By Donna Anderson
September 11, 2012
It’s the 11th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon, and the American people.
All across the country we’ll be remembering the victims with plaques, statues and speeches. But remembering them isn’t enough.
We need to uncover the truth about 9/11 so we can honor them, give some meaning to their deaths, and bring healing to our nation.
If you haven’t see the new documentary, “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out,” I highly recommend that you take 90 minutes out of your day, sometime this week, and watch it while it’s still available free online.
There’s a particularly poignant paragraph near the end that makes it perfectly clear why we must keep demanding the truth about 9/11:
“After WWII part of the way that Jewish people honored the dead was by making sure the truth was known and the value of these people was respected. Not pursuing the truth about 9/11 disrespects the value of the lives of the people that died. Thinking that we’re above such things, that it could happen in other countries but it couldn’t here, that’s a lack of humility and that’s excessive pride. And, so not being able to see our dark side or our weaknesses is the most dangerous thing.”
Now, before you write me off as some lunatic conspiracy theorist, there’s something else in this video you need to hear: Your instinct to ignore the facts, turn away and call me a lunatic is normal, in fact, it’s expected.
Denial is a basic, psychological reponse mechanism that kicks in to protect you whenever your beliefs are challenged, and some of our greatest beliefs were shaken to the core on 9/11: The beliefs that our country protects us and keeps us safe and that America is the good guy.
The evidence to the contrary was obvious before 9/11, and each year that evidence becomes more and more compelling.
Psychologists who’ve worked with victims of 9/11 report that many Americans don’t want to know the truth because they know their lives would never be the same. And many Americans refuse to believe that so many Americans could be that statnically treasonous without our knowledge.
Surely, someone would have leaked the secrets and prevented this atrocity.
To honor the fallen and their survivors, and to bring healing to our country, it’s important to separate your feelings, your basic beliefs, from the actual cold, hard facts surrounding 9/11. It doesn’t matter what you want to believe. All that matters is what really happened.
Without acknowleding the truth, all of the deaths related to 9/11, including all the deaths in the ensuing War on Terrorism, are nothing but fuel for the war machine.
Regardless of the alphabet soup of letters or the official looking seal you see on the cover, the “official” account of the events of 9/11 are a cleverly-crafted fairytale. And, like all good fairytales, this one was woven with a lesson, in mind:
There are evil terrorists lurking around every corner. You’re not smart enough to recognize these treacherous trolls and defend yourself. Therefore, we, the United States Government, will step in on your behalf, rid the world of evil, and bring order out of chaos.
In reality, this official account was presented in such a way that it justified the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars which resulted in the deaths of more than 6,000 Americans soldiers and millions of people in those countries.
At the same time, the official account enabled the United States government to limit your civil liberties, liberties which were, and still are, guaranteed by the American Constitution.
Let’s begin dissecting this fairytale by taking a look at Osama Bin Laden. If we’re to believe the official reports, he’s the man who master-minded the entire tragedy. Capturing Osama Bin Laden was our whole reason for entering into war with Afghanistan.
On November 6, 2010, leading liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky toldPress TV:
“The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any,” the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV’s program a Simple Question.”
President Bush stated on more than one occasion that there was evidence that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks, so it would make sense that Bin Laden should have been included on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List. But he wasn’t. At least, not for the 9/11 attacks.
Bin Laden was on the list because of evidence of his involvement in the 1998 bomBings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. But there’s no mention of him in connection with the 1993 WTC bomBing or the attacks on the USS Cole or the 9/11 attacks.
Why? Because there was no evidence to confirm suspicions and convince a prosecutor to pursue the case in court.
On more than one occasion the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to a neutral third-party, if, and only if, President Bush could provide evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement. Bush could never supply that evidence, nor would he back down.
There was no significant evidence that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks, but because our government said there was, that was enough for the American people to get behind the war machine and fire up the engine. We trusted our leaders. After all, “how could so many Americans be that satanically evil without our knowledge?”
But our fairytale begins long before September 11, 2001.
“Between August 26 and September 11, 2001, a group of speculators, identified by the American Securities and Exchange Commission as Israeli citizens, sold “short” a list of 38 stocks that could reasonably be expected to fall in value as a result of the pending attacks.
These speculators operated out of the Toronto, Canada and Frankfurt, Germany, stock exchanges and their profits were specifically stated to be “in the millions of dollars.”
