Re: The Silent Scream Of The Asparagus
- From: Henry <9-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 22:20:39 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
"Road Glidin' Don" <d.langkd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henry makes
H3nry if probably
I'd like to thank you two timid sheep not only for dedicating your
limited "thoughts" to me, but also for so clearly demonstrating
the severely challenged "intellect" of a typical Bush parroting
magic fire cartoon conspiracy kook. Couldn't have done it much
better myself. <chuckle>
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it's challenged to think or address the
evidence. At the low end of this group of clowns are those
who spew their childlike idiocy and lies while hiding behind
their killfiles. Petie "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling
operates at that level. Pitiful, but at least slightly
amusing. <chuckle>
Now, back to the facts and evidence:
Videos of "squibs":
http://tinyurl.com/3hohw3
Squibs everywhere, but especially at the 10 and
20 second marks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related
Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen
coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet
below the "collapse" zone. Let us know if you dispute
or don't understand any of what is written below.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
"In videos we can see these bursts being ejected from the sides of the
towers nearly thirty floors below the collapse front.[3] The bursts
continue throughout the duration of each tower?s destruction, and all of
them are similar in shape and velocity. Each of these was a sharp
emission that appeared to come from a point-like source, ejecting
approximately 50 to 100 feet from the side of the building in a fraction
of a second. From the extracted frames of the KTLA video (ref. 2), we
can estimate that one of the first bursts was fully ejected in
approximately 0.45 seconds. This gives an average burst velocity of
approximately 170 feet per second (fps). Others have estimated the
velocity of these ejections at over 1100 fps.[4]
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of
several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis.
But after being forced to field many "frequently asked questions",
NIST's Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a
March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts
"puffs of dust?", and explained "When you have a significant portion of
a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the
window. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled
demolition, but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."[5]
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in
the summer of 2006, saying "NIST's findings do not support the "pancake
theory" of collapse." In an attempt to maintain their faltering
fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of
the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so
by saying "the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of
it "much like the action of a piston" forcing smoke and debris out the
windows as the stories below failed sequentially."[6]
3
Although the piston analogy might have made some minimal sense for the
discarded pancake theory, it does not work at all for NIST's current
pile-driver theory. A piston is a sliding shaft that fits within an
enclosed cylinder, whose action within the cylinder causes the volume
and pressure to change. But the WTC buildings did not have sections
acting like pistons at any time before, or during, their disintegration.
Without pancaking floors, there is no internal shaft to slide down
within the "enclosed cylinder" of these tall buildings.
Because the government scientists never did any physical testing to
support this latest compression argument, we must try to imagine for
ourselves how the disintegrating building could have created the
ejections of debris.
To be the result of overpressures created from the falling mass, these
bursts had to emanate from highly pressurized containers that were
tightly sealed on all sides except the point of ejection. With his 2005
pancaking floors hypothesis, NIST?s Shyam Sunder suggested that these
pressurized containers were entire floor areas, compressed by the
falling mass. The reason these containers cannot be smaller than a full
floor area is because the office floors were wide-open spaces, with no
floor to ceiling partitions as normally found in other office buildings.
The effective partition-less area in each floor was approximately 3000
square meters.
It's difficult to imagine how 283 steel columns in each of the Twin
Towers could have been compressed so rapidly and uniformly, while
collapsing at nearly free-fall speed through a vertical distance of 350
meters. But even if this feature of the fire-induced hypothesis was a
given, to initiate the gas pressure below, we would need to imagine the
falling mass as a flat plate, or a continuous sheet, exerting uniform
pressure at all points. If discontinuous, the falling mass would allow
pressure to be released upward. But we can infer that the falling mass
was probably not a uniform flat plate or a continuous sheet because
workers who cleaned up the site described how the debris at ground zero
was all pulverized, except for the steel assemblies. Photographic
evidence (as in Fig. 1 above) also indicates that the falling debris,
which appeared to explode outward to some extent, was cloud-like. Such
cloud-like debris could not form the continuous falling surface that
would be needed to create the downward pressure and compress the air
below.
