In order to understand why Ukraine’s President Voldomyr Zelensky doesn’t want the dirt about Joe Biden to become public, one needs to know that Hunter Biden’s boss and benefactor at Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky’s boss and benefactor until Zelensky became Ukraine’s President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms which could place that former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places.
First, the falsehoods in the press have to be documented here, since this article will go up against virtually all U.S.-and-allied reporting on these events. And, in order to do such a thing, the bona fides of my main sources need to be presented:
Her blog is widely respected amongst both scholars and experts in the field of finance, and is among the top go-to sites for trustworthy investigative news reporting in their highly complex field. So as to be able to achieve this high degree of respect, day in and day out, for decades, she carefully selects and relies upon the expertise of a small team of investigators, one of whom is Richard Smith, who has done around 200 articles for her site. One of these was dated 21 May 2014 and headlined “R. Hunter Biden Should Declare Who Really Owns His New Ukrainian Employer, Burisma Holdings”, and it reported that the U.S. Vice President’s son had become “a new member of the board” and that this “Ukrainian energy company has retained the counsel of the vice president’s son and the Secretary of State’s close family friend and top campaign bundler.” Since these men were being paid by the corporation’s owner, Mr. Smith researched extensively to find out who that was, or they were. He reported “what one careful Ukrainian journalist dug up in 2012”:
“Burisma changed owners last year [in 2011]: instead of Zlochevsky and Lisin, the company was taken over by a Cypriot off-shore enterprise called Brociti Investments Ltd. Pari and Esko-Pivnich” and a “third company was already waiting for them in the same building – the above-mentioned Ukrnaftoburinnya,” and “The Privat Group is the immediate owner. This company was founded by Mykola Zlochevsky some time ago, but he later sold his shares to the Privat Group,” which “is a conglomerate controlled by the ferocious Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky,” who “is one of the oligarchs charged with holding down the Eastern provinces of Ukraine,” and who “is far too ebulliently Jewish to look like a neo-Nazi. A US connection with Kolomoisky might play well in circles keen to counter Russian complaints that the interim Kiev regime is dominated by ‘fascists’.” Those quotations are from Mr. Smith’s article, but the following is not. Examining the documents myself, I note especially that at their end is the conclusion: “Thus, Ihor Kolomoisky managed to seize the largest reserves of natural gas in Ukraine.” This was the conclusion of the “careful Ukrainian journalist,” which was actually not one but a team of three, who were employed at a Ukrainian non-profit, the Anticorruption Action Centre, which specialized in tracking down the actual persons who controlled corporations and which had a particular focus on finding “Offshore fronts for Yanukovych.” Yanukovych was the democratically elected Ukrainian President, who took office on 25 February 2010. So: this non-profit was an anti-Yanukovych organization, writing more than two years into his Presidency, on 28 August 2012.
A certain historical background is essential here; and this, too, goes up against American ‘news’-reporting and will therefore be linked to articles that, in turn, link to ultimate sources that are of unquestioned reliability on each of the particulars that are in question: There was a coup in Ukraine in February 2014, which is portrayed in the West as being a democratic revolution (but was actually a coup hidden behind anticorruption demonstrations, and that was entirely illegal), and it replaced the democratically elected President by a ruler who was selected by Victoria Nuland, whose boss was Secretary of State John Kerry, whose boss was Barack Obama. Nuland had been originally a protégé of Vice President Dick Cheney, and then of Kerry’s immediate predecessor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama assigned Nuland to carry out his plan for Ukraine, which plan was to turn its government away from being friendly toward its next-door neighbor Russia to becoming instead a satellite of the United States against Ukraine’s next-door neighbor. Consequently, fascists, and even outright racist-fascists (nazis), people who came from the groups that had supported Hitler against Stalin during World War II, were installed into this new government, such as the co-founder of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, Andriy Parubiy. (The CIA instructed that Party, which was Ukraine’s main nazi party, to change its name to “Freedom Party” — Svoboda — so as to become acceptable to Americans; and Paribuy and his colleagues did it, in order to help the U.S. Government to fool the American people about what the U.S. was doing in Ukraine.)
At least until Zelensky was elected, Ukraine’s Government remained fascist. And so is Kolomoysky himself, as I had reported about him on 18 May 2014. As I reported there,
On 12 May 2014, Burisma Holdings announced, “Hunter Biden Joins the Team of Burisma Holdings,”and reported that, “Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s largest private gas producer, has expanded its Board of Directors by bringing on Mr. R Hunter Biden as a new director. R. Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Holdings’ legal unit and will provide support for the Company among international organizations.”
At the time, Hunter Biden, now 49, and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of then-Secretary of State John Kerry, co-owned Rosemont Seneca Partners, a $2.4 billion private equity firm. Heinz’s college roommate, Devon Archer, was managing partner in the firm. In the spring of 2014, Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that was at the center of a U.K. money laundering probe. Over the next year, Burisma reportedly paid Biden and Archer’s companies over $3 million.