As early as 1979 the U.S. was working covertly with Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. In fact, the U.S. and other western powers have continuously used Al-Quaeda to create pockets of terror around the world, moving them to Bosnia in 1992, and Kosovo in 1999.
“In other words, the US military was collaborating with Al Qaeda, which according to the Bush administration was involved in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.
Yet, the US military was working hand in glove with “enemy number one” barely a few weeks before 9/11, and we are led to believe that the Bush administration is committed to waging a battle against Al Qaeda.”
“Following the invasion of Afghanistan, MSNBC reported that in November 2001, hundreds of Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters were rescued from Kunduz and flown out on Pakistani air force cargo planes. This could not have possibly happened without the approval of U.S. forces who had secured the region.”
“With the U.S. now attacking targets in Pakistan under the pretext of going after the Taliban, the lineage of how this situation developed, with the U.S. moving their pawns around the globe at the most opportune times, can be clearly traced.”
“All over the Middle East and the Balkans, from Afghanistan, to Bosnia, to Serbia, to Pakistan, to Iraq and to Iran, the United States, through black budget programs, has funded and armed Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist groups to destabilize and topple regimes targeted by the Anglo-American establishment.”
Whether they’re warring against terrorism or warring for oil rights or simply warring because war is good business, the fact is the 9/11 attacks gave the U.S. government exactly the leverage it needed to finally take control of the citizens of the United States.
We believed an evil man named Osama Bin Laden was responsible for terrorizing us on our own soil. We believed that his evil followers were lurking around every corner, looking for the opportunity to attack again. We believed that every person who wasn’t a bonafied, certified American was out to kill us, kill our children and blow up America.
So we allowed the the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, and given a four-year extension by President Barack Obama on May 26, 2011. The USA Patriot Act, at it’s core, reduces the restrictions placed on law enforcement agencies’ gathering of intelligence, allowing roving wiretaps, searches of business records and surveillance of individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.
The 9/11 myth doesn’t end with the death of Osama Bin Laden. Now there’s the fear that his followers will retaliate. The American people are still under threat. So, as an average American citizen you’re probably thinking, “Great! Now we can catch those nasty terrorists and put them away where they belong.” But the real targets of the USA Patriot act are people like you and me.
As long as the government can keep you believing there’s a bogey man lurking around every corner you’ll agree to be groped by the TSA before you get on a plane. You won’t mind the face-recognition software that’s being installed across America. You won’t have a problem having your kids being monitored with a micro-chip 24-hours a day. After all, it’s all in your best interest.
Eventually, you won’t have a problem doing exactly what the government tells you. You work where they tell you to work, eat what they give you to eat, and live where they tall you you can live. Sound familiar?
Read “Animal Farm”, read “1984” and then read a history book and compare what’s happening to the events that led to the rise of Hitler and his regime.
If the events leading up to 9/11 are too much for you to wrap your mind around, conisder the attack itself.
Before the dust had even begun to settle, witnesses were stepping forward with reports of the sounds of bombs going of in the Twin Towers and building 7.
Major media outlets talked about the collapse of building 7 a full 20 minutes before it actually fell.
“High-rise buildings simply do not collapse due to fire. There has never been, until 9/11, an experience where a high-rise building that was steel-framed completely collapsed. There have been fires burn longer, in similar structures, without any collapse.”
The list of questions about the attacks could go on and on, but unless you’re ready to look at 9/11 with an open mind they’re meaningless.
On this 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, no one is asking you to believe one thing over another. But the victims – the people who died in the attacks, the people who’ve died as a result of illness or injury during rescue efforts, and the millions of people who’ve died in the manufactured war on terror – the victims cry out for us to honor them with the truth.
Abraham Lincoln said, “I am a firm believer in the people…If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring the the real facts.”
On September 11, 2001, we were pushed into a national crisis. That push came, not from a group of terrorists, but from a group of people who are feeding off our terror. And now we’re living with two kinds of fear – fear of evil men like Osama Bin Laden and his followers, and fear of the truth.
The questions and the answers are all out there. Now it’s time to honor our dead by turning our attention from plaques and monuments, and focusing on the facts, instead.
President of Italian Supreme Court calls for international criminal investigation into 9/11 attacks
Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense
Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is “impossible”, “defies common logic” and “violates the law of physics”:
- Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
- Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:
I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded
- John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation
- Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities
- Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition
- Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident
- Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis,writes:
Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash – twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day?
