs for preparing, elsewise continuing of the discussion seems not to make any sense.

But: That doesn´t mean that thesis A has to be true, that means nothing.

With kindest regards

Your sincer

Winfried Sobottka, United Anarchists