Subsequently, both Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were removed from Burisma’s board and replaced by a four-person board, which mysteriously had included ever since May 2013 (which still was after Zlochevsky no longer controlled the company) Alan Apter, of Sullivan & Cromwell, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Renaissance Capital. Apter now became the “Chairman of the Board of Directors”. Here are the other three Directors: Aleksander Kwaśniewski was the President of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 when it was being taken over by America, and when Kwaśniewski was also a member of the Atlantic Council (NATO’s PR arm), and of the Bilderberg Group. Joseph Cofer Black was the Director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center (1999-2002) and Ambassador at Large for counter-terrorism (2002-2004), while President George W. Bush was lying America into invading Iraq, and Black subsequently became the Vice Chairman at Blackwater Worldwide (now Academi), which the Bush Government hired to train and arm mercenaries to help conquer Iraq. (Blackwater/Academi is owned by Erik Prince, the brother of Betsy DeVos of the Amway fortune, who is the Trump Secretary of Education, and Prince also is a personal friend of Trump. Obama’s Government also hired Blackwater/Academi to kill independence fighters in the Dnieper Donets Basin, where Burisma owns the drilling rights for gas.) And the fourth Director is Karina Zlochevska, whom the site identifies hardly at all, but is actually the daughter of Mykola Zlochevsky. In other words: Zlochevsky probably does remain as a minority owner of the company, and she represents his interests there.
Virtually all of the Western press simply alleges that Mykola Zlochevsky owns Burisma Holdings and brought Biden on board and was his boss; however, I have never seen from any of those ‘news’-reports any evidence or documentation that it’s true — nothing like the sources that Richard Smith relied upon and linked to documenting that this was Kolomoysky’s company. Nothing, at all.
Joseph Biden, as is well reported in the press, instructed the new Ukrainian Government to fire and replace the General Prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, who had failed to prosecute Zlochevsky, and this action by Joe is reported as indicating that the senior Biden granted his son’s employer no favor but instead the opposite — that Joe insisted upon Hunter’s boss’s prosecution.
The then-vice president issued his demands for greater anti-corruption measures by the Ukrainian government despite the possibility that those demands would actually increase – not lessen — the chances that Hunter Biden and Burisma would face legal trouble in Ukraine.
Risen reported there that V.P. Biden’s “anti-corruption message might be undermined by the association of his son Hunter with one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, Burisma Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.”
However, none of that press says Kolomoysky owned the company and was its boss. The presumption there is always that Zlochevsky needed to be prosecuted — not that Kolomoysky did. Kolomoysky is simply being written out of the picture altogether — whited-out from it
Also as is typical, the New York Times reported, on 1 May 2019, that Mykola Zlochevsky is the “owner of Burisma Holdings” and that “Mr. Lutsenko initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking office. The prosecutor general reversed himself and reopened an investigation into Burisma this year. Some see his decision as an effort to curry favor with the Trump administration.” For some mysterious reason, that article not only says that the replacement Prosecutor tried and failed and now tried again to prosecute Zlochevsky but that “Some see his decision as an effort to curry favor with the Trump administration,” though, actually, it was the Obama Administration that had been pressing Ukraine’s Government to prosecute Zlochevsky, who wasn’t Hunter Biden’s boss and didn’t control Burisma and was associated not with the 2014 Obama-installed Government of Ukraine but instead with the Government that had preceded it and was the last of all Ukraine’s democratic Governments, having been democratically elected by all of Ukraine including the two regions (Crimea and Donbass) that broke away from Ukraine when Obama in February 2014 overthrew the Government that those two now-breakaway regions had voted for, by over 75% in that 2010 election.
And here is from Wikipedia’s article on “Viktor Shokin”:
Since 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general had been investigating oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the oil and natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption.In 2014, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden‘s son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings.In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizationssoon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as “an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts”.Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.
In March 2016, Joe Biden threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenkothat if he did not fire Shokin, that the US would hold back its $1 billion in loan guarantees. “I looked at them and said, “I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.” Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”Shokin was dismissed by Parliament later that month.
Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.However, Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.Hunter Biden’s ties to Burisma Holdings was criticized as a conflict of interest in a New York Times editorial, though Amos Hochsteinhas claimed to have never seen coordination between Joe Biden and his son on the matter.
And here is from Wikipedia’s Article on “Burisma Holdings”:
Burisma Group was founded in 2002 by Ukrainian businessman Mykola Zlochevskyand Nikolay Lysin[uk]. Now it is owned by Mykola Zlochevskyi[uk], who was minister of natural resources under Viktor Yanukovych.Zlochevsky returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after the corruption investigations into his Burisma Holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.
Furthermore, the CIA was the ‘whistleblower’ that made the impeachment-charge to the Democratic Party head of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam Schiff, who is the lead proponent of impeaching Donald Trump so that Trump can then become tried in the U.S. Senate, which then would possess the power to replace Trump and make President the current Vice President, Mike Pence, which Democrats, for some unexplained reason, seem to hope will happen. As Reuters reported on September 26th, “The whistleblower is a CIA officer and was assigned at one point to work at the White House, two sources familiar with the probe into his complaint said. The New York Times first identified the whistleblower as a CIA officer, which Reuters confirmed.” That report also asserted:
The call occurred after Trump had ordered a freeze of nearly $400 million in American aid to Ukraine, which was only later released. Before the call, Ukraine’s government was told that interaction between Zelenskiy and Trump depended on whether the Ukrainian leader would “play ball,” the whistleblower said.
The report said Trump acted to advance his personal political interests, risking national security.
“I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute ‘a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or executive order,’” the whistleblower complaint, dated Aug. 12, said.
The same CIA whose lies had ‘justified’ America’s invading Iraq in 2003, and invading Libya in 2011, and invading Syria starting in 2012 (and extending there up till at least 2018), is now ‘justifying’ congressional Democrats to replace Trump by Pence if they possibly can.