The lack of a continuous compressive force in itself repudiates the
compressive piston hypothesis. But it is not enough to simply discredit
this latest weak answer from NIST. By showing how completely ineffective
NIST's new argument is, we can better understand how desperate those
supporting the government?s ever-changing fire-based hypotheses have
become. Not only was there no way to compress the gas below, the floors
were not air tight, enclosed containers either, which means that, even
if the falling mass could exert a uniform downward pressure, it would
not be contained. There were eight large air supply and return
ventilation shafts located in the core areas of each floor.[7] There
were also three stairwells running throughout the building, and over
thirty elevator shafts at any given level. Any compressed air would have
had to equilibrate with open stairwells and elevator shafts, and with
any openings from these shafts to other parts of the building (i.e.
vent ducts). Additionally, we know that the fire in the north tower in
1975 was spread by means of openings in the floor slabs, of more than
one square foot area, used to transfer telephone cables.[8] All of these
facts indicate that any pressurized air would be forced to equilibrate
over large sections of the building, if not the entire lower section,
and could not be contained on one floor alone.
Tell us why you "think" Cheney would permit a known
hijacked plane to enter the most heavy guarded airspace
on the planet almost an hour after the first tower was hit.
His stand down order resulted in a horrific loss of life
and property.
http://www.911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20070402105006226
3. Norman Mineta's mind-blowing testimony before the 9/11 Commission
concerning the last fifty miles of flight of the plane that hit the
Pentagon and Dick Cheney's orders about it, are matters of no apparent
concern to Dunbar and Reagan. Thus, were one to rely on their telling,
one would be unaware that Mineta was directed to the Presidential
Emergency Operations Center in the White House sometime after the second
plane hit the South Tower. One would not learn that he found Cheney in
charge and being informed by a young man as to the path of the plane
that hit the Pentagon. Nor would one know that Cheney was notified
periodically that the plane was fifty miles out, thirty miles out,
twenty, and ten. Avoiding the entire episode, Dunbar and Reagan
obviously make no mention of the young manÂ?s inquiry of Cheney upon the
final progress report, "Do the orders still stand"? Cheney's response,
turning abruptly to the young man and asking pointedly if he (the young
man) had heard anything to the contrary -- a fact of considerable
importance for an understanding of the entire event -- therefore is not
discussed in the pages of Debunking. As a consequence of this avoidance,
one will find no examination of the ramifications of this testimony. One
finds no query concerning the nature of the orders referred to, and no
speculation concerning Pentagon defenses and their failure to deploy.
There is no reference to the failure of the 9/11 Commission to find out
who the young man was, or how many other people were in the room, and
what their reactions were. There is no discussion of how the incident is
simply eliminated from history by the adoption of an alternative
chronology that contradicts a string of accounts and offers no
explanation of why Norman Mineta, now holder of the Presidential Medal
of Freedom, bestowed upon him by President Bush, would make up such an
amazing tale or have such an elaborately embroidered faulty memory. None
of these are matters for Dunbar and Reagan."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/HowTheyGetAwayWithIt.html
"The young man's reports to Cheney of the airliner's impending
approach is followed by his urgent question whether "the orders still
stand?" The young man was questioning the order. That question had to be
about whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching plane still
stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the
commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane
approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not
be subject to question by the young man as the plane approached.
Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching
the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-aircraft
capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take
out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane.
Since the Langley/Norfolk jets are at least 10 minutes away and out of
range, Cheney's order is about the on-site Pentagon or White House
defenses. Neither a shoot-down nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and
since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change in orders by Cheney,
the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend
the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military
defense that it, and it alone, explains the questioning by the young man."
http://www.911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20070402105006226
3. Norman Mineta's mind-blowing testimony before the 9/11 Commission
concerning the last fifty miles of flight of the plane that hit the
Pentagon and Dick Cheney's orders about it, are matters of no apparent
concern to Dunbar and Reagan. Thus, were one to rely on their telling,
one would be unaware that Mineta was directed to the Presidential
Emergency Operations Center in the White House sometime after the second
plane hit the South Tower. One would not learn that he found Cheney in
charge and being informed by a young man as to the path of the plane
that hit the Pentagon. Nor would one know that Cheney was notified
periodically that the plane was fifty miles out, thirty miles out,
twenty, and ten. Avoiding the entire episode, Dunbar and Reagan
obviously make no mention of the young manÂ?s inquiry of Cheney upon the
final progress report, "Do the orders still stand"? Cheney's response,
turning abruptly to the young man and asking pointedly if he (the young
man) had heard anything to the contrary -- a fact of considerable
importance for an understanding of the entire event -- therefore is not
discussed in the pages of Debunking. As a consequence of this avoidance,
one will find no examination of the ramifications of this testimony. One
finds no query concerning the nature of the orders referred to, and no
speculation concerning Pentagon defenses and their failure to deploy.
There is no reference to the failure of the 9/11 Commission to find out
who the young man was, or how many other people were in the room, and
what their reactions were. There is no discussion of how the incident is
simply eliminated from history by the adoption of an alternative
chronology that contradicts a string of accounts and offers no
explanation of why Norman Mineta, now holder of the Presidential Medal
of Freedom, bestowed upon him by President Bush, would make up such an
amazing tale or have such an elaborately embroidered faulty memory. None
of these are matters for Dunbar and Reagan."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/HowTheyGetAwayWithIt.html
"The young man's reports to Cheney of the airliner's impending
approach is followed by his urgent question whether "the orders still
stand?" The young man was questioning the order. That question had to be
about whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching plane still
stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the
commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane
approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not
be subject to question by the young man as the plane approached.
Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching
the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-aircraft
capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take
out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane.
Since the Langley/Norfolk jets are at least 10 minutes away and out of
range, Cheney's order is about the on-site Pentagon or White House
defenses. Neither a shoot-down nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and
since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change in orders by Cheney,
the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend
the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military
defense that it, and it alone, explains the questioning by the young man."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8788
With regard to the morning of 9/11, everyone agrees that at some time
after 9:03 (when the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck)
and before 10:00, Vice President Dick Cheney went down to the
Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), sometimes simply called
the ?bunker,? under the east wing of the White House. Everyone also
agrees that, once there, Cheney was in charge---that he was either
making decisions or relaying decisions from President Bush. But there is
enormous disagreement as to exactly when Cheney entered the PEOC.
According to The 9/11 Commission Report, Cheney arrived ?shortly
before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58? (The 9/11 Commission Report [henceforth
9/11CR], 40). This official time, however, contradicts almost all
previous reports, some of which had him there before 9:20. This
difference is important because, if the 9/11 Commission?s time is
correct, Cheney was not in charge in the PEOC when the Pentagon was
struck, or for most of the period during which United Flight 93 was
approaching Washington. But if the reports that have him there by 9:20
are correct, he was in charge in the PEOC all that time.
Mineta?s Report of Cheney?s Early Arrival
The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made
by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony
to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he ?arrived at the
PEOC at about 9:20 AM,? Mineta reported that he then overheard part of
an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived,
between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was
about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming
that ?the orders still stand.? When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later
asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation
about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: ?Probably about
five or six minutes.? This would mean, Roemer pointed out, ?about 9:25
or 9:26.?
This is a remarkable contradiction. Given the fact that Cheney,
according to Mineta, had been engaged in an ongoing exchange, he must
have been in the PEOC for several minutes before Mineta?s 9:20 arrival.
If Cheney had been there since 9:15, there would be a 43-minute
contradiction between Mineta?s testimony and The 9/11 Commission Report.
Why would such an enormous contradiction exist?
One possible explanation would be that Mineta was wrong. His story,
however, is in line with that of many other witnesses.
Other Reports Supporting Cheney?s Early Arrival
Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a
brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service
wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went
with Clarke to the White House?s Video Teleconferencing Center, where
Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10.
After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke:
?You?re going to need some decisions quickly. I?m going to the PEOC to
be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.? At about 9:15,
Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke ?suggested he join the Vice President?
(Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in
the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.
In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney?s
White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00,
some Secret Service agents came into Cheney?s office and said, ?Sir, you
have to come with us.? During this same program, Rice said: ?As I was
trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and
said, ?You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President's
already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.?? ABC?s
Charles Gibson then said: ?In the bunker, the Vice President is joined
by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta? (?9/11: Interviews
by Peter Jennings,? ABC News, September 11, 2002).
The 9/11 Commission?s Late-Arrival Claim
The 9/11 Commission agreed that the vice president was hustled down to
the PEOC after word was received that a plane was headed towards the
White House. It claimed, however, that this word was not received until
9:33. But even then, according to the Commission, the Secret Service
agents immediately received another message, telling them that the
aircraft had turned away, so ?[n]o move was made to evacuate the Vice
President at this time.? It was not until ?just before 9:36? that the
Secret Service ordered Cheney to go below (9/11CR 39). But even after he
entered the underground corridor at 9:37, Cheney did not immediately go
to the PEOC. Rather:
Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of
the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice
President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call
to be connected. He learned in the tunnel that the Pentagon had been
hit, and he saw television coverage of the smoke coming from the
building. (9/11CR 40)
Next, after Lynne Cheney ?joined her husband in the tunnel,? the
Commission claimed, ?Mrs. Cheney and the Vice President moved from the
tunnel to the shelter conference room? after the call ended, which was
not until after 9:55. As for Rice, the Commission added, she ?entered
the conference room shortly after the Vice President? (9/11CR 40).
The contradiction could not be clearer. According to the Commission,
Cheney, far from entering the PEOC before 9:20, as Mineta and others
said, did not arrive there until about 9:58, 20 minutes after the 9:38
strike on the Pentagon, about which he had learned in the corridor.
Cheney?s Account on Meet the Press
The 9/11 Commission?s account even contradicted that given by Cheney
himself in a well-known interview. Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC?s Meet
the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: ?[A]fter I talked to
the president, . . . I went down into . . . the Presidential Emergency
Operations Center. . . . [W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we
had word the Pentagon's been hit.? Cheney himself, therefore, indicated
that he had entered the PEOC prior to the (9:38) strike on the Pentagon,
not 20 minutes after it, as the Commission would later claim.
Dealing with the Contradictions
How did the 9/11 Commission deal with the fact that its claim about the
time of Cheney?s arrival in the PEOC had been contradicted by Bohrer,
Clarke, Mineta, Rice, several news reports, and even Cheney himself? It
simply omitted any mention of these contradictory reports.
Of these omissions, the most important was the Commission?s failure to
mention Norman Mineta?s testimony, even though it was given to the
Commission in an open hearing---as can be seen by reading the transcript
of that session (May 23, 2003). This portion of Mineta?s testimony was
also deleted from the official version of the video record of the 9/11
Commission hearings in the 9/11 Commission archives. (It can, however,
be viewed on the Internet.)
During an interview for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2006,
Hamilton was asked what ?Mineta told the Commission about where Dick
Cheney was prior to 10 AM.? Hamilton replied: ?I do not recall? (?9/11:
Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: Lee Hamilton,? CBC News, 21
August 2006). It was surprising that Hamilton could not recall, because
he had been the one doing the questioning when Mineta told the story of
the young man?s conversation with Cheney. Hamilton, moreover, had begun
his questioning by saying to Mineta: ?You were there [in the PEOC] for a
good part of the day. I think you were there with the Vice President.?
And Mineta?s exchange with Timothy Roemer, during which it was
established that Mineta had arrived at about 9:20, came immediately
after Hamilton?s interrogation. And yet Hamilton, not being able to
recall any of this, simply said, ?we think that Vice President Cheney
entered the bunker shortly before 10 o?clock.?
Obliterating Mineta?s Problematic Testimony
To see possible motives for the 9/11 Commission?s efforts to obliterate
Mineta?s story from the public record, we need to look at the
conversation he reported to the Commission. He said:
During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there
was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ?The
plane is 50 miles out.? ?The plane is 30 miles out.? And when it got
down to ?the plane is 10 miles out,? the young man also said to the Vice
President, ?Do the orders still stand?? And the Vice President turned
and whipped his neck around and said, ?Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary??
Mineta?s story had dangerous implications with regard to the strike on
the Pentagon, which occurred at 9:38. According to the 9/11 Commission,
the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon
until 9:36, so that it ?had at most one or two minutes to react to the
unidentified plane approaching Washington? (9/11CR 34). That claim was
essential for explaining, among other things, why the Pentagon had not
been evacuated before it was struck---a fact that resulted in 125
deaths. A spokesperson for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, when asked why
this evacuation had not occurred, said: ?The Pentagon was simply not
aware that this aircraft was coming our way? (Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001).
Mineta?s testimony implied, by contrast, that Cheney and others knew
that an aircraft was approaching Washington about 12 minutes before that
strike.
Even more problematic was the question of the nature of ?the orders.?
Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the plane shot
down. But the aircraft was not shot down. Also, the expected orders,
especially on a day when two hijacked airliners had already crashed into
buildings in New York, would have been to shoot down any nonmilitary
aircraft entering the ?prohibited? airspace over Washington, in which
?civilian flying is prohibited at all times? (?Pilots Notified of
Restricted Airspace; Violators Face Military Action,? FAA Press Release,
September 28, 2001). If those orders had been given, there would have
been no reason to ask if they still stood. The question made sense only
if the orders were to do something unusual---not to shoot the aircraft
down. It appeared, accordingly, that Mineta had inadvertently reported
Cheney?s confirmation of stand-down orders.
That Mineta?s report was regarded as dangerous is suggested by the
fact that the 9/11 Commission, besides deleting Mineta?s testimony and
delaying Cheney?s entrance to the bunker by approximately 45 minutes,
also replaced Mineta?s story with a new story about an incoming
aircraft. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, here is what really
happened:
At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from
the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft. . . . At some time between
10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that
the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for
authority to engage the aircraft. . . . The Vice President authorized
fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. . . . The military aide
returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said
the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to
engage. The Vice President again said yes. (9/11CR 41)
The 9/11 Commission thereby presented the incoming aircraft story as
one that ended with an order for a shoot down, not a stand down. And by
having it occur after 10:10, the Commission not only disassociated it
from the Pentagon strike but also ruled out the possibility that
Cheney?s shootdown authorization might have led to the downing of United
Flight 93 (which crashed, according to the Commission, at 10:03).
Given the fact that the 9/11 Commission?s account of Cheney?s descent
to the bunker contradicted the testimony of not only Norman Mineta but
also many other witnesses, including Cheney himself, Congress and the
press need to launch investigations to determine what really happened.
The only explanation for an array of interconnected
steel box columns measuring over four feet by two
feet with five inch thick walls suddenly disintegrating
and falling thought itself following the path of most
resistance - after it had been stripped of its load -
is controlled demolition. That's also the only explanation
to can account for the molten metal observed in the rubble.
If you've got another theory, structural engineers and
other experts all over the globe would love to hear it.
So would I....
Core remnant disintegration:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDVap83AEmc
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Here are photos of WTC7's "inferno".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
Here is a video of WTC7's picture perfect controlled demolition.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Here are more videos of WTC7's demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
We're still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7's massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7's free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush's FEMA was forced to admit the following:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
deformation, but nothing even remotely close to a total symmetric
and free fall speed collapse - and those fires were far hotter
and of much longer duration than the small, isolated fires in
WTC7.
Twin Towers:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
structures.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
research paper on momentum transfer here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly
reduced.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the
rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's
some information on the perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
That's not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel
frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a
controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of
the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point.
More good information on 9-11 can be found here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
9/11 and the Twin Towers:
Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007
Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have
collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause
asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane
impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include
the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of
the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the
initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden
collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because
the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on
data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another
argument, as will be described here, that is based simply
on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations
are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.
In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two
stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane
impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the
section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the
lower section. In the second stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the
lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the
falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to
continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage.
There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed
ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor
in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far
too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This
is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We
will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence
data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume
the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was
uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to
heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets
hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating
storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the
plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached
to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up
and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The
length of the columns between attachments is too short for
buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as
they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the
inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not
obvious. It is well established however that the yield
strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature
and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse,
as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these
reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be
very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input.
A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the
significant increase in yield strength and the slight
increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only
have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if
additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and
sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.
As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper
sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the
case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper
section developed but within the first second this turned
into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration,
just as was observed with the north tower. It appears
therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse
of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to
heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not
have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it
could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy,
upon which the official story depends for the second stage
of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.
The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed.
If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain
that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive.
Funny how easy it is to take possession a pea brained
usenet kook. Expose its ignorance and it's inability to
think or defend its kooky rants a coupe of times, and it'll
soon be dedicating most of its "thoughts" to you. <chuckle>
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowledge.htm
Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Man who blew the whistle on Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper
attacks were run by CIA, Mossad
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion
that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common
knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be
mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds
of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied
to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can't be sidelined as
a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906insidejob.htm
A 28-year CIA career man and a former skeptic of alternative 9/11
explanations has gone further than ever before in voicing his
convictions that the attacks bore the hallmarks of an inside job and
the three buildings in the WTC complex were brought down by controlled
demolition.
Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a
National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of
Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. Since
then he has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies.
In Christison's recent article, Stop Belittling the Theories About
September 11, he afforded credibility to the notion that "significant
parts" of the official 9/11 story were false and after careful
research he concluded that the twin towers and building 7, "were most
probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the
buildings."
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/11/overwhelming-majority-of-credible.html
MILITARY LEADERS
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
(Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog
that doesn't hunt" (bio)
Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both
Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force
colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that
9/11 was an inside job. He also said:
"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an
old interceptor pilot?I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how
long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were,
and I know what they?ve changed them to?if our government had merely
done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of
9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead
Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"
U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the
Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel
Davis) stated:
"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted
when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders,
or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure
facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth.
It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also
served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the
Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished
Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service
Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a
member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme
Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star,
and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the
investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused
the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to
me. I've seen that for a long time."
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen
Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious. She also said:
(at page 26):
"I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own
insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to
question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very
foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government,
our country, and our way of life. [However], questioning the official
story is also simply and fundamentally American."
Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve
Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on
America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed
this war on terrorism."
Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack
on the Pentagon
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter
Weapons School and NATO?s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year
Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:
"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were
planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have
infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....
Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid,
so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real
perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it
is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same
oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right
now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders
that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of
that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate
definition of treason!"
U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300
combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel
Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about
our country, our constitution, and our future. ...
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it
the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who
used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual
information that directly contradicts the official report and who want
explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have
motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy
or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make
you? ....
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle
it? ..."
U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the
official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says
"When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is
very little to believe in the official story".
The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S.
Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not
respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a
massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have
questioned 9/11, such as:
Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul
Hellyer)
Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)
Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)
Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently
said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more
explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is
ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said
that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are
credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they
[U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement
there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or
psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that
there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation
into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and
personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials
(Raymond McGovern) said ?I think at simplest terms, there?s a cover-up.
The 9/11 Report is a joke?, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was
an inside job.
A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and
former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis
(William Bill Christison) said ?I now think there is persuasive evidence
that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration
and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings
that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably
destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings
before 9/11." (and see this).
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the
second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former
CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11
was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was
probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best
on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East?, and whose astounding
career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture
Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had
aspects of being an inside job .
The Division Chief of the CIA?s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as
Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of
International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004
(Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately
a coverup."
Professor of History and International Relations, University of
Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National
Security Agency. Former military attaché in China. 21-year career in
U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army)
questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.
The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence
(Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"
9/11 COMMISSIONERS
The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the
Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false
statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free
subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton)
now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political
considerations.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute
we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that
people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate
should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first
draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to
suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our
version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with
the false statements we were getting"
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission,
stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now
compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story
because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House
wants to cover it up".
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11
staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from
the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story
from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is
not spin. This is not true."
SCIENTISTS
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 the Twin Towers and world trade center building
7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory
that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science,
America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:
"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the
glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and
a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."
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 a Ph.D. in
mechanical engineering, with more than 25 years experience in fire
research and its applications, and is a professor in the Department of
Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland (Dr. James
Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center
Twin Tower 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."
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and
Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research
Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain
A. Deets) says:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled
horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind
explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers
on 9/11].''
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top
university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department
of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones)
stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled
demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr.
Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down
by controlled demolition
An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were
brought down with explosives (in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety
Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that
"The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance
factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university,
with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is
calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream
Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the
fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building
would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter
to grasp this" (translated)
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and
professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university
concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down
by planted explosives."
A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation
that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I
heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the
concrete was pulverized"
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design
of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices,
former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former
member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council
(Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by
controlled demolition (see also this)
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)
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has
been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for
the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and
fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including
education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage)
disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World
Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled
demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)
LEGAL SCHOLARS
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S.
Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan;
former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought
media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former
Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and
Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign;
a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible
for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the
American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons
Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International
(1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court,
with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political
Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the
U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby
Kennedy?s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for
the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and
International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the
three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine
Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission
on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and
Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World
Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American
Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who
signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see
petition.
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate
General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent
in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal
integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two
foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs
career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of
West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic
Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive
branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy;
former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books
on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version
of 9/11.
Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law,
University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired
Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year
career (William Veale) said:
"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock
principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the
simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may
occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or
venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes
the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of
reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the
conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside
job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the
congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's
watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did
they allow it to happen?"
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11]
investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and
no real explanation of what went on"
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't
being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new
9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed
Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the
Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown
that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing
information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the
possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS
A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being
"disrespectful to the victims and their families".
However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside
job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle)
(and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not
only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please
ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.
Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a
whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the
9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).
And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders
who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that
controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real
investigation is necessary.
PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS
Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version
of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health
professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke
University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University
Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and
Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R.
Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral
Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and
licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists
and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials,
politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who
question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a
few additional people to consider:
The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up
by the 9/11 Commission
Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the
two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and
who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could
not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked
on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to
this interview)
Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11
Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected
expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's
Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in
its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at
many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City
Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters
worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by
bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been
caused by anything else (pages 5-6).
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford,
and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White
House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department
of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a
who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new
investigation into 9/11
Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to
prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they
would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."
Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General
and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription
required) (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations
we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in
this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out.
And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is
leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/05/structural-engineers-question-collapse.html
Structural Engineers Question Collapse of the World Trade Center
One of the arguments that government apologists have used in trying to
prop up the official story of why the World Trade Centers came down on
9/11 is that no structural engineers have questioned the government's
version of events. However, that is now changing.
The following structural engineers have now publicly challenged the
government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11:
Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both emeritus professors in
structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (translation
here)
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member,
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil
Engineers
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College
When considered along with the other prominent scientists who question
9/11, it becomes impossible for any thinking person to accept at face
value the government's version of the destruction of the World Trade
Center.
More experts who who have used science and hard evidence to prove
demolition:
http://journalof911studies.com/
Still more engineers and experts who explain why the Bush regime's
magic fire theory is physically impossible.
http://ae911truth.org/
Another one:
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
And quite a few more:
http://911proof.com/10.html
More yet:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
And a couple hundred more:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
.
- References:
- Re: The Silent Scream Of The Asparagus
- From: Sean_Q_
- Re: The Silent Scream Of The Asparagus
- From: Turby
- Re: The Silent Scream Of The Asparagus
- From: Road Glidin' Don
- Re: The Silent Scream Of The Asparagus
- From: Ben Kaufman
- Re: The Silent Scream Of The Asparagus
- Prev by Date: Re: Booked the Rental
- Next by Date: Re: The Silent Scream Of The Asparagus
- Previous by thread: Re: The Silent Scream Of The Asparagus
- Next by thread: Re: The Silent Scream Of The Asparagus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