It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust
- Graham John Inman points out:
WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
- Paul W. Mason notes:
In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation
- David Scott says:
Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .
- Nathan Lomba states:
I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is:
How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.
“If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.
Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings.
This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn’t get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove.
These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.
Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side.
The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.
For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures
- Edward E. Knesl writes:
We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side.
It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn’t know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse.
The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?
- Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience in building design
Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise
The symmetrical “collapse” due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics
It is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned
- Travis McCoy, M.S. in structural engineering
- James Milton Bruner, Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living
- David Anthony Dorau, practicing structural engineer with 18 years’ experience in the inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a policy analyst for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on technological matters
- Russell T. Connors, designed many buildings and other types of structures
- Lester Jay Germanio, 20+ years experience
- Daniel Metz, 26+ years experience
- Jonathan Smolens, 11 years experience, with a specialty in forensic engineering
- William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineershave questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous experts in other disciplines, including:
- The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.
- Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam – says:
The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did
- And a prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why Building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
11 Years After 9/11, U.S. And Al Qaeda Come Full Circle In Syria
Sept 11, 2012
Washington’s covert alliance with Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria proves that the U.S. war against Al Qaeda was never genuine. The official 9/11 story served as a sacred myth to brainwash the world and a propaganda cover for the pursuit of criminal imperialist and Zionist goals in the Middle East.
Defeating Al-Qaeda and getting Bin Laden were only the publicly stated goals. They were never pursued with real vigour. America hunting Al-Qaeda is like a dog chasing its own tail. The two are inseparable because they are the same Being. Al-Qaeda is insider code for CIA.
The entire history of the last eleven years about Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden is a lie. Osama Bin Laden was dead before President/CIA asset Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office.
The scripted assassination of Bin Laden in May 2011 was presented to the world as the bookend of a ten-year long manhunt drama, but the manhunt never happened and the assassination wasn’t real. Bin Laden wasn’t captured and killed in real life.
The Bin Laden manhunt was a bad, made-for-TV television movie. The casting, directing, and writing deserve three thumbs down.
But it is useful to rewind the movie back to the beginning, and replay the scene of Bin Laden being visited by the CIA at a hospital in Dubai before the 9/11 events. Although the scene was later taken out of the movie by the directors of official reality at the CIA, it still exists in bootleg copies on the Internet.
Also, the moment when the FBI allowed the Bin Laden family to escape from America on a plane was a scene to remember. This was the original inspiration for the film “Snakes on a Plane.”
Moving Bin Laden out of the picture allowed President Obama’s national security team to concentrate full-time on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, Libya, Syria, and Iran.
Despite official denials, the reality that Washington and other Western capitals are directing Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria and providing them with political and media cover is inescapable.
Prof Michel Chossudovsky wrote on September 8, 2012, in his article,“9/11 Mastermind Osama bin Laden: America’s Anti-Soviet “Peace Warrior” and CIA “Intelligence Asset””:
“Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia: The strategic objective of the US-NATO military operations was to destabilize and destroy the Yugoslav Federation using Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as a means to triggering sectarian strife and ethnic divisions within a socially and culturally diverse national society.
The Bosnia-Kosovo model was replicated in Libya and Syria.”
The fact that Washington is playing the Al-Qaeda card in Syria is an act of imperial desperation. Using terror is what empires in decline do. And the sad thing about it is that America’s national security is not threatened by Syria so it is flushing its money and reputation down the toilet.
Letting Jihadist terrorists, Saudis, Turks, and Israelis take the lead in Syria is not what a great power does. Washington should use its military power to make its dream of destroying Syria a reality. Deferring to Al-Qaeda, a thug in Turkey, and a corrupt royal family in Saudi Arabia is pathetic. If you are going to be a destroyer of the world then fully commit to the role.
Destruction is the only thing Washington has to offer to the world at this moment in time. This is what a great empire has come to: half-ass terrorism and mass murder. It is beyond sad.
America defeated the Nazis and Communists in the 20th century, why is it busying itself with third world dictators in this century? It is a waste of money, manpower, and most important of all, national honour.
You know you’re on the wrong side of history when your best friend in the Middle East is Al-Qaeda, and your so-called “special ally” isblackmailing you into committing suicide.
Teaming up with terrorists is a bad look for America. America should ditch Al-Qaeda and Israel, and restore ties with Iran.