“‘Large-scale coordinated fraudulent actions of the bank [PrivatBank] shareholders and management caused a loss to the state of at least $5.5 billion,’ [Valeria] Hontareva [former chair of Ukranie’s central bank] said in March 2018. ‘This is 33 percent of the population’s deposits … [and] 40 percent of our country’s monetary base.’ … By the time regulators took over PrivatBank, the $5.5 billion had already been transferred to banks in Austria, Luxembourg, and Latvia. From there, the trail goes cold. … This account is based on a forensic audit by Kroll, the U.S.-based corporate investigation and risk consulting firm. The report … is based on PrivatBank’s own records and was obtained exclusively by OCCRP. … Ukraine nationalized PrivatBank in December 2016, saddling taxpayers with a $5.9 billion bailout.”
Furthermore, the estimable and reliably accurate Moscow investigative journalist John Helmer reported on 19 February 2015 that “In March 2014, days after the ouster of Yanukovich in Kiev and the installation of a new regime, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) started investigating Zlochevsky. According to the evidence it presented to the Central Criminal Court between March and December of 2014, and according to Justice Blake, who assessed the evidence, there is no mention of Lisin, Deripon, Burrard or Kolomoisky.” Obama’s people (there via the U.S. regime’s lap-dog UK) were targeting Zlochevsky, certainly not Kolomoysky, who was instead on their team.
Zelensky, prior to becoming Ukraine’s President, had been the star of a popular comedy series on Ukrainian television that was telecast by Ihor Kolomoysky’s 1+1 Media group. On 19 May 2014, Forbes published a shockingly honest article, by Vladimir Golstein, “Why Everything You’ve Read About Ukraine Is Wrong”, which mentioned, about Kolomoysky, that,
His business holdings include the largest Ukrainian media group, “1+1 Media,” the news agency “Unian,” as well as various internet sites, which enable him to whip public opinion into an anti-Putin frenzy. Andrew Higgins of The New York Times published a story with the headline, “Among Ukraine’s Jews, the Bigger Worry is Putin, Not Pogroms,” which praises Kolomoisky for adorning Dnepropetrovsk with “the world’s biggest Jewish community center” along with “a high tech Holocaust museum.” Higgins notes, however, that the museum “skirts the delicate issue of how some Ukrainian nationalists collaborated with Nazis.
Kolomoysky himself had become installed by the Obama Administration’s Ukrainian agents as the Governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region of Ukraine where his approximately $5 billion financial empire was based, and which in its north extends into the Dnieper Donets Basin where Burisma owns the drilling rights for gas. As this last link indicates, that Basin “is the major oil and gas producing region of Ukraine accounting for approximately 90 per cent of Ukrainian production and according to EIA may have 42 tcf of shale gas resources technically recoverable from 197 tcf of risked shale gas in place.” That article, from the investment-oriented website Zero Hedge, sums up:
In a nutshell, Ukraine (or rather its puppetmasters) has decided to let no crisis (staged or otherwise) or rather civil war, go to waste, and while the fighting rages all around, Ukrainian troopers are helping to install shale gas production equipment near the east Ukrainian town of Slavyansk, which was bombed and shelled [by the Obama-installed Government] for the three preceding months, according to local residents cited by Itar Tass. The reason for the scramble? Under peacetime, the process was expected to take many years, during which Europe would be under the energy dictatorship of Putin. But throw in some civil war and few will notice let alone care that a process which was expected to take nearly a decade if not longer while dealing with broad popular objections to fracking, may instead be completed in months!
Ukraine’s bombing of that region (for examples, this and this and this) was in order to clear the land for a massive fracking operation. However, it turned out that not only Kolomoysky’s operation with Shell in the Dnieper Donets Basin in Ukraine’s far east, but also the Ukrainian Government’s own gas-exploration operation with Chevron in western Ukraine’s Olesska field, were uneconomic; or, as I headlined about them on 16 December 2014, “Ukraine’s Two Big Gas Deals Are Now Both Dry”. It seems that if Hunter Biden is to become a billionaire, it won’t come from Ukrainian gas. (Nor, of course will it have come from Zlochevsky, which the news-media would have it to be.)
As was reported on 20 May 2014 by Israel Shamir at the website of Paul Craig Roberts, under the headline “The Ukraine in Turmoil” (and his article there was the first comprehensive and accurate summary of what had recently happened to Ukraine):
These people had brought Ukraine to its present abject state. In 1991, the Ukraine was richer than Russia, today it is three times poorer because of these people’s mismanagement and theft. Now they plan an old trick: to take loans in Ukraine’s name, pocket the cash and leave the country indebted. They sell state assets to Western companies and ask for NATO to come in and protect the investment.
They play a hard game, brass knuckles and all. The Black Guard, a new SS-like armed force of the neo-nazi Right Sector, prowls the land. They arrest or kill dissidents, activists, journalists. Hundreds of American soldiers, belonging to the “private” company Academi (formerly Blackwater) are spread out in Novorossia [Donbass, the far-eastern region that became independent after Obama’s coup], the pro-Russian provinces in the East and South-East. IMF–dictated reforms slashed pensions by half and doubled the housing rents. In the market, US Army rations took the place of local food.
The new Kiev regime had dropped the last pretence of democracy by expelling the Communists from the parliament. This should endear them to the US even more. Expel Communists, apply for NATO, condemn Russia, arrange a gay parade and you may do anything at all, even fry dozens of citizens alive. And so they did.
The harshest repressions were unleashed on industrial Novorossia, as its working class loathes the whole lot of oligarchs and ultra-nationalists. After the blazing inferno of Odessa and a wanton shooting on the streets of Melitopol the two rebellious provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms and declared their independence from the Kiev regime.
And then, to top it off, there is the brilliant pewreport blogger, who, on 27 July 2014, headlined “USAID to Help Young Biden: The Burisma File”, and that anonymous person succinctly laid out the use of the U.S. Government to enable the families of some of its top officials to join America’s aristocracy, the billionaire class. It’s something that Trump himself is intimately involved with and exploits, but if America’s national and international police-agencies such as the FBI and CIA are trying (first with Russiagate, and now with Ukrainegate) to replace him by Pence in order to enable another friend of Obama to become installed (like Hillary was supposed to have been) as President and Commander-in-Chief, then this struggle between the agents of America’s Democratic Party billionaires versus those of its Republican Party billionaires could end up having consequences that no one is predicting.
It’s also important to point out here that Zelensky’s predecessor, Poroshenko, was not Obama’s first choice to win the 25 May 2014 Ukrainian election that followed the February 2014 coup and installation of Yatsenyuk to run the country on an interim basis. Yatsenyuk was supposed to run it until that election (after which Yatsenyuk still continued long in office, and Obama pushed as hard as possible for President Poroshenko to continue Prime Minister Yatsenyuk’s policies). Obama’s first choice — and the planned winner — in the 25 May 2014 election, was an intense hater of Russia, Yulia Tymoshenko. Yatsenyuk had actually been her agent. Kolomoysky was perhaps her main financial backer. But she lost the election to Obama’s second choice, Poroshenko. Kolomoysky was enough of a supporter of Tymoshenko so that even after he returned to Ukraine on 16 May 2019 just prior to the latest Presidential election, he backed her even above Zelensky. But above all, he opposed Poroshenko, because Poroshenko had been forced by the main lenders to his Government to fire Kolomoysky as governor of Dnipropetrovsk and to nationalize his bankrupt PrivatBank due to Kolomoysky’s having been looting from Ukraine’s Government too much money via his bank and via his minority ownership of the Government’s gas company. Obama had wanted that money to go toward the war against Donbass, not into Kolomoysky’s pockets. (However, America’s Democratic-Party propaganda ‘non-profit’ Public Radio International gave a positive spin to Obama-team-member Kolomoysky even at the time of his firing by Poroshenko on 28 March 2015, saying of him, “He offered $10,000 bounties for captured pro-Russian insurgents. ‘People understand that this person came here to ensure stability,’ said Stanislav Zholudev, a local political analyst.” The euphemism “captured pro-Russian insurgents” was actually referring to their corpses — Kolomoysky was paying only for their corpses. Maybe for Obama-ites that’s “stability.” Kolomoysky was already paying the nazi Azov Battalion more than that per pro-Russian corpse, and now the Trump Administration wants Kolomoysky to be prosecuted for financial crimes instead of Zlochevsky to be prosecuted, and so Zelensky is being pushed one way by Democrats, and the opposite way by Republicans.) Kolomoysky has many enemies. The main holders of Ukraine’s debt are unknown, but besides Russia which had lent to the pre-coup Government (and were thus trying to get their senior money that’s owing from Ukraine to be paid to Russia before the newer creditors get theirs), they were said to be the IMF, America’s Franklin Templeton Fund, and Blackstone Group, the World Bank, and a group of mainly American billionaires “and private Eurobond holders” who are represented by the law firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges. The U.S. Government and EU countries were also said to be indirectly such holders via their ownership shares in the IMF and World Bank, but also perhaps more directly. (If Trump were a decent President, he’d be publicly pressing for the exact numbers on all of this.) Kolomoysky’s siphonings from Ukraine’s Government were at the expense of all of them. The pressures upon Poroshenko to halt it were mounting. And, so, Kolomoysky was fired; and, now, to the extent that Zelensky has to satisfy Kolomoysky, Zelensky (who publicly said of Kolomoysky “He is my business partner”) needs to resist some of the demands of the U.S. regime and of many other billionaires. Without their continued support, Ukraine’s Government will collapse in the short term instead of only (which is inevitable) in the long term. It’s no longer just a question of the Ukrainian regime’s war against Donbass. The change that Obama wrought is permanent, and Trump dithers back and forth about how to deal with it. He apparently has no strategy on that.
Zelensky might fear that if he complies with Trump’s request, then his own major benefactor, Kolomoysky, could end up in prison somewhere; and Trump might fear that if he presses Zelensky on that (as he did not do but Democrats say he did), then the entire Deep State — not only Democratic Party billionaires, but also now Republican ones — will become Trump’s enemies, and his 2020 re-election chances will therefore go to zero. Consequently: Trump will probably abandon the matter, and the till-now-unsupported and maybe unsupportable mere assumption, that Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian benefactor was Zlochevsky instead of Kolomoysky, will continue to be asserted virtually everywhere throughout the U.S. empire, for as long a time as the matter continues to remain in the ‘news’. Of course, if that turns out to be the case, then Joe Biden will continue to be portrayed in this matter as having been a crusader against corruption in Ukraine, instead of as having been the aspiring founder of yet another billionaire American dynasty.
Basically, the new Russiagate charges to replace Trump by Pence, Ukrainegate (as those charges were presented by the CIA ‘whistleblower’ on August 12th and published on September 26th), represent all of the Democratic Party’s billionaires, and many of the Republican Party’s ones, as well. It’s the pinnacle of the Obama-versus-Trump feud, because it represents the Democratic Party’s position on what was Obama’s top international achievement — his conquest (via a coup) against Ukraine. Trump refuses to condemn Obama’s coup against Ukraine, but if he cared about the truth, he would, and the worst that could happen to him then would be that, for once in his life, he’d be fighting for truth, and not just for himself. Apparently, that’s too big a leap for him to take.
What’s especially pathetic in all of this is that whenever the U.S. Government overthrows and destroys a country, it’s trumpeted as reflecting America’s standing-up for rule-of-law and opposition to corruption, and for support of democracy and protection of human rights; but whenever Russia or a nation that’s friendly toward Russia resists control by the U.S. and its allies, it’s portrayed as being a dictatorship and an opponent of democracy and of human rights. So, go figure.
On September 11, 2001, multiple buildings were destroyed at the World Trade Center. Most of the emphasis has been – correctly – focused on the three prominent skyscrapers: the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. The other destroyed building include WTC 3 (the Marriott Hotel), WTC 4, WTC 5 and WTC 6 (the Customs House). The New York Marriott Hotel, was known by various names such as the World Trade Center Hotel, the Vista Hotel and WTC 3. Like all of the World Trade Center buildings, it was a steel-framed building. The Marriott was built with 22 stories above grade and six stories below grade. It stood immediately south of the North Tower and west of the South Tower. The Marriott Hotel was almost completely flattened on 9/11 in two stages. The first stage was when the South Tower was destroyed and debris fell upon it, The second stage was when the North Tower was destroyed and debris from the North Tower fell upon it.
The Marriott Story on 9/11
Evacuation of the Marriott hotel began shortly after 8:46 when AA11 impacted the North Tower. This apparently ignited fires on the hotel's roof and building occupants were first directed to the hotel lobby, then instructed to evacuate the building. According to FEMA's report, all of the guests were evacuated. However, two members of the hotel management team re-entered the building to check for occupants and were subsequently killed when the South Tower was destroyed.
The Marriott was crushed by ejected steel fragments from the South Tower and later by the North Tower was destroyed. In each case the steel perimeter column sections, accelerating from an altitude of up to 1000 feet above the hotel, impacted and collapsed regions of the hotel for numerous floors. Eventually, the The falling building's steel structure was able to decelerate and then resist the falling perimeter column sections.
This observed deceleration of the perimeter columns falling upon the Marriott stands in contrast with the officially accepted story that progressive collapse destroyed the Twin Towers. In the progressive collapse scenario, two mechanical factors are refuted by the NIST explanation by these falling perimeter columns.
First, according to the NIST explanation, at collapse initiation, the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floor trusses. This would have drawn the exterior mass toward the inside – closer to the core columns and not ejected the perimeter columns outward as was observed. After the collapse initiation, the structure would fall approximately one story before being decelerated by the structure below. If the decelerating forces of the structure below were insufficient to overcome the downward momentum, it would have, at least, slowed the buildings downward progression of the destruction.
Second, the perimeter columns that landed outside of the foot print of the Towers had significant outward velocity as demonstrated by the distance the perimeter columns traveled – after purportedly being pulled inward according to the logic that NIST presented (NIST avoided addressing the dynamics of the destruction – but with the perimeter structure pulled inward, the cascade of structure should have been within the perimeter columns, not outside).
Photographers on 9/11
Two photographers captured the destruction of the Marriott Hotel and the immediate aftermath: Richard Drew and Bill Biggart. The incredible images captured by these photographers will be reviewed here as a photo-essay.
Richard Drew was an Associated Press photographer. When he emerged from the Chambers Street subway station on the morning of September 11, 2011 he saw both towers spewing smoke. His photographic instincts took over and he began photographing the burning buildings and environs. Eventually he noticed people jumping from the upper floors and started photographing them and one become known as ‘The Falling Man‘.”
Drew was north of the towers on West Street when the destruction of the South tower began. In a series of three photographs, he documented the descent of large perimeter column sections as they plummeted downward toward the Marriott Hotel. The following composite shows a sequence of three photograph of the falling perimeter column sections. The orientation of one of the falling perimeter column sections is relatively stable and a yellow arrow points to an identifiable location. This panel is five three-columns wide sections that are falling as a single intact entity. To see additional detail, the individual images can be examined separately (Left Image, Center Image, Right Image).
Figure 1: Sequence of three images by Richard Drew showing the impending impact of the perimeter column sections onto the Marriott Hotel. Click to enlarge.
Bill Biggart was the only journalist casualty in the destruction of the World Trade Center. He had become a photographer very early in life. When the first plane hit the World Trade Center he said good-bye to his family, picked up his cameras and walked the twenty blocks to the buildings on that were on fire. He was carrying three cameras, two using film and the third was a digital he had just bought. He was killed when the North Tower collapsed.
To capture the images shown below, Bill would have been standing just north of the towers on West Street. He photographed the explosive cloud beginning high upon the South Tower's destruction and followed it to the ground. Bill's last photograph was taken from a few hundred feet south of the others on West Street after the dust had settled. In that picture, the center section of the Marriott hotel is seen to have been crushed by the falling perimeter columns of the South Tower. The first photograph shows many of those column sections falling ahead of the dust cloud, similar to Richard Drew's photos. The second photo shows the cloud of debris obscuring the Marriott. The last photograph shows crushed hotel and three pieces of the perimeter wall impaled through the roadway and partially into the subterranean infrastructure. A still-standing piece of the South Tower's northeast wall can be seen through the gap in Marriott.
Figure 2: Bill Biggart captures debris being ejected outside of the South Tower above the Marriott Hotel. Click to enlarge.
Figure 3: Marriott Hotel is shrouded by the dust cloud from the destruction of the South Tower. Click to enlarge.
Figure 4: Marriott Hotel after the destruction of the South Tower. Shows the crushed middle section of the hotel. Click to enlarge.
After the collapse of the North Tower, all that remains of the Marriott Hotel are a few floors of the southwest corner. Some of the perimeter column sections can be seen on top of the remnants of the hotel.
Figure 5: After the destruction of the Twin Towers, very little remains of the hotel. Click to enlarge.
World Trade Center Building 6
World Trade Center Building 6 was an eight story building that was severely damaged by falling debris when the Twin Towers were destroyed. Upon a cursory review of the photos in Figure 6, two large craters can be seen in the roof the building and other areas where the roof line and exterior walls were crushed. One of the questions that has been raised about the large craters in the roof is what caused that type of damage. Various speculations have circulated that the damage was caused by large internal explosions. However, upon a close inspection the damage the photographic record shows that, like the Marriott Hotel, WTC 6 was damaged by falling perimeter column sections. Figure 7 is a close-up of the east side of the large crater where perimeter columns can be seen along the roof. Figure 8 shows the inside of this crater which is littered by fallen perimeter column sections.
Figure 6: The roof of the "Customs House" (WTC 6) exhibits large holes in the roof where perimeter columns crushed the building. WTC 7 is seen to the left side of the image. Click to enlarge.
Figure 7: Close-up of the large opening which shows perimeter column sections on the roof around the crater.
Figure 8: The debris field in the center of the U.S. Customhouse shows perimeter column sections that fell from the North Tower. Photo by James Tourtellotte, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Click to enlarge.
Figure 9: The debris field at about the first floor in the U.S. Customhouse shows perimeter column sections that fell from the North Tower. Photo by James Tourtellotte, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Click to enlarge.
The destruction of the skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11 exhibited a great deal of energy that cannot be explained by the gravity-only collapse hypothesis put forward by NIST. This short review of the destruction of the Marriott Hotel and the U. S. Customs Building shows how classical "mechanics" (e.g., the laws of momentum and motion) explains the destruction of these smaller buildings. What remains as the open question is what force was able to propel the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers outside of the tower's footprint, at significant velocities, so that they would end up crushing nearby buildings in all directions.
The 9/11 Truth Action Project welcomes thoughtful replies containing an appropriate level of scholarship. Please contact us about contributing an article.
A review of the damage to the perimeter columns at the World Trade Center Twin Towers on 9/11 only shows the effects of a large momentum impact. The damage does not suggest the presence of explosive detonations upon impact.
Aircraft impact damage to the perimeter columns of the World Trade Center Twin Towers is one topic where the 9/11Truth Movement has been subjected to a continuous barrage of misinformation. In a recent internet debate between three members from the “anything but a large plane impact into the Twin Towers,” perspective, the proponents argued – without discussing the observed damage – what caused the openings in the sides of the Twin towers. These three debaters were introduced by the moderator as knowledgeable and addressing the issue from "diverse perspectives."
Unfortunately, there was no person included in the debate with enough knowledge to explain that the damage was caused by a large momentum impact. The three debaters all agreed that the damage must have been caused by explosive detonations either pre-planted or delivered by missiles – but in their opinions – anything but a large plane impact caused the damage. A listener to this debate might have come to the conclusion that these three debaters represented a consensus of the 9/11 Truth community.
Standards of Evidence
The 9/11 truth community has coalesced around the rigorous work of Architects for 9/11 Truth and the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry because of their analysis and their standards of evidence. These two organizations are viewed as adhering to the scientific method which – as Scientists for 9/11 Truth observe – was developed painstakingly, over the past centuries, sometimes at great cost to personal reputation, circumstance, and freedom, and even to life itself.
The scientific method requires the collection, study, and analysis of factual information and data regarding the events that took place on September 11, 2001 (e.g., 9/11). Responsible organizations demanding accountability for the events of 9/11 must demonstrate the highest standards of evidence to garner public support for a new, independent and scientific investigation of the events of 9/11. To succumb to a lower standard would be a dis-service to the victims of 9/11and the resulting 9/11 related wars.
While not all information is known about the events of 9/11, a careful evaluation of the available evidence can lead to a better understanding of what happened on that day – and lead to a more effective outreach in the quest for a new investigation.
Plane Impact or an Explosive Hoax
A review of the evidence shows that the damage to the sides of the Twin Towers is consistent with a large momentum impact. Furthermore, the observed damage cannot be explained by explosive detonations – whether large or small. Explosives do not work “by magic” – explosives cannot sculpt damage that resembles a large momentum impact while failing to leave other damage that would be inconsistent with a large momentum impact.
Explosive detonations have four basic characteristics:
Explosive detonations are caused by a chemical compound or mixture ignited by heat, shock, impact, friction, or a combination of these conditions;
Upon ignition, it decomposes rapidly in a detonation;
There is a rapid release of heat and large quantities of high-pressure gases that expand rapidly with sufficient force to overcome confining forces, and
The energy released by the detonation of explosives produces four basic effects that operate in all directions from the epicenter;
When doing outreach among the public related to 9/11, occasionally someone who is aware of the events of 9/11 may state their disbelief that there were any planes involved in 9/11. During the 2018 anniversary there was a resurgence of comments about the shape of the outline of the plane on the side of the WTC Twin Towers – with the assertion that the plane could not have gone through the tower as observed. Those commenters referred to the plane passing through the Twin Towers in a manner similar to a "Wile E. Coyote" impact (from the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies Cartoon series). These characterizations of the impact are incorrect and a review of the damage shows that the damage can only be explained by a large plane impact.
The review shows that much of the observed damage to the exterior perimeter columns was in the area near where the center of the plane's mass impacted the building (center of mass is between, and including, the engines). At the locations where the "light" ends of the wings (e.g., lower mass) impacted the Towers, the aluminum cladding on the columns suffered significant damage, but the wings did not penetrate the exterior perimeter columns in these areas.
Figure 1: Perimeter column "Trident" panel. Click to enlarge.The exterior perimeter columns were closely spaced to form a stiff bolted-together tube that was designed to resist the wind loads and carry a portion of the gravity load. The individual columns were roughly 14 in. square, and were fabricated by welding individual plates into box columns. Perimeter column sections consisted of three adjacent columns, each three stories high, that were joined by horizontal spandrel plates where floor trusses were connected. Figure 1 shows a three-story tall, three-column wide, trident exterior wall panel in place.
Nearly every panel assembly was unique, and each was intended for a specific location on a given face of one building. In the lower floors, the individual plates that made up the perimeter columns were up to 1 in. thick, but those in the impact floors were typically 0.25 in. thick. Additionally, because the wind loads differed between the different compass directions, the distribution of column strengths and thicknesses on each face of each building was unique; the two towers were not identical copies. Once in place, the panels were bolted together to neighboring panels at the spandrel connections.
The exterior perimeter columns were connected to each other, above and below, by four A325 7/8" bolts that passed through an end butt plate (e.g., at a "column splice"). Perimeter columns were only welded together at the mechanical floors. As will be shown, it is at the location of these bolts that the perimeter column splices failed due to shear forces, breakage or pull-out.
With these modes of bolt failures, the perimeter columns are seen mostly destroyed at the ends of the trident sections. Significant bending of the steel perimeter columns can occur once a splice has failed.
The photographic record for the damage to the North Tower is more complete than for the South Tower. Because of the fewer locations from which the high-resolution photographs of the South Tower damage could have been taken, few good photographs exist. Consequently, only the North Tower will be discussed in this article.
Map of Trident Panels in North Tower Impact Area
To facilitate the discussion of damage to the North Tower, the damaged area has been marked off into a grid of 90 numbered squares. Each of the the horizontal lines represent a level where the trident panels are bolted together. In Figure 2, the panels are color coded to show how they are staggered across the floor levels. As shown in Figure 2 (complementing the example of the staggering shown in Figure 1), the panels are staggered so that adjacent tridents reinforce each other vertically across three floor levels to provide strength in high winds. Figure 3 (see below) shows the same area of the North Tower with the grid superimposed on a photograph of the damage.
Figure 2: North Tower damage map showing the trident panels. Click to enlarge.
As shown on Figures 2 and 3 (see below), the upper right side of the grid is the extent of the damage to the facade caused by the right wing (see grid square 15). The damage caused by the left wing can be seen at the lower left (see grid square 76).
The area where the body of the plane impacted is centered around grid squares 53 and 54. Figure 2 does not indicate any panels in this area because there are none shown in Figure 3. As shown in this Figure 3, most of the openings begin at a splice where one trident section was bolted to the next trident above/below it. This is indicative of bolts failing at the butt ends where the connections were joined.
The accuracy of the damage documented in the schematic shown in Figure 2 can be verified against the photograph in Figure 3.
Physical Map of North Tower Impact Area
Figure 3 shows the damage with the location grid superimposed. Using this location grid, the corresponding trident panels can be matched to the color coded tridents in Figure 2. The photograph shows more detail to better understand the failure mechanism of the perimeter columns.
Figure 3: North Tower damage map. Click to enlarge.
A review of the photographs shows that the extremities only sustained damage to the outer skin of the aluminum cladding.
Left Wing-End Damage Only to Aluminum Cladding
Left wing impact area shows 30 feet of damaged aluminum cladding with intact perimeter columns.
Figure 4: Left wing impact area shows 30 feet of damaged aluminum cladding with intact perimeter columns. Click to enlarge.For an even higher resolution image, click here.
The left wing impact area shows about 30 feet of damaged aluminum cladding with the underlying perimeter columns intact.
Right Wing-End Damage Only to Aluminum Cladding
The right wing impact area shows about 20 feet of damaged aluminum cladding with the underlying perimeter columns intact. The NIST schematic indicates damage to the columns in grid cell 14, but they are visible and appear to be continuous and not separated or seriously compromised.
Figure 5: Right wing impact area shows 20 feet of damaged cladding with intact perimeter columns. Click to enlarge.
The NIST schematic indicates damage to the trident panel in grid cell 14, but the columns are visible and appear to be continuous. They do not appear separated or seriously compromised.
The left-most column of the the trident panel splice between grid cells 14 and 29 appears to have separated. This separation is at the location of the bolted connection where failure could be expected.
Perimeter Column Splice Failure
At many of the locations where the perimeter column trident panels were spliced together, they are seen cleanly separating. Figure 6 shows a number of the locations (schematic vs. photo) where the columns separated due to bolt failures.
Figure 6: Example locations of column splice failures. Click to enlarge.
Photographic and structural debris evidence clearly demonstrated that the external column connection failures played a significant role in the mode of column failure and the extent of the external damage.
Perimeter Column Splice-End Bolt Failure
Many steel perimeter column sections were photographed in the post-demolition debris. In those photos, evidence that the connecting bolts failed is clear. In some cases the butt plates are visibly deformed, but in most others the bolts are either completely missing or obviously mangled. The butt end shown in Figure 7 shows one failed bolt and three missing. Figure 7: Bolted connection failures at butt-end splices. Click to enlarge.
Spandrel Connection Bolt Failures
Another point of failure was at the spandrel connections. At these locations, the horizontal plates (refer back to Figure 1 which shows where the floor trusses were connected) also connected the adjacent trident panels together. These spandrels were bolted together using an intermediate connection plate. In Figure 8, the right side of the image shows the spandrel has been bent and the steel was fractured when the bolt was pulled through. On the left side of the image, the intermediate connection plate is shown still attached to one side of the spandrel connection.
Figure 8: Spandrel bolt failures showings missing bolts (left) and "torn" bolt holes (right). Click to enlarge.
Another failure mechanism that is observed in the photos relates to the separation of the component pieces of the perimeter columns themselves along the welds. The perimeter columns were made of steel plates that were welded together into 14 inch square columns.
Figure 9: Impact area, perimeter column weld failure (upper) and annotated (lower). Click to enlarge.
Photographs of the damage immediately after impact, and inspection of the recovered trident panels from the impact zone, show that failure along the welds (heat affected zones) was a characteristic feature of the impact damage. An example exterior column from the impact area which had significant fractures along the weld zone for the outer web is shown in Figure 9. In this example, the weld fracture progressed along the weld until it reached the internal stiffener at the location of the spandrel.
Perimeter Column Weld Failures Near Grid Square 78
Figure 10 shows the area near grid location 78, where three columns clearly illustrate weld failures similar to those shown in Figure 9.
The left most column in grid square 78, labeled as column 78a, shows that the weld along the right side of the column 78a has separated and the right side plate is pulled to the right (see the yellow arrow). This effect is more pronounced with the middle column, labeled as column 78b, where the right plate has separated and is also pulled to the right. These two particular columns with their weld failures, and the resulting elongated shape of their right side plates, is strongly suggestive of damage caused by the wing structures (including the leading wing spar) impacting – and interacting with – these columns. The impact would have fractured the weld and the wing structure would have grabbed/pulled the plates toward the interior of the Tower due to the momentum of the heavier mass of the wing root and (its still attached?) engine.
The weld failures in the right most column of grid square 78, identified as column 78c, are the most severe. This column appears to be the only column that has obviously been severed at a location remote from the bolted connections of a butt-end splice. The upper half of the column is seen pulled down (see grid square 63) and separated at the bolted splice to the column above it (grid square 48). The rightmost yellow arrow shows that the right plate of column 78c has been bent and pulled to the same rightward direction as the right plates of columns 78a and 78b.
Close Examination of Perimeter Column Damage - Specimen #1
At the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York, it is possible to view remnants of the perimeter columns from the impact area.
Figure 11: Wall mounted perimeter column on display. Click to enlarge. Source Gabichan2020 (via Wikipedia)
Specimen #1 is wall mounted and shows the weld failures, bends and one type of spandrel connection failure.
Close Examination of Perimeter Column Damage - Specimen #2
A second perimeter column that is available for inspection is a freestanding piece that spanned floors 93-96 of the North Tower.
Figure 12: This piece shows very significant weld failures and other mechanisms of failure. Click to enlarge. [Panel M-27 (A130: Floor 93-96) NIST Image.] Source: Beyond My KenThis piece shows very significant weld failures and other deformations.
The damage to the face of the North Tower can only be explained by the impact of a large plane. The dimensions are consistent with those of a Boeing 767. The damage to the columns can only be explained by a large momentum based impact. It is not possible for explosive detonations to have created the widespread pattern of inwardly focused (e.g., pushed) damage. Explosives would have created epicenters where damage would have emanated in all directions outward from the point of detonation – and no damage fitting this description is observed in the impact area.
As with the Pentagon, a detailed analysis of damage to the World Trade Center Twin Towers provides solid evidence for what actually happened.
The Woman in the Tower
Figure 13: The woman in the tower.
A woman is visible near the top right of grid square 61– on about the 97th floor. In a number of photographs, she is seen holding on to a severed pillar, waving. She has been identified as Edna Cintron, an employee with the insurance brokers Marsh & McLennan. Cintron's husband reportedly confirmed her identity.
The 9/11 Truth Action Project welcomes thoughtful replies containing an appropriate level of scholarship. Please contact us about contributing an article.
As the events at the Pentagon unfolded on 9/11, a series of photographs were taken by Daryl Donley that recorded the initial moments immediately after the plane impact into the western side of the Pentagon. After taking the photographs, Donley dropped his film off for developing and later called a friend at Gannett (a major newspaper publisher) and informed her of his story and that he had taken photos. Gannett bought Donley's photos and made them available to papers across the country. "I never saw them in print, so I have no idea who used them," Donley said. In April 2002, he learned from a reporter that one of his photos was published