Saman Mohammadi is the writer and editor at The Excavator
Unanswered 9-11 Questions Vetted on New Open-Source Debate Website
As we remember the horrific events of 9-11 on this 11th anniversary, it’s an excellent opportunity to remind people that many unanswered questions remain about the day that changed everything.
Nearly anyone who takes an honest look at the official explanation of 9-11 realizes it’s at best incomplete, and at worst a complete fabrication.
Many theories have sprung up in an attempt to answer the glaring questions like: How did Building 7 crumble to the ground at free fall speed without having been hit by anything? Or how could jet fuel turn the twin towers into dust? Where is the plane wreckage from Shanksville? Or how did untrained Al Qaeda fighters make nearly impossible flight maneuvers? Or why did America’s air defense stand down?
And many more questions expose the official story as bogus.
You won’t see any mainstream media outlets address these questions or even acknowledge any controversy at all despite the obvious discrepancies. Thankfully many independent researchers and the alternative media are doing their best to uncover the truth. But now there is a new platform that allows anyone to contribute their research, theories and evidence to help answer these questions.
A recently launched open-source website has created a user-friendly digital battlefield for the debate over these types of controversial and fiercely contended issues. IssueVet.com has developed an innovative “vetting” software similar to Wiki, designed to break through the Internet clutter and force both sides of an issue to engage in a fair fight and show all of their work.
IssueVet’s open-source interface allows the world to use its collective intelligence and knowledge to work like a team of investigators laying out all of the arguments on their side of an issue and not let the other side get away with lies, manipulation, oversimplification, speculation, empty conclusions or unreliable evidence.
On this anniversary, truth activists should flood this website and others like it with the real information about 9-11 before the government and their crony handlers fill it with their propaganda.
Go to their Vetting September 11th channel to contribute.
Both US presidential candidates mark 9/11 anniversary
DEBKAfileSeptember 11, 2012, 3:11 PM (GMT+02:00)
President Barack Obama and the first lady were to observe a minute’s silence on the White House South Lawn at the moment an airliner flown by al Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center’s North Tower eleven years ago. Mitt Romney plans to address the National Guard Association Convention in Reno and Ann Romney participate in anniversary events in Florida.
Outside Jerusalem, US Ambassador Dan Shapiro and families of 9/11 victims attended a memorial ceremony Tuesday.
Californians think Sears Tower was attacked by Decepticons on September 11th 2001
World Trade Center Memorial Magnificent, But At A Steep Price
By DAVID B. CARUSO and DAVID PORTER 09/09/12 01:40 PM ET
NEW YORK — With its huge reflecting pools, ringed by waterfalls and skyscrapers, and a cavernous underground museum still under construction, the National Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center is an awesome spectacle that moved and inspired some 4.5 million visitors in its first year.
But all that eye-welling magnificence comes with a jaw-dropping price tag. The foundation that runs the memorial estimates that once the roughly $700 million project is complete, the memorial and museum will together cost $60 million a year to operate.
The anticipated cost has bothered some critics and raised concerns even among the memorial’s allies that the budget may be unsustainable without a hefty government subsidy.
By comparison, the National Park Service budgeted $8.4 million this year to operate and maintain Gettysburg National Military Park and $3.6 million for the monument that includes the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor. Running Arlington National Cemetery, which has more than 14,000 graves and receives 4 million visitors a year, costs $45 million annually.
Officials at the 9/11 memorial say they face unique challenges that make comparisons to other national memorials difficult.
The foundation plans to spend at least a fifth of its operating budget, or around $12 million per year, on private security because of terrorism fears. Visitors to the memorial plaza pass through airport-like security, and armed guards patrol the grounds.
“The fact of the matter is that this was a place that was attacked twice,” said Joseph Daniels, the foundation’s president and chief executive.
Just operating the two massive fountains that mark the spots where the twin towers once stood will cost another $4.5 million to $5 million annually, said the foundation’s spokesman, Michael Frazier.
Foundation officials didn’t respond to requests for information about other costs at the site, including the anticipated expense of running the museum, which is still unfinished and might not be anytime soon.
The museum was supposed to open this month, but construction all but ceased a year ago because of a funding squabble between the foundation and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land the memorial sits on.
Daniels said it will take at least a year for the museum to open once construction resumes, meaning the site may not be fully complete until at least 2014.
Colorado Public Television Presents 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out
Feature length documentary with cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 top experts in their fields.
About the Author: