Americans love a conspiracy. According to a May 17 Zogby poll, 42 percent believe the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are covering up what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. There is something comforting about a world where someone is in charge—either for good (think gods) or evil (think Bush insiders plotting 9/11). Many people prefer to believe a Procrustean… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (1979)The Military Industrial Complex certainly seems to be a winner in having the congressional report pertaining to the Saudi government’s role in supporting the 9/11 terrorist activities being classified. The exposure would have meant grounds for U.S. sanctions and retributions; it would have risked the loss of billions of dollars in revenue from its “top customer.” These companies don’t even have to officially register as foreign agents; after all, their strong loyalty and unbreakable bond with foreign elements exists by default; it is called mutual benefit. They are “Foreign Agents by Default.”
This holds true for other parties and players involved within the MIC network; the contractors and the investors. Let’s look at one of these famous and influential players; another foreign agent even if only by default; a man who defended the Saudis against a lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victims family members; a man who happens to be the senior counsel for the Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is the nation’s 10th largest defense contractor with ties to the Saudi Royal Family, Enron, Global Crossing, among others; James Baker; Papa Bush’s Secretary of State. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Baker was reportedly at a Carlyle investor conference with members of the Bin Laden family in the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC, while Bush Sr. was on the payroll of the Carlyle group.
The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC based private equity firm that employs numerous former high-ranking government officials with ties to both political parties, was the ninth largest Pentagon contractor between 1998 and 2003, an ongoing Center for Public Integrity investigation into Department of Defense contracts found. According to this report, overall, six private investment firms, including Carlyle, received nearly $14 billion in Pentagon deals between 1998 and 2003. Considering the fact that Saudi Arabia is the top buyer of the U.S. weapons industry, Carlyle’s investment and its stake, and of course Jimmy Baker’s far reaching influence within the Pentagon and congress, everything seems to come together and fit perfectly to shield this foreign interest no matter the price to be paid by the American public.
The political action committees (PACs) of the biggest defense companies have given $14.2 million directly to federal candidates since Clinton’s first presidential bid, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In 1997 alone the defense industry spent $49.5 million to lobby the nation’s decision-makers.
Between 1998 and 2004, for the six-year period, Boeing Company spent more than $57 million in lobbying. For the same period of time, Lockheed Martin poured over $55 million into lobbying activities. Northrop Grumman exceeded both by investing $83 million in lobbying, and based on a report issued by POGO, it contributed over $4 million to individuals and PACs.
With “dime a dozen” generals on their boards of directors, numerous high-powered ex congressmen and senators at their disposal in the “K Street Lobby Quarter,” tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations, and billions of dollars at stake, the Military Industrial Complex surely had all the incentives to act just as foreign agents would, and fight for their highly valued client; the Saudi Government. They appear to have had all the reasons to ensure that the report would not see the light of the day; no matter what the effect on the country, its security, and its interests.
K Street Lobby Quarter
The fact that Saudi Arabia pours large sums into lobbying firms and public relations companies with close ties to congress does not come as a big surprise. The FARA database under the DOJ website lists Qorvis Communications as one of Saudi Arabia’s registered foreign agents. In 2003, for only a six months period, Qorvis received more than $11 million from the Saudi government. Another firm, Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosenthal LLP, another registered foreign agent, received more than $840,000 for the same six-month period, and the list goes on. Just for this six month period the government of Saudi Arabia paid a total of more than $14 million to 13 lobbying and public relations companies; all registered as foreign agents.Why do the Saudis spend nearly $20 million per year in lobbying activities in the U.S. via their hired agents? What kind of return on investment are they getting out of the United States Congress?
Let’s take Loeffler’s group and examine its value for the Saudi government, since it was paid over $3 million in three years between 2003 and 2005. The firm was founded by former Republican Congressman Tom Loeffler of Texas. Loeffler served in the Republican Leadership as Deputy Whip, and as Chief Deputy Whip during his third and fourth term. He was a member of the powerful Appropriations Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Budget Committee. In the two Bush campaigns for governor, Loeffler, who contributed $141,000, was the largest donor. In 1998, he served as national co-chair of the Republican National Committee’s “Team 100” program for donors of $100,000 or more, and afterwards held the same title during George W. Bush’s presidential campaign. Loeffler’s generosity extends to the members of congress as well. In 6 years, he has given more than $185,000 to members of congress, 97% of it going to only Republican members. During the same six-year period, Loeffler’s firm received more than $18 million in lobbying fees.
The firm’s managing director happens to be William L. Ball. Ball served as Chief of Staff to Senators John Tower (R-TX) and Herman Talmadge (D-GA). In 1985, he joined the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. Later he was assigned to the White House to serve President Reagan as his chief liaison to the Congress. Wallace Henderson is also a Partner; he was Chief Counsel and Chief of Staff to Representative W. J. Tauzin (R-LA), Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator John Breaux (D-LA).
By having foreign agents such as the Loeffler Group, in addition to their foreign agents by default, the MIC, the Saudis seem to have all their bases covered. Former secretaries and deputy secretaries with open access to the current ones, former congressmen and senators who used to be positioned on strategically valuable committees and know the rules of the congressional game, and millions of dollars available to be spent and channeled and re-channeled to various PACs go a long way toward ensuring results. Money counts. Money is needed to bring in votes. Professional skills and discretion are required to get this money to various final destinations. The registered foreign agents, the lobby groups, are geared for this task. The client is happy in the end; so are the foreign agents and the congressional actors.
http://www.nswbc.org/Op Ed/Op-ed-Part1-Nov15-06.htm
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 29, 2007 at 9:35 PM Conflict of Interest. Many of these agents, with their loyalty to the foreign hand that feeds them, end up being appointed to various positions, commissions and special envoys by our government. Recall Kissinger and his appointment to head the 9/11 Commission, and of course the recent revelation by Woodward on his advisory position to the current White House. Take a look at Jimmy Baker’s current appointment on the Iraq commission. Same goes for the father of all the “dime a dozen generals”, Brent Scowcroft, and one of his new prot’s, General Joseph Ralston. In short, neither FARA nor LDA creates meaningful oversight, control, or enforcement; neither deals with conflict of interest issues, and neither provides any deterrence or consequences for unethical or illegal conduct.
It used to be congressional “pork projects” and “corporate influence” that raised eyebrows now and then; here and there. Gone are those days. Today the unrestricted and uncontrollable money game and influence peddling tricks within the major decision-making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government have reached new heights; yet, no raised eyebrows are registered. Sadly, today, a new version of “The Manchurian Candidate” would have to be produced as a documentary.
The other day I received a request to sign on to a petition put forth by a group of 9/11 family members urging the congress to reopen the investigations of 9/11 and declassify the infamous 28-pages which deal with foreign governments, U.S. allies, that provided support for those who carried out the attacks on our nation. My heart goes out to them. I do sympathize with them. I am known to take on similar propositions and methods of activism myself. However, looking at the realities, seeing what it takes to get things done in Washington, realizing how this beast works in the Real Sin City, I would encourage them to look at the root cause, rather than the symptoms. There are only two ways I can see that can bring about what they have been fighting for and what the majority of us desire to see in terms of bringing about Truth, Oversight, and Accountability; Justice.
The family members, and their supporters, us, either have to tackle the major cause; the corruption of our government officials via unrestricted and undisciplined “revolving doors” and “foreign influence & lobby” practices, and push for expedient meaningful reforms by the new ambitious congress, and have them prove to us their worth. Or, they may as well give up their long-held integrity, go bid high for one or two former statesmen, hire a few dime a dozen generals, and buy themselves a couple of ex-congressmen turned lobbyists; that will do the job.
*Good* translators, especially the type that picks up multiple languages very quickly, do have much more in their brains than just the ability to map turkish words to english ones, and combine them into sentences that make sense.
These people are bordering to be geniuses They need to pick up context quickly, they need to memorize fast and much.
Sibel Edmonds, by all accounts, is special even amongst the breed of good multi-language translators. Just look at her history, and what she had to put up with. Look at how she handles public appearances. She’s unique. A great personality.
Can’t you imagine that she….
...a) learned even more about all that stuff *after* she was fired, because she was (confidentially) contacted by other people “in the know”
...b) learned even more about all that stuff *after* she was fired, because she on her own knows how to use a library, a computer, the Internet, Google, and research techniques?She’s gagged—-and look what she still is able to come out with, working around the gag orders. Look at all the activities she initiates with NSWBC!!!!!!!!
NOW READ HER RESPONSE TO A LETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for your support; kind words.
I usually don’t respond to inquiries via e-mail; I don’t grant interviews in writing either.
However,
Quote #1- Accurate: “once this issue [9/11] gets to be…investigated, you will be seeing certain [American] people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally”
Quote#2- Accurate: “There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized”
Have a nice holiday.
Best,
SibelFrom the “most gagged person in American History.”
http://www.nswbc.org/Op Ed/Op-ed-Part1-Nov15-06.htm
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 29, 2007 at 9:51 PM For the most gagged, she sure has a lot to say!
I’m always suspicious of people like this, who are able to put out endless seemingly fascinating diverse details, yet never are able to give us any credible conclusions or a sensible narrative.
What does it all mean? What concrete proof does she offer? Could it be that she’s simply a manipulatin’ bitch?
Joe, all you ever do is stir the pot, and throw in any ingredient that fits in with your conspiratorial imagination. You continue to reinforce my theory—you don’t really have any credible proof of bombs, missiles, or stand downs.
Posted by Natalie on Jan 30, 2007 at 10:24 PM There is evidence that the cars were smuggled from the United States as part of a widespread criminal network that includes terrorists and insurgents.
The FBI’s counterterrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilian.
Cracking the car theft rings and tracing the cars could help identify the leaders of insurgent forces in Iraq and shut down at least one of the means they use to attack the US-led coalition and the Iraqi government, the officials said.
The inquiry began after coalition troops raided a bomb-making factory in Fallujah last November and found a sport utility vehicle registered in Texas that was being prepared for a bombing mission.
The origins of the vehicles in question were unearthed by tracing the vehicle identification numbers, or VINs — a standard production marker stamped on during manufacture — as well as through other forensic tools such as auto parts.
The cars were stolen by local car thieves in US cities, then smuggled to waiting ships at ports in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Houston, among other cities. From there they are shipped to militants fighting in Iraq.
Steven Emerson, who runs the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a Washington research firm that consults for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. [Auto theft] is an unregulated market. Some of the proceeds are going to terrorists.”
Emerson said Al Qaeda terrorists suspected in suicide attacks in Saudi Arabia in recent years also apparently used cars stolen in the United States.
Government officials think the vehicles insurgents use were stolen from locations as varied as Virginia, Maryland, Texas, and Florida. Arizona reported more than 56,000 vehicles stolen last year, the largest per-capita number of thefts in the country.
Terrorism specialists think Iraqi insurgents prefer American stolen cars because they tend to be larger, blend in more easily with the convoys of US government and private contractors, and are harder to identify as stolen.
US law enforcement and intelligence agencies are increasingly finding links between violent Islamic extremists groups and vast criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, and car theft.
“The 9/11 terror plot intersected with the activities of a drug trafficking network of international scope, in ways that form a “crystal clear” picture of what was going on,” said Edmonds.
Terrorist groups are increasingly using illegal, highly lucrative business arrangements to support their operations, according to the FBI and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Investigators say the criminal activities that terrorists use to raise money run the gamut from creating and selling fake documents to insurance fraud. Taliban and Al Qaeda followers are thought to be heavily involved in the expanding heroin trade in Afghanistan.
F.B.I. agent Sibel Edmonds told Congress, Al Qaeda is financed 95% by drug money, drug traffic to which the U.S. government shows a blind eye.
The DEA were secretly conducting their investigation of the drug smuggling from the same apartment building that Atta was staying at which was located right by the flight school.
Terror flight school owner Wally Hilliard’s company’s Lear (N351WB) had been busted by DEA agents armed with machine guns, who, during the same month Atta arrive at his school, found 43 pounds of Al Qaeda heroin onboard. We mustn’t forget Al Ali Al Sabah, Chief of the National Guard of Kuwait as well as the oldest member of the ruling Kuwaiti Royal Family, one of the dozen SAUDI and Kuwaiti “investors” in SkyWay.
Or Ramy El-Batrawi and Adnan Khashoggi’s other major connection with the founder of SkyWay Aircraft and that the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Khashoggi and Ramy Al Batrawi, his lieutenant for the past 20 years, with stock fraud in U.S. District Court for Central California. Both men are both currently on the lam after being accused of orchestrating a $130 million fraud, called the “Stockwalk case,” involving the stock price of another firm headed by el-Batrawi called GenesisIntermedia. GenesisIntermedia was incorporated by the long-time attorney of the man once reckoned by the U.S. Government to be the biggest drug smuggler in American history…CIA pilot Barry Seal.
Another company owned by Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi, folded after being indicted for illegally ferrying TOW missiles to Iran, an “enterprise” which netted someone ”though not the U.S. Government or the Contras it was supposedly funding” a tidy bit of change a U.S. Senate investigation estimated to be $16 million dollars.
In May of 2004 Titan Corp. announced in a press release a major purchase from SkyWay, a penny stock fraud company about to go bankrupt amid accusations by investors of fraud after they discovered the firm had nothing but non-existent products to show for its two year cash burn of almost $40 million.
It gets worse by the fact that a Saudi who was a consultant for the American defense contractor Titan also was the owner of the quick check located by the flight scool that was used to wire the money to the terrorist and he was partners with the guy who leased the planes the terrorist trained with, as well as partners on a casino boat.
A casino boat that some of the terrorist had been identified as haveing visited owned also by Jack Abramoff and that the CEO of the firm in partnership was a Tom Delay appointee and that the firm claims to specialise in counter-terrorism.
Another government witness, Indira Singh said, “I was told that if I mentioned the money to the drugs around 9/11 that would be the end of me.”
James G. Conway, Jr., legal attache at the US Embassy in Mexico City said; “where you find terrorists you often find some kind of criminal activity.”
Car theft, a criminal enterprise that costs US citizens more than $8 billion a year, now seems to have become a new enterprise for some terrorist groups, according to the law enforcement officials and private specialists.
“The car bomb is the top weapon in the world for carrying out terrorist attacks,” said Lieutenant Greg Terp, commander of the Miami-Dade Police Department’s Auto Theft Task Force. “These car thieves don’t necessarily know that they are financing terrorism, but they might.”
Do you think she might know what she is talking about?
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 30, 2007 at 10:50 PM Natalie
I do not see why you find it hard to belive that we the “US” engage in Fales Flag Ops.
Throughout history, governments have been staging or facilitating attacks against themselves for the purpose of creating public support for being drawn into conflict. The United States has a long history of such behavior, nearly every major war it has fought had been brought about through the use of this tactic, including World War II and the Vietnam war.
Do you think operation AJAX is a lie?
In 1953, the Central Intelligence Agency working in tandem with MI6 overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq. Mossadeq had been educated in the West, was pro-America, and had driven Communist forces out of the North of his Country shortly after being elected in 1951. Mossadeq then nationalized the oil fields, and denied British Petroleum a monopoly.
The CIA’s own history department at CIA.GOV details how U.S. and British intelligence agents carried out terror attacks, and subsequently blamed them on Mossadeq.
In the late 1990’s, large sections of operation AJAX were declassified. The field commander of operation AJAX was none other than the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt. Before his death in 2000, Roosevelt went public to the media, bragging about his patriotism in carrying out terror attacks in Iran and blaming it on the government.
The provocations included propaganda, demonstrations, bribery, agents of influence and false flag operations. They bombed the home of a prominent religious leader, and blamed it on Mossadeq. They attacked mosques, machine gunned crowds, and then handed out thousands of handbills claiming Mossadeq had done it. The handbills read ‘Up With Mossadeq, Up With Communism, Down With Allah.’ Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq was incarcerated for the duration of his life, and fared better than many of his ministers, who were executed just days after the successful coup for crimes that the MI6 and CIA had committed. The CIA then formed the dreaded Iranian secret Police, SAVAK, and a 25 year rein of terror and torture then commenced.
The operation was seen by western intelligence agencies as a huge success. The CIA then successfully used the exact same technique in scores of countries to overthrow elected governments and dictators alike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident
“In the summer of 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson needed a pretext to commit the American people to the already expanding covert war in Southeast Asia. In November of 2001 the LBJ Presidential Library and museum released tapes of phone conversations with the president and then defense secretary Robert Macnemera, where they openly discussed plans to use the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident as a pretext to expand the war.”
“Then in late 2005 the National Security Agency declassified it’s own official history of the Gulf of Tonkin, and admitted that intelligence agency officers have deliberately skewed the intelligence and claimed that Vietnamese patrol boats have attacked US destroyers on August 4, 1964, when in reality they had done nothing, even while being fired upon by U.S. forces. Congress then authorized the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The Tonkin Lie paved the way for over 58 thousand American deaths, and over a million and a half dead Vietnamese.”
Operation Gladio
“Operation Gladio was an umbrella name for literally hundreds of bombings carried out by Western Intelligence agencies and NATO in Italy, Western Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia. From 1947 to 1981, Italian Presidents have gone public admitting Operation Gladio targeted innocent civilians and was to be blamed on leftists and communists. On November, 22, 1990, The European Parliament had a resolution condemning the activities of Operation Gladio. The former Italian Intelligence Chief has come clean concerning Gladio’s actions as well. Many other countries have declassified documents concerning Gladio.”
“It is part of the public record that [the United States government] and other western governments targeted trains, busses, schools.. several times operatives zeroed in on school busses, knowing that images of dead children would get the population angry and ready to relinquish their liberties. A particularly bloody bombing at the central station of Bania, Italy in the morning of August 2, 1980, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 200, caused some officials to break their silence and begin to expose just a small part of this wicked operation.”
Cubana Flight 455
“On October 6, 1976, two time bombs made of C-4 planted on a Douglas DC-8 aircraft exploded, killing all 73 people on board, in the most deadly act of airline terrorism in the western hemisphere until September 11, 2001. The plane was carrying Olympic athletes from three countries, including gold medal winners from Cuba.”
“Declassified FBI and CIA documents show the convicted bombers of the flight had been given U.S. visas just days before the attack, and they were in the employ of the U.S. Government.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_Flight_455
Operation Northwoods
A well known example of past government sponsored terror is “Operation Northwoods,” an official government plan from 1962 which was apparently carried out during the 1967 attack of the U.S.S Liberty. The documents have been declassified in 1997 by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board, and they are are in the National Archives.
Wikipedia page on the subject: “Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
USS Liberty incident
New evidence and testimony from former officers in the US and Israeli armed forces and intelligence services has revealed that President Lyndon Johnson conspired with Israel to deliberately attack the US Naval Intelligence-gathering ship USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, in which 34 Americans were killed and 171 wounded.
Some key former high-ranking officials who were in office at the time in the United States government, including the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of the NSA, and the senior legal counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry into the incident.
Claim that the attack was premeditated and deliberate. They note that the Liberty was more than twice as large as the El Quseir, and was clearly designated with Latin rather than Arabic letters and numbers. Proponents include the surviving Liberty crewmen, [1] and some former U.S. government officials, including then-CIA director Richard Helms and then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk as well as Admiral Thomas Hinman Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311&q=dead+in+th he+water+liberty
FDR
In October 2000 during the presidency of Bill Clinton who signed into law, with the support of a bipartisan Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act that, among other provisions, reversed the findings of nine previous Pearl Harbor investigations and found that both Kimmel and Short were denied the crucial intelligence.
There was foreknowledge of the attack by President Roosevelt and U.S. military officials. One of the issues is whether Admiral Kimmel and General Short were denied crucial U.S. military intelligence that tracked Japanese forces advancing on Hawaii.
FDR’s military and State Department leaders agreed that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. They felt that Americans needed a call to action. Roosevelt believed that his countrymen would rally only to oppose an overt act of war on the United States. The decision he made, in concert with his advisors, was to provoke Japan through a series of actions into an overt act: the Pearl Harbor attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Deceit
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 31, 2007 at 12:34 AM I see very little there that could be construed as a deliberate attempt to murder U.S. civilians.
USS Liberty was attacked by accident, anything else simply wouldn’t make any sense. Same ol paranoid anti-Israel propagandists want you to believe otherwise.
Pearl Harbor was another example of us underestimating the cunning of an enemy, and being perhaps a little lax, to boot. Just like 9/11. It was not “allowed” to happen.
Northwoods was never approved, and was never a plan to kill Americans. It’s not even clear if it was intended to kill anyone. It’s actually evidence against 9/11 inside job theories. Some even think the whole thing is a hoax.
You’re a purveyor of paranoia, Joe.
Posted by Natalie on Jan 31, 2007 at 4:23 AM Natalie-I posted an earlier reply regarding the 9/11 posts by Joe and some questions you didnt reply to re: the cell phone calls, but it disappeared. Happens here on ITT. Rather than rewrite it, I would like to pose a couple more philosophical questions. After reading your latest replies and Joes, I see the futility of arguing even possibly disputable facts. Joe and Psik have far more to share in that regard anyway.
Do you believe that this government would never sacrifice any citizens in the name of national security? It would allow 3 thousand soldiers to die but not ANY civilians? In the name of the greater good? Certainly our use of air power suggests we have little regard for Iraqi civilians. Could we not call on our own to possibly offer up their lives in a just cause? If not, how would you justify sending so many young men to die while those they are dying for cant be called upon for any similar sacrifice?
After the allies broke Enigma, they had to let some convoys-with civilians-be sunk or they would have tipped their hand to the Germans. Londoners died daily in bombings. Would it be wrong to shoot down a hijacked plane heading for NYC?
I still doubt the government was involved with 9/11. I do remember thinking that day it had the mark of a Mossad operation, not something the Muslims could orchestrate without help from unseen friends. What I find most disturbing is the way the government has responded to the concerns about it from the public. Look at the polls. If Joe is in fact a ‘purveyor of paranoia,’ he’s apparently doing a great job.
Posted by recursive prophet on Jan 31, 2007 at 8:54 AM Natalie
Not only does it talk about wounding and KILLING civilians but it also talks about blowing up a manned ship and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed!!!
Cant you at least READ IT so you know what you are talking about!!!!!!
Wich by the way did happen when modified Northwoods went operational on June 8, 1967, in which 34 Americans were killed and 171 wounded.
President Lyndon B. Johnson had secretly agreed on day four of the Six Day War that Liberty would be sunk with complete loss of life. The attack would be blamed on Egypt, allowing the U.S. in turn to attack Egypt, thus helping out Israel and creating an opening for “US” to get into the ME. However, because the Liberty did not sink after two hours, the plan was quickly reversed, Israel apologized for the case of mistaken identity, and a cover-up put into place. The Liberty incident provoked the launch of nuclear-armed planes targeted against Cairo from a US aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. They were recalled only just in time, when it was clear the Liberty had not sunk with all hands, and that Israel was responsible.
Virtually every knowledgeable American official with the lone exception of Robert McNamara who approved Operation Northwoods, is on public record calling the attack deliberate and the Israeli story untrue. Here are a few of those American leaders.
Natalie calls these people “Same ol paranoid anti-Israel propagandists” !
* “I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.”
—US Secretary of State Dean Rusk* “Accidents don’t occur through repeated attacks by surface vessels and aircraft. It obviously was a decision made pretty high up on the Israeli side, because it involved combined forces. The ship was flying an American flag. My judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior official gave the go ahead. I personally did not accept the Israeli explanation.”
—US Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Recorded interview, www.ussliberty.org* “...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty.”
—CIA Director Richard Helms in his book A Look Over my Shoulder* “It was no accident.”
—Richard Helms, former director, Central Intelligence Agency. Navy Times, 6/26/2002. Asked to say more, Helms remarked that he did not want to spend the rest of his life testifying in court about the attack.* That the attack was deliberate “just wasn’t a disputed issue” within the National Security Agency
—Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings* Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman “flatly rejected” the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident
—5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings* “I have never believed that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity. That is ridiculous. Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American.”
—Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff writing for Americans for Middle East Understanding, June 8, 1997* “To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn’t identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument.”
—Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14* “To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway.”
—Admiral Rufus Taylor, Deputy CIA director, as quoted by CIA director Admiral Rufus Taylor in A Look Over My Shoulder.* Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate
—David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings* “That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable”
—Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson* “Inconceivable that it was an accident – 3 strafing passes, 3 torpedo boats. Set forth facts. Punish Israelis responsible”
—Clark Clifford, Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson, in Minutes of NSC Special Committee Meeting, 9 June 1967* “A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted].”
—Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack. Dr. Tordella expressed the view that the attack was deliberate and that the Israeli government attempted to cover it up to authors James Ennes and James Bamford and to Congressman George Mahon (D-Texas), and in an internal memorandum for the record. He noted “a nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept (redacted)” in the margin of the official Israeli excuse for the attack as noted in the NSA Gerhard report 1982)* “The attack was clearly deliberate.”
—General Marshall Carter, former director, National Security Agency, in a telephone interview with James Ennes* “The attack was deliberate”
—Lucius Battle, former presidential advisor, as keynote speaker for 1982 USS Liberty reunion.* “....did not buy the Israeli ‘mistake’ explanations either. Nobody believes that explanation.” When informed by author Bamford of gruesome war crime (killing of large numbers of POWs) at nearby El Arish, Morrison saw the connection. “That would be enough,” he said. “They wouldn’t want us in on that. You’ve got the motive. What a hell of a thing to do.”
—Major General John Morrison, US Air Force, Deputy Chief NSA Operations during the attack and later Chief of NSA Operations as reported in Body of Secrets by James Bamford, p233.* “I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that they knew they were attacking an American ship.”
—Oliver Kirby, former deputy director for operations/production, National Security Agency. Kirby participated in NSA’s investigation of the attack and reviewed translations of intercepted communications between pilots and their headquarters which he reports show conclusively that they knew their target was an American ship. Kirby is considered the “Godfather” of the USS Liberty and USS Pueblo intercept programs. (Telephone interviews with James Ennes and David Walsh for Friendless Fire, Proceedings, June 2003)* On the strength of intercept transcripts of pilots’ conversations during the attack, the question of the attack’s deliberateness “just wasn’t a disputed issue” within the agency.
—Lieutenant General William E. Odom, former director, National Security Agency, interview with David Walsh on March 3, 2003, reported in Naval Institute Proceedings, June, 2003* Inman said he “flatly rejected” the Cristol thesis that the attack was an accident. “It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [USS Liberty] was not correctly identified” based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time having direct knowledge of intercepted communications. No NSA official could be found who dissented from the “deliberate” conclusion.
—Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN, Director National Security Agency 1977-1981, reported in Proceedings, June, 2003* “I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to believe that it was.”
—Paul C. Warnke, Undersecretary of the Navy and later general legal counsel to the Department of Defense.* “In many years, I have wanted to believe that the attack on the Liberty was pure error. It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity. . . . I think it is about time that the State of Israel and the United States government provide the crew members of the Liberty, and the rest of the American people, the facts of what happened and why it came about that the Liberty was attacked 30 years ago today.” Later, McGonagle remarked, “USS Liberty is the only US Navy ship attacked by a foreign nation, involving large loss of life…that has never been accorded a full Congressional hearing.”
—Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery June 8, 1997.* “The Israelis told us 24 hours before that ...if we didn’t move it, they would sink it. Unfortunately, the ship was not moved, and by the time the message arrived the ship was taking on water.”
—John Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3Im in an address to the AFEI/NDAI Conference for Net Centric Operations, Wednesday, April 16, 2003* State Department Legal Advisor and author of highly critical detailed analysis of the Israeli excuse in telephone interview from his home in France, Mr. Salans described the attack as deliberate.
—Legal Advisor Carl Salans* Walter Deeley, NSA department head, conducted still-classified investigation of the attack and remarked later in telephone interview that he regards the attack as deliberate.
—NSA Department Head Walter Deeley
* Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.
—Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor* “The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack…was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew…. It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident…. I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American.”
—Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry* According to Kidd’s legal counsel, Captain Ward Boston, USN, Kidd discussed with him his belief that the attackers were aware they were attacking an American ship. The Court ruled otherwise because they were so directed by Washington.
—Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, President of the Navy Court of Inquiry, as reported in Navy Times, 6/26/2002* “I feel the Israelis knew what they were doing. They knew they were shooting at a U.S. Navy ship.”
—Captain Ward Boston, legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry, as reported in . Navy Times, 6/26/2002* “No one in the White House believed that the attack was an accident.”
—George Christian, Press Secretary to President Lyndon Johnson in letter to James Ennes, 1978.* After reviewing the Court of Inquiry in his official capacity as legal counsel to the convening authority, concluded that the evidence did not support the findings that the attack was an accident and declined to recommend that his Commander sign and forward it to Washington.
—Rear Admiral (then captain) Merlin Staring, Staff Legal Office for Commander in Chief US Naval Forces Europe and later Chief Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Statement to Navy Times, 3 June 2002 and elsewhere* “This book [Assault on the Liberty] gives convincing evidence that the attack was deliberate and that the facts, including the Navy’s bungling before and during the attack, were covered up.”
—United States Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III as reported in Congressional Record—Senate S13136 September 23, 1980. Senator Stevenson later announced his interest in holding Congressional hearings on the attack. He pointed out that the survivors have been consistent in their accounts of what happened and that the attack was, in his word, “premeditated.” Also reported by William J. Small, United Press International, September 28, 1980.* “American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens. . . . The Liberty’s presence and function were well known to Israel’s leaders. ...Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.
—George Ball, under secretary of state at the time writing in The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement with Israel, pages 57-58.* “I don’t think that there’s any doubt that it was deliberate…. [It is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history.”
—David G. Nes, the deputy head of the American mission in Cairo at the time* “FBI officials counter that ‘friendly’ spying can be as damaging as spying for enemies, they note, as in 1967 when Israeli jets deliberately attacked the electronic intelligence-gathering ship USS Liberty….”
—FBI Officials reported in Washington Times, November 26, 1998* “How much better if Congress would….call to account those who were involved in spreading lies about the tragedy.”
—James Akins, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Akins in Special Report, The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, June 8, 1967, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December, 1999
* “The attack was deliberate and not an accident.”
—Victor Ostrovsky, author and former Mossad officer, in telephone conversations with former Congressman Pete McCloskey October 10, 1991, and with and several conversations with James Ennes.* “It’s an American ship!” the pilot of an Israeli Mirage fighter-bomber radioed Tel Aviv as he sighted the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. Israeli headquarters ordered the pilot to attack the American ship.
—former US Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter describing transcripts of communications he saw, reported in syndicated column “Remembering the Liberty” by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, November 6, 1991.* “The historical event which took place in June 1967 can hardly be called enigmatic and mysterious. ...It is difficult to understand that the Israelis could not identity the USS Liberty, since the ship had a unique antenna and equipment and especially since the Israelis had identified the ship with long term observation.”
—Translated from a taped interview with Sergeev Oleg Korneevitch, retired Colonel, Soviet GRU.* “The government of Israel intentionally attacked the ship. ...The attack was not legally justified. ...(there were) two further violations of international law…the use of unmarked military aircraft (and)...the wanton destruction of life rafts.”
—Walter L. Jacobsen, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, in Naval Law Review, Vol 36, Winter 1986* “The attack was not an accident.”
—Stephen Green, author. Antelope Valley Press, April 5, 1984* “Certain facts are clear. The attack was no accident. The Liberty was assaulted in broad daylight by Israeli forces who knew the ship’s identity. ...The public, however, was kept in the dark. Even before the American public learned of the attack, U.S. government officials began to promote an account satisfactory to Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee worked through Congressmen to keep the story under control. The President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, ordered and led a cover-up so thorough that years after he left office the episode is still largely unknown….”
—Paul Findley, author and former Member of Congress 1961-1983 in They Dare to Speak Out, by Paul Findley, 1985, page 166* “Is the Liberty episode being erased from history. So it would seem…What has happened to our prying journalistic corps and our editors, normally so indignant of attempted suppression of the news?...We believe that a joint select committee of Congress should investigate the strange case of the USS Liberty…”
—William F. Buckley, journalist and publisher, National Review, June 27, 1967* (In a review of “Six Days of War” by Michael Oren.) “Oren…frequently descends to vulgar propaganda. Deeming the Israeli combined air and naval assault on the USS Liberty ...an accident,’ Oren rehashes official Israeli tales and embellishes them with his own whoppers.”
—Norman Finkelstein, PhD, author, professor of political science, DePaul University, writing in Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring, 2003, p85* “The attack on the USS Liberty was planned and there is and was a cover-up.” “If the very valuable lessons of the Liberty were known, the capture of the USS Pueblo could not have happened.”
—Lloyd M. “Pete” Bucher, US Navy, Commanding Officer USS Pueblo when captured by North Korea in January 1968, in telephone conversations with James Ennes and on September 6, 2002, with Richard Schmucker.* “Nearly everyone who is not affiliated with Israel…and who has seriously looked into the attack believes that it was deliberate. ...The bare facts of the attack rule out any other conclusion.”
—Donald Neff, author, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August, 2002, p29* Ralph Hoppe, Colonel, US Army, retired, reports that dozens of intelligence reports soon after the attack described the attack as deliberate including a “consensus report” which summarized the collective view of the US intelligence community. Soon orders came from Washington to collect and destroy all such reports. Nothing more in official channels described the attack as deliberate.
—Aerotech News and Review, March 2, 2001, by John Borne, PhD, and conversations with James Ennes* “It is clear that the Israelis knew that they were attacking a vessel of the US Navy, especially as it was flying a large Stars and Stripes at the time. The fact that they spent six hours reconnoitering and executing the attack, which included machine-gunning the lifeboats, attests to the deadly intent of the operation.
—Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison, the Inside Story of the US-Israeli Covert Relationship, by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, p152.
* “A. Jay Cristol’s virtual minority of one assessment is not supported by the detailed non-technical common sense evidence to the contrary in Body of Secrets (by James Bamford). “There is nothing surprising in Bamford’s conclusion that the attack was deliberate. Liberty survivors have made that case convincingly for years.”
—Professor Hayden Peake, author, former CIA officer and member, Association of Former Intelligence Officers, The Intelligencer, Vol. 12, No.1, Summer 2001* Book reviews transcripts of communications during the attack which establish that the attack was deliberate.
—Israel’s Wars, 1947-1993, by Ahron Bregman* Survivors of the attack are unanimous in their conviction that the attack was deliberate. Among other things, their belief is based upon the intense pre-attack reconnaissance, the fact that the firing continued from close range long after the attackers examined the ship and its markings from a few feet away, and because the Israeli version of events as reported to the United States is grossly untrue.
—USS Liberty survivors* Several Air Force intelligence analysts who have come forward to report that they saw real-time transcripts of communications from the attacking forces which show clearly that they were aware they were attacking an American ship. Others who saw these transcripts include Dwight Porter and Oliver Kirby, mentioned above, and several top officials of the American intelligence community.
—Former US Air Force intelligence analysts Ron Gotcher, Steve Forslund, Richard Block and pilot Charles Tiffany
* Published doctoral thesis establishes that the attack was deliberate.
—John Borne, PhD, adjunct professor of history, NY University.* Rejects the US Navy Court of Inquiry as inadequate, declares that the attack was apparently deliberate, and calls upon the United States to conduct a complete and thorough investigation.
—Resolution #508 of the American Legion at its 49th annual national convention in August, 1967* “The [Navy Court of Inquiry] leaves a good many questions unanswered.”
—The New York Times, July 1, 1967* “The naval inquiry is not good enough.”
—The Washington Post, June 30, 1967* “They must have known…that Liberty was an American ship.”
—The Washington Star, June 30, 1967* “The action was planned in advance”
—Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson in The Washington Post, June 30, 1967* “Only the blind or the trigger happy could have made such a mistake”
—The National Observer* “The attack was deliberate. Those responsible should be court-martialed on charges of murder.”
—California Congressman Craig Hosmer in the Congressional Record—House, June 29, 1967, p. 17893* “How can this be treated so lightly? What complaint have we registered?
—Mississippi Congressman Thomas G. Abernethy in the Congressional Record—House, June 29m, 1967, pp. 17894-5* The story has been hushed up.”
—Louisiana Congressman John R. Rarick in the Congressional Record—House, September 19, 1967, pp. 12170-6
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 31, 2007 at 9:29 AM Natalie
I think you need to stop reading those old school books and start reading the newer ones because the attack at Pearl Harbor is not a debate any more and has not been for some years.
McCollums secret memo dated October 7, 1940, recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, a proposal that called for eight provocations aimed at Japan.
It also speaks of foreknowledge of the attack by President Roosevelt and U.S. military officials. One of the issues is whether Admiral Kimmel and General Short were denied crucial U.S. military intelligence that tracked Japanese forces advancing on Hawaii. This question was answered in October 2000 during the presidency of Bill Clinton who signed into law, with the support of a bipartisan Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act that, among other provisions, reversed the findings of nine previous Pearl Harbor investigations and found that both Kimmel and Short were denied the crucial intelligence.
During the lead up to the attack, the commander of the Japanese task force, Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo, received bulletins from Vice Consul Tadashi Morimura in Hawaii. Morimura’s real name was Takeo Yoshikawa, a Japanese naval officer who had been assigned to Hawaii on espionage duty in April, 1941. Morimura’s bulletins were intercepted, decrypted and translated by the Office of Naval Intelligence, and that the intercepts were also sent to Washington, but that Admiral Kimmel did not receive this information.
I could go on and on and on but Im tired good night. Please open a new school book and not one of your old dusty ones. Hell even the Pentagon Channel ooops I mean the History Channel excepts the FACT.
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 31, 2007 at 10:26 AM Natalie
So instead of an inside job do you think the Saudi’s did it.
The man in Saudi Makram Chams whose convenience store in Venice Florida was used by Mohamed Atta and his cadre of terrorist hijackers to receive overseas wire transfers, and from whose apartment Atta and Marwan took taxis to Orlando Airport to pick up visiting Saudis has suit in Saudi Arabia, for a whopping $21 million, against Titan Corporation of San Diego for not paying him the agreed amount for work he did before and up to 9/11!In addition to owning a convenience store, the peripatetic Chams’ recent resume includes having been a partner in a Jack Abramoff-style gambling boat which operated for two years in Venice without permits, working for the FBI in San Diego, and pulling down multi-million dollar contracts in Saudi Arabia, one of which suspected of being with the Saudi Bin Laden Group, for controversial U.S. defense firm Titan Corp.
Strangely (or not) the FBI apparently never bothered to mention anything at all to the 9/11 Commission about Makram Chams. Even though “numerous local witnesses have stated that several of the terrorists basically hung out at (Chams’) Kwik Check.”
The FBI’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission revealed that the largest overseas money transfer the terrorists received had come from the UAE, for $70,000.
A copy of the money transfer was projected overhead.
What the FBI didn’t point out to the Commission was the significance of the address where the money was wired to: 201 Nokomis in Venice, the address of the Kwik-Check owned by Makram Chams, the man who shortly thereafter would be in Saudi Arabia procuring multi-million dollar contracts from the Saudi Bin Laden Group.
Atta and his fellow terrorists also availed themselves of a second floor apartment Chams rented in a building across the street from the convenience store. The apartment was occupied by his sister, May Chams, and her husband, an Indian Muslim named “Khal” who disappeared from Venice in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack.
Local Venice Yellow Cab driver Bob Simpson (whose testimony about Atta’s local associates was used by the FBI to apprehend a half-dozen Saudi nationals in Venice after the attack) says he picked up Mohamed Atta and his bodyguard Marwan at the apartment in his cab on several occasions, and taken them to the Orlando Airport.
Even Zacharias Moussaoui, whose presence in Venice, was confirmed was seen at Chams’ apartment.
“The FBI was especially interested in a rich Saudi guy, dressed in Armani, shades, manicure, and a gold Rolex, that I was sent to pick up at the Orlando Executive Airport,” said Simpson.
“They (the FBI) knew he’d ridden in my cab because they’d gotten my cab number from a surveillance camera there.”
Six weeks later, when Simpson received a call to go to the apartment to pick up the “rich Saudi in Armani and shades” and return him to the Orlando Airport,(Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi) the cabbie was asked to help carry a chest, the kind kept at the bottom of a bed, down from the apartment and load it into the trunk of the cab.
“It was so heavy it took two people to carry it. I could not believe anything that small could weigh that much! It must have weighed at least 150 pounds.”
Carrying the other end of the chest was someone Simpson recognized much later. “A big bald guy who I later identified as Zacharias Moussaoui helped me carry it down to the cab.”
At some point after the attack Chams abandoned the mini-market (it has stood vacant since) and left Venice.
A story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune called the abandoned convenience store, “A pocket of urban blight in the otherwise smartly tailored suit of downtown Venice.
Chams went to San Diego, said his sister, who worked at Barclay’s Pharmacy in Venice (the same pharmacy visited by Mohamed Atta and his Cairo lawyer father two weeks before the 9/1 attack.
Asked what he was doing in San Diego, she’d replied, “Helping out the FBI.”
Then recently we learned Chams had been working as a contractor in Saudi Arabia for controversial San Diego defense firm Titan Corp a 23-year old company which sells information and communication services to military and spy agencies, and has about 12,000 employees and revenues of about $2 billion a year.
An SEC filing last year Titan reported that Makram Chams had filed a $21 million lawsuit against them in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Apparently Titan didn’t hold the lawsuit against Chams, because he recently received a six-figure payout from Surebeam, a bankrupt Titan subsidiary which, in the aftermath of the anthrax scare had been the lucky recipient of a big windfall from the U.S. Post Office.
Surebeam announced in a press release that the post office “would use Surebeam’s electron beam systems to eliminate the threat of anthrax in the U.S. mail system.”
Despite there being not the slightest hint of scientific evidence that the company could perform as advertised, the firm was awarded a $40 million contract to set up machines to detect and kill anthrax spores,
Makram Chams had apparently landed a $5 million contract in Riyadh for Surebeam with the Saudi Bin Laden Group.
Surebeam, in a curious press release, had boasted of winning a $5 million contract in Saudi Arabia, “to build a network of Surebeam facilities within the Kingdom for pathogen and environmental pest control.”
Oddly, the company which gave Surebeam the $5 million contract went unnamed in the press release, identified only as “a private Saudi Arabian conglomerate headquartered in Riyadh;” and as “a leading Saudi company whose business dealings involve high rise construction, large living compound construction, hotel design and construction, oil and gas projects, defense and security contracts.”
Only one company fits this description, while at the same time being a firm Surebeam would have wanted to keep quiet about having as a business partner…The Saudi Bin Laden Group.
Makram Chams curious curriculum vitae includes having been a partner in a gambling boat called Vegas-in-Venice, owned by a Philadelphia man alleged to have ties to organized crime. The gambling vessel somehow managed to operate for almost two years in Venice, despite having no approval to do so from the city of Venice, County of Sarasota, or State of Florida.
The only other local partner in the gambling venture, Max Burge, also did business with Skyway Aircraft/Royal Son principal Frederick Geffon.
In addition the well-connected Burge owned the light planes used by the terrorists in their flight training at Huffman Aviation, Burge once owned the Sandpiper Apartments across the street the airport where Mohamed Atta spent several months living with Amanda Keller and where the DEA had been conducting their surveillance out of.
The DEA were secretly conducting their investigation of the drug smuggling from the same apartment building that Atta was staying at which was located right by the flight school.
Terror flight school owner Wally Hilliard’s company’s Lear (N351WB) had been busted by DEA agents armed with machine guns, who, during the same month Atta arrived at his school, found 43 pounds of Al Qaeda heroin onboard.
The same month Mohamed Atta arrived to attend his flight school in Venice, Huffman Aviation, the owner of that flight school, Wallace J. Hilliard, had his Lear jet confiscated on a runway at Orlando Executive Airport by DEA agents who found 43 pound of Bin Laden’s best uncut Al Qaeda heroin onboard.
It was, said the Orlando Sentinel, the “biggest drug bust in Central Florida history,”
How did a convenience store owner with unexplained links to Abramoff-style gambling boat interests connected with organized crime, and unexplained links with the terrorists in Venice, end up working for a well-connected defense contractor embroiled in numerous major controversies?
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 31, 2007 at 8:15 PM Far be it from me Joe to understand why you would bring up an attack by another country on us to support your contention that the US routinely conducts operations that sacrifice its own people.
Putting that aside however, I’m surprised you neglected to include this among your exhaustsive, yet mostly outdated pastings:
IMRA Newsletter
US Agency confirms Sinking of USS Liberty was Accident
By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz Correspondent
Haaretz
9 July 2003WASHINGTON - New documents released this week by America’s National Security Agency support Israel’s version of a long-festering controversy between the two countries: Israel’s sinking of an American spy ship, the USS Liberty, off the coast of Gaza during the 1967 Six-Day War.
Israel has always said it had no idea the ship was American, but conspiracy theorists and anti-Israel propagandists still claim Israel sank the ship in the full knowledge that it was American.
The documents, originally defined as top secret, were made public by Florida Judge Jay Cristol, who has been investigating the Liberty incident for years and published a book on the subject last year. On Monday, the NSA gave him a transcript of conversations held by two Israeli Air Force helicopter pilots who were hovering over the Liberty as it was sinking, and these tapes confirm Israel’s claim that the sinking of the ship, which killed 34 American servicemen and wounded 171, was a tragic error.
After the Liberty was bombed by both the Israel Air Force and the Israel Navy, the two helicopter pilots were summoned from their base to assess the damage and evaluate the possibility of rescuing the surviving crew members. An American spy plane, which had been sent to the area as soon as the NSA learned of the attack, recorded their conversations, which took place between 2:30 and 3:37 P.M. on June 8, the third day of the war.
The spy plane also recorded the orders radioed to the pilots by their supervisor at Hatzor Base, which instructed them to search for Egyptian survivors from the “Egyptian warship” that had just been bombed - thus supporting Israel’s claim that it had believed the ship was Egyptian when it ordered it attacked. “Pay attention. The ship is now identified as Egyptian,” the pilots were told.
Nine minutes later, Hatzor informed the pilots that it was not an Egyptian warship, but an Egyptian cargo ship. Only at 3:07 were the pilots first informed that the ship might not have been Egyptian at all: Hatzor told them that if they found Arabic-speaking survivors, they should be taken to El-Arish, but if they found English-speaking survivors, they should be taken to Lod. “Clarify by the first man that you bring up, what nationality he is, and report to me immediately,” the supervisor instructed, according to the transcript. “It’s important to know.”
Then, at 3:12, one of the pilots informed Hatzor that he saw an American flag flying over the wounded ship. He was asked to investigate and determine whether it was really an American ship.
This is not the first time such transcripts have been made public: Israel gave its own recordings of the pilots’ conversations to the British television station Thames in 1987. But conspiracy theorists charged that Israel had doctored the tapes before handing them over to the station in order to hide the fact that it sank the Liberty intentionally. No such imputation can be made about these new transcripts, as they were never in Israeli hands.
Israel has always said it attacked the Liberty, which America sent to the region to gather intelligence on the progress of the war, because it believed it was an Egyptian supply ship ferrying supplies to the Egyptian troops that Israel was then fighting. When it discovered the error, it immediately informed the Americans, apologized and paid compensation to the victims’ families.The incident was investigated by inquiry commissions in both Israel and the United States, and both concluded that it had, indeed, been a tragic error. Nevertheless, the controversy never died. In 1979, one of the survivors, James Ennes, published a book accusing Israel of bombing the American ship deliberately. Ennes claimed an Israeli spy plane had hovered over the ship all morning and had surely identified it as American, since the American flag was clearly visible.
A later book, written by James Bamford, charged that Israel sank the ship in order to keep America from learning of its plans to attack Syria, and further claimed that the NSA had tapes of conversations among Israeli pilots that not only confirmed this, but also proved that the tapes released by Israel had been doctored.
Another claim that appears frequently on the dozens of Internet sites devoted to the affair is that Israel sank the ship to conceal a mass murder of Egyptian soldiers on the Sinai peninsula.
In its letter to Cristol, the NSA stressed that, contrary to the claims that often appear in such books and Web sites - that the agency has tapes from both the Liberty and from a nearby American submarine that confirm Israel’s guilt - the only tapes that exist were those made by the spy plane and given to Cristol this week.
“It’s the last piece of intelligence that remained classified, and every rational person that will read it will understand that there is no truth in these conspiracy theories against Israel,” Cristol said Tuesday. But he added: “Those who hate Israel, who hate Jews, and those who believe in conspiracy will not be convinced by anything.”
Cristol, a former U.S. navy pilot and legal officer, began investigating the Liberty incident 14 years ago. Since publishing his book, which vindicates Israel, he has received threats and been accused of being an Israeli agent. “I take this lightly, but I am saddened to learn that there is this kind of hate toward Israel,” he said.
Posted by Natalie on Jan 31, 2007 at 8:19 PM From the Jan. 16, 2004, edition of the Stars and Stripes
A FAIR PROBE WOULD ATTACK LIBERTY MISINFORMATIONby Admiral Thomas H. Moorer
While State Department officials and historians converge on Washington this week to discuss the 1967 war in the Middle East, I am compelled to speak out about one of U.S. history’s most shocking cover-ups.
On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked our proud naval ship—the USS Liberty—killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 172. Those men were then betrayed and left to die by our own government.
U.S. military rescue aircraft were recalled—not once, but twice—through direct intervention by the Johnson administration. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s cancellation of the Navy’s attempt to rescue the Liberty, which I confirmed from the commanders of the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, was the most disgraceful act I witnessed in my entire military career.
To add insult to injury, Congress, to this day, has failed to hold formal hearings on Israel’s attack on this American ship. No official investigation of the attack has ever permitted the testimony of the surviving crew members.
A 1967 investigation by the Navy, upon which all other reports are based, has now been fully discredited as a cover-up by its senior attorney. Capt. Ward Boston, in a sworn affidavit, recently revealed that the court was ordered by the White House to cover up the incident and find that Israel’s attack was “a case of mistaken identity.”
Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. They include:
* Israeli reconnaissance aircraft closely studied the Liberty during an eight-hour period prior to the attack, one flying within 200 feet of the ship. Weather reports confirm the day was clear with unlimited visibility. The Liberty was a clearly marked American ship in international waters, flying an American flag and carrying large U.S. Navy hull letters and numbers on its bow.
* Despite claims by Israeli intelligence that they confused the Liberty with a small Egyptian transport, the Liberty was conspicuously different from any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat.
* Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty’s radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels.* Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded.
As a result, our commission concluded that:
* There is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.
* In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States.
* The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.
* The truth continues to be concealed to the present day in what can only be termed a national disgrace.
What was Israel’s motive in launching this attack? Congress must address this question with full cooperation from the National Security Agency, the CIA and the military intelligence services.
The men of the USS Liberty represented the United States. They were attacked for two hours, causing 70 percent of American casualties, and the eventual loss of our best intelligence ship.
These sailors and Marines were entitled to our best defense. We gave them no defense.
Did our government put Israel’s interests ahead of our own? If so, why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests? These are important questions that should be investigated by an independent, fully empowered commission of the American government.
The American people deserve to know the truth about this attack. We must finally shed some light on one of the blackest pages in American naval history. It is a duty we owe not only to the brave men of the USS Liberty, but to every man and woman who is asked to wear the uniform of the United States.
USS Liberty pix
Admiral Thomas Moorer was Commander-in-Chief US Atlantic Fleet in June, 1967, when Liberty was attacked. He then served as Chief of Naval Operations from 1967 to 1970 and as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1977. In 2003 he formed the Independent Commission of Inquiry with Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, former judge advocate general of the Navy; Ambassador James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia; and General Ray Davis, former assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. For complete findings and the sworn affidavit of Capt. Ward Boston, see The Moorer Findings at http://www.ussliberty.org/moorerfindings.htm
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 31, 2007 at 8:42 PM Natalie
Even the Israeli pilots who attacked the U.S.S. Liberty have come forward recently and confirmed that they identified the U.S.S. Liberty as an American naval vessel before they were given orders to fire upon it. They also claimed that they refused the order to fire upon the U.S.S. Liberty twice because it was an American naval vessel but the third time they had no choice because they were threatened with court-martial if they did not do as ordered and fire upon the U.S.S. Liberty.
Yea they could be telling a lie but why would they? I think they risked alot to come forward with the truth and had nothing to gain from it so why would they risk all for a lie?
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 31, 2007 at 9:02 PM Natalie
Only one pilot. The other says There was a mistake, but it wasn’t my mistake. The Jerusalem Post reports he was given the boot by the Israeli Air Force after protesting the policy of “target killings” against Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Natalie maybe I can use his excuse. Sorry I replied to soon should have taken more time to look.
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 31, 2007 at 9:19 PM Natalie
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer
“Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American. After all, the Liberty’s American flag and markings were in full view in perfect visibility for the Israeli aircraft that overflew the ship eight times over a period of nearly eight hours prior to the attack.”“I have to conclude that it was Israel’s intent to sink the Liberty and leave as few survivors as possible. Up to the point where the torpedo boats were sent in, you could speculate on that point. You have to remember that the Liberty was an intelligence ship, not a fighting ship, and its only defensive weapons were a pair of 50-caliber machine guns both aft and on the forecastle. There was little the men could do to fight off the air assault from Israeli jets that pounded the Liberty with bombs, rockets, napalm and machine gun fire for 25 minutes.”
“With the Liberty riddled with holes, fires burning, and scores of casualties, three Israeli torpedo boats closed in for the kill. The second of three torpedoes ripped through a compartment at amidships, drowning 25 of the men in that section. Then the torpedo boats closed to within 100 feet of the Liberty to continue the attack with cannons and machine guns, resulting in further casualties. It is telling, with respect to whether total annihilation was the intent, that the Liberty crew has reported that the torpedo boats’ machine guns also were turned on life rafts that were deployed into the Mediterranean as well as those few on deck that had escaped damage.”
“As we know now, if the rescue aircraft from U.S. carriers had not been recalled, they would have arrived at the Liberty before the torpedo attack, reducing the death toll by 25.”
“In the Liberty case, fighters were put in the air not once, but twice. They were ordered to stand down by Secretary of Defense McNamara and President Johnson for reasons the American public deserves to know.”
President Johnson said; “Recall the wings I want that God damn ship going to the bottom”
“Commander McGonagle’s story is the stuff of naval tradition. Badly wounded in the first air attack, lying on the deck and losing blood, he refused any treatment that would take him from his battle station on the bridge. He continued to direct the ship’s defense, the control of flooding and fire, and by his own example inspired the survivors to heroic efforts to save the ship. He did not relinquish his post until hours later, after having directed the crippled ship’s navigation to a rendezvous with a U.S. destroyer and final arrival in Malta.”
“I must have gone to the White House 15 times or more to watch the President personally award the Congressional Medal of Honor to Americans of special valor. So it irked the hell out of me when McGonagle’s ceremony was relegated to the obscurity of the Washington Navy Yard and the medal was presented by the Secretary of the Navy. This was a back-handed slap. Everyone else received their medal at the White House. President Johnson must have been concerned about the reaction of the Israeli lobby.”
“The Liberty Veterans Association deserves the encouragement of everyone who wants the facts of the Liberty incident revealed and proper homage paid to the men who lost their lives, to their families, and to the survivors. I have attended many of their reunions and am always impressed with the cohesion of the Liberty family. They arrive in town with their whole entourage grandmas, grandpas, grandchildren. They promote the memory of the boys who were killed and I respect them for that. They are mostly from small country towns, probably a lot like Eufaula, Alabama, where I grew up, and they represent the basic core of America that has enabled us to be a superpower for so long. These are the kind of people who will make certain that our Liberty and freedom survive if fighting is what it takes.”
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 31, 2007 at 11:02 PM So what’s your point, Joe? Even if the Liberty incident is as you say, which I don’t believe to be the case, how does this support the notion that our country intentionally murdered 3000 of its own people on 9/11, and potentially thousands more?
Do you know how this evidence would be referred to in a court of law?
Irrelevant.
It would seem that recent releases by the NSA, along with what was divulged by the Judge in my post above pretty much put this to bed. I know it’s an emotional issue for survivors and families, and others, but that unfortunately can cloud one’s judgment and ability to accept the facts.
And of course, holocaust deniers and other haters of Israel don’t hesitate to seize upon it either. Tread lightly to avoid information contamination by these creeps.
Posted by Natalie on Jan 31, 2007 at 11:35 PM Natalie
Admirals Staring and Hill state the following in their July 22, 2006 letter to Senator Warner:
“A continued hiding of the true story from the record, just to protect the political decisions of former officials in the top echelons of the Executive Branch, leaves an historical record of a failure on the part of the United States Navy-a failure to live up to the very motto of the service that has beeen handed down to us by over two centuries of gallant sailors who never failed to support their own, be it against an enemy, or against the sea itself.”
Posted by honestjoe on Jan 31, 2007 at 11:36 PM Natalie
You said;
“It would seem that recent releases by the NSA, along with what was divulged by the Judge in my post above pretty much put this to bed. I know it’s an emotional issue for survivors and families, and others, but that unfortunately can cloud one’s judgment and ability to accept the facts.”Cristol was busted several times. they are asking that criminal charges be brought against him.
These are just a few!
Please look at this you can also here the recordings to but first look at this.
http://www.ussliberty.org/bregman.pdf
Then look at these
The photo displayed by Cristol and others as “proof that the ship flew no flag” is in fact a doctored view of the ship just as she tied up at the pier at Little Creek, Virginia, in July, 1967, upon her return from repairs in Malta.
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/photofraud.jpg
A close look at the two photos, with matching points circled by Halliwell, reveals that they are in fact almost the same picture—but the “gun camera” view has been doctored to hide the flag and other identifying marks. If a viewer will look carefully, the American flag is flying from the stern in both pictures. Flags fly from a Navy ship’s stern only in port; the flag flies from the mainmast at sea. This is a picture taken in port in July, not taken during the attack as claimed by the Israelis. It cannot possibly be a gun camera photo taken during the attack as the Israelis claim. If you look carefully, identical groups of men can be seen standing in identical places on the ship in both images. The white “splash” on the starboard bow is a doctored image of the tug boat that helped Liberty move to the pier at Little Creek.
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/photofraud.jpg
Click here to see a side-by-side comparison of the docking photo and the fake gun-camera photo taken from the same series.
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/guncamera2.jpg
Upon close inspection, one can also see in the fake gun camera photo that the ship is floating high in the water. When the ship was attacked, it was heavily loaded and floating low in the water. The docking photo shows the ship lightly loaded and floating high after having just completed a crossing of the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean sea—the same height as shown in the fake gun camera photo.
http://www.ussliberty.org/fakebowwave.htm
A close examination of the bow wave shows that this is also faked. Since the image used as “gun camera photograpy” was actually of the ship alongside the pier at Little Creek, it was necessary to create a fake bow wave to sustain the illusion of movement. This can be seen clearly if one compares the fake bow wave with a bow wave of a similar ship underway.
http://www.ussliberty.org/fakesmoke.htm
Yet their fakery knows no bounds. A close examination of the “smoke” in their faked gun camera pictures reveals that the smoke is actually depicted moving crosswise to the wind, and in fact there were no fires in that area.
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/guncamera4.jpg
Still further analysis of the four photographs, supposedly taken by a Mirage jet on the second attack run of the day, reveals that all four photos are taken from an identical position, which would not be the case if they were actually taken from a fast-moving jet aircraft. The fakers placed the supposed firing ring, the circle of dots, on the photographs to simulate a gun camera image, moving the ring from frame to frame. But the fakery is revealed by the fact that all four photos are taken from an identical position, not from a high speed jet approaching the ship on an attack run.
Click here to see the comparison.
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/photofraud.jpg
Clearly the “gun camera” photos are faked.
Innocent people do not need to fabricate evidence. If this were a criminal trial, these criminals would be in jail.
The United States is obligated by law and by international treaty to investigate all reports of war crimes by or against United States Forces.
This report obligates such an investigation. We are still waiting patiently for a reply.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 1, 2007 at 12:00 AM Natalie
You said;
So what’s your point, Joe?I was merely pointing out the defendants criminal history as it relates to the current charges brought against the defendant.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 1, 2007 at 12:22 AM Natalie
You said;
Do you know how this evidence would be referred to in a court of law?THESE PEOPLE DO AND THEY THINK THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO CONVICT!
Horst Ehmke, PhD – Professor of Law, University of Freiburg. Former Minister of Justice (West Germany). Former Minister for Research and Technology. Cabinet Member under Chancellors Kurt Kiesinger and Willy Brandt 1966 - 1974.* Article 7/22/04: “Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service.” http://www.guardian.co
* Bio: http://translate.google.comRichard Falk
Richard Falk, JSD
Richard Falk, JSD – Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University. In 2001 he served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo. He is the author or coauthor of numerous books, including Religion and Humane Global Governance; Human Rights Horizons; On Humane Governance: Toward a New Global Politics; and Human Rights and State Sovereignty. Honorary Vice president of the American Society of International Law.* Foreward to The New Pearl Harbor 6/16/04: “There are so many gaping holes in the official accounts of 9/11 that no plausible coherent narrative remains, and we must go forward as if the truth about these traumatic events no longer matters.
Griffin shows, with insight and a firm grasp of the many dimensions of global security policy of the Bush Administration, that getting 9/11 right, even belatedly, matters desperately. The layer upon layer of unexplained facts, the multiple efforts by those in power to foreclose independent inquiry, and the evidence of a pre-9/11 blueprint by Bush insiders to do what they are doing on the basis of a 9/11 mandate is why the Griffin assessment does not even require a reader with a normally open mind. As suggested, 30% receptivity will do, which means that all but the most dogmatically blinded adherents of the Bush presidency will be convinced by the basic argument of The New Pearl Harbor.” http://www.transnational
* Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:
“We want truthful answers to question. … As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
o An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
o Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
o Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
o The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.” http://www.911truth.org/article.php
* Bio: http://www.ihc.ucsb.eduBurns Weston
Burns H. Weston, JSD
Burns H. Weston, JSD – 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 (Washington, DC). Senior Human Rights Adviser, IKEA Social Initiative. Senior Human Rights Adviser, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, Italy.* Endorsement of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions: “In this masterful sequel to The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin unveils a disparity between official 9/11 “spin” and independently researched 9/11 fact so glaring as to suggest the possibility of a constitutional crisis unlike anything our country has ever known. In this new study, as in its predecessor, he simply details the hard, cold evidence that seriously—and alarmingly—challenges the independence, impartiality, and thoroughness of the 9/11 Commission. For anyone serious about combating terrorism, let alone upholding constitutional democracy, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, is a must read.”
* Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:
“We want truthful answers to question. … As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
o An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
o Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
o Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
o The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.” http://www.911truth.org/article.php
* Bio: http://www.burnsweston.com/biodata/vitae.shtmlFrancis Boyle
Francis Boyle, PhD, LLD
Francis Boyle, PhD, LLD – Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. A leading practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.* Article 12/13/06: “The real culprits behind the 2001 anthrax attack on Congress were most likely US government scientists at the army’s Ft. Detrick, MD., bioterrorism lab according to a former government biological weapons legislator and University of Illinois Professor.
Dr. Francis A. Boyle says the FBI covered up these facts and has also quite clearly stated that he doubts the official government story that 19 arabs with boxcutters perpetrated the attacks of 9/11.
“I believe the FBI knows exactly who was behind these terrorist anthrax attacks upon the United States Congress in the Fall of 2001, and that the culprits were US government-related scientists involved in a criminal US government bio-warfare program,” Boyle says in his new book Biowarfare and Terrorism.
Boyle goes on to inquire, “Could the real culprits behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the immediately following terrorist anthrax attacks upon Congress ultimately prove to be the same people? Could it truly be coincidental that two of the primary intended victims of the terrorist anthrax attacks - Senators Daschle and Leahy - were holding up the speedy passage of the pre-planned USA Patriot Act ... an act which provided the federal government with unprecedented powers in relation to US citizens and institutions?” http://infowars.net
* Bio: http://www.law.uiuc.edu/facultyC. Peter Erlinder
C. Peter Erlinder, JD
C. Peter Erlinder, JD – Professor of Law, William Mitchell College of Law. Past President, National Lawyers Guild.* Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:
“We want truthful answers to question. … As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
o An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
o Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
o Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
o The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.” http://www.911truth.org/article.php
* Bio: http://www.wmitchell.edu/academics/facultyWilliam G. Weaver, JD, PhD
No photo available
William G. Weaver, JD, PhD – 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.* Essay 9/5/06: Regarding the 9/11 Commission - “In their responsibility to report all the facts: They either refused to interview all relevant experts and witnesses, or, they censored the reports provided to them by those with direct and first-hand information. Both these acts were selective and intentional. Contrary to their pledge to establish accountability: They refused to hold anyone accountable and lamely justified it by saying, “We don’t want to point a finger at anyone.” http://www.nswbc.org
* Bio: http://academics.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=21347Mark Conrad
Mark Conrad, JD
Mark Conrad, JD – 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.* Signatory of a Letter to Congress regarding the 9/11 Commission Report 9/13/04, signed by 25 military, intelligence, and law enforcement veterans:
“[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …
Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …
The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. ...
The Commission, with its incomplete report of “facts and circumstances”, intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. ...
We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part.” Link to signatories
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 1, 2007 at 12:59 AM First, let me apologize for intruding into what appears to be a private conversation. I will continue to browse this thread but not interrupt any more. I will leave a couple more questions to go unanswered though, on my way out the door.
Joe, in the last couple days I have become almost as curious about your agenda as I am Natalie’s. Is all this to be included in a planned article/book? Why haven’t you just posted links to much of this? Do you in fact know Natalie’s identity, and have proof she works for some government linked entity? Perhaps then I could understand you wanting to get her ‘on record’ in a public forum responding to this onslaught of primarily speculative conjecture. I agree with much of it. The level of coincidence one must accept in looking at our governments history to view its actions as always in the best interests of its citizens has me searching for a name for it; coincidentalists? The disingenuous replies by her such as the one below make me wonder why you would continue.
Far be it from me Joe to understand why you would bring up an attack by another country on us to support your contention that the US routinely conducts operations that sacrifice its own people.
So then why did she try and refute the Liberty claims before? Also, this ignores the points you made about Johnson giving the ok on the attack or our possible role in covering it up afterwards. Then of course there is her assumption re: the 9/11 debate (didnt there use to be one here?) that the government would never sacrifice the lives of Americans. Why so much time trying to convince her? Again, what is your purpose?
Natalie: I already asked you the above question, and your answer sounded so like what I might expect from one of those on the many links you posted. (which I read) So here’s another query for you to ignore. Do you respond to claims about the WTC collapses anywhere else? And if you and Joey ever come up for air, I would love to get your response to my last questions, posted near the top of this page. Are you two in love? Are we witnessing the start of a Tracy/Hepburn style romance here? –Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 1, 2007 at 1:55 AM recursive prophet
First of all please do not apologize you have no reason to and I have looked forward to your questions.As a matter of fact please forgive me for not responding to your early posts. I have been busy fighting against tyranny and oppression by exposing lies and injustice with the light of a truth.
In other words I am a concerned citizen trying to do my part. I have children and I don’t like the direction this country is headed and how that will affect them in the future if its disastrous course is not altered.
I feel the best way to make a difference is to inform people. Information is the key knowledge is power.
I am active in several debates at many different sites on the web here at home and in my community and I am fortunate that my situation allows me to be a more active member of my community.
You said;
Why haven’t you just posted links to much of this?Alot of what is being said now I have posted links to in this thread. If you read this thread from begining to end you will see that I have posted links to this stuff.
If you do take the time to read it (PLEASE DO) you will see that Natalie is not as ignorant as she acts. for example her comments that she just recently had made concerning Northwoods when she had said;
“Northwoods was never approved, and was never a plan to kill Americans. It’s not even clear if it was intended to kill anyone. It’s actually evidence against 9/11 inside job theories. Some even think the whole thing is a hoax.”
Is bulls**t because I have posted links to the original document and listed for her where it does talk about wounding and killing not just citizens but our military personnel as well. I have done this more than once.
So to someone who has not read the entire thread it would seem she just found this out but it as been pointed out to her again and again and again.
The only reason I continue to go over it with her is because there are people on here that do not know it has been discussed before and could fall for her act of ignorance when she debates lies that have already been exposed agin and again and again.
I cant stand the thought of someone being misslead by her bulls**t at all.
Please let me know if you have any questions I will be glad to answer them.
Again sorry for not responding sooner.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 1, 2007 at 3:00 AM recursive prophet
Here is a link to that last post http://patriotsquestion911.com/ As I said before though you will find it on this thread from my posting it as well as others many times. Not that I mind doing it again. I will gladly post links for you to anything you have questions about just ask.
You will see that it is updated with more Professors almost every day.
Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty
From the front lines of the infomation war.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 1, 2007 at 3:36 AM Truth Videos Surge Into Google Top 100; Terror Storm at Number 11
A wave of 9/11 truth and other alternative documentaries have suddenly surged up the Google Video rankings, with three “conspiracy” videos in the top eleven alone, including Alex Jones’ Terror Storm.
Loose Change is at number three and Aaron Russo’s America From Freedom to Fascism at number four.
9/11 Mysteries sits at number fifteen.
Please send this link out to all your friends and e mail lists and help push Terror Storm even further up the charts.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7516705476148472744
Having so many activist documentaries in the higher echelons of the Google top 100 ensures that new people who have not previously encountered this kind of information will become exposed to the truth.
We can provide a fresh outreach to millions more around the world but only with your help. Please help circulate the Terror Storm link and the other great films via Google Video.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 1, 2007 at 5:30 AM To tell you the truth, I’d heard about the Liberty incident before Joe mentioned it, but I was not really aware of all the controversy surrounding it. Upon learning about it, I can’t help but draw parallels with the current 9/11 “truth” debate.
The first thing that struck me about the “truth” movement was that the whole thing just doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t make any sense that our government would murder its own civilians, certainly not on that scale, for any conceivable foreign policy reason. Or any reason for that matter. And, it doesn’t make any sense that Israel would have knowingly attacked one of its few allies. But it does make sense, and it’s well known and often expressed, that Muslim extremists dearly love to kill innocent Americans. And it does make sense, especially after reading the particulars of the Liberty incident, that it was simply an unfortunate accident.
There’s no clear motive advanced in the case of the Liberty, or in the case of the events of 9/11.
The “truth” movement is colored with anti-semetic undertones, with all sorts of charges against Israel/Jews being made by anti-Jewish or anti-“Zionist” (the more politically palatable reference) individuals and groups. White supremacists are keen on 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example. Eric “Painful Questions” Hufschmid, Christopher “Quote Mangler” Bollyn, Rense.com, etc. Even our old friend Rabbit suffered from this vehement disdain for Israel.
And sadly the website (ussliberty.org) that you reference, Joe, employs many of these same types in trying to support their POV. Anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, Holocaust revisionist/denial, etc. The Liberty incident fits nicely in the list of supposed evils committed by Israel.
Another thing I noticed was that in trying to debunk the book by the Judge, the ussliberty website makes some pretty far-fetched claims regarding the photos, and has the idiocy to claim that the Judge would include altered photos in a doctoral thesis. I’m sorry, I just didn’t see the same boogy men in the clouds that they imagined.
And of course, the “truth” movement is rife with this same kind of weak photo and video analysis, like claiming that puffs of debris are explosives, and cropping photos to make the hole in the Pentagon look smaller and less devastating. Prof. Jones has apparently doctored photos for his paper as well. “You can plainly see in the photo” they say. No, I don’t see that in the photo.
I believe I read somewhere that more information on the Liberty is going to be released by the NSA this year. Hopefully that, along with the report by NIST on WTC7, will help to clear up some of these stubborn disagreements.
In the mean time you can read “Case Closed”, which lays out the whole incident in depth, with the help of newly acquired documents and tapes. Blow up the text, sit back, and read something that makes some sense.
Of course, Liberty is not even relevant to the subject at hand, but it is an illustration of the straws these people grasp at to justify their general underlying misconception:
The United States and Israel are the evil ones in the world, and all the rest are innocent lambs trembling in fear for their very survival.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 1, 2007 at 5:43 AM Joe-thanks for the reply, and for all your efforts. I will write a longer post with some questions tomorrow. I figured what you stated was probably where you were coming from, but was curious as to why you posted so much here when I doubt many visit this site, and suspect most already agree with you.
What do you think of Psik’s points about the concrete? I mentioned the links as I have read sites before like you just posted, and wondered why you re-pasted it all here. And yes, I have read most of the last 34 pages and have seen Natalie ignore previous discussions as if they had never occurred and continually fall back on ad homenum attacks as do those at the sites she links. That’s why I questioned your reasoning in taking the time in always responding to her. And believe me, I realize Natalie is as far to the right on the Bell Curve as she is in her political world view. Another user made a comment about her on the newest topic “In You More Than Yourself” that was pretty funny.
Somebody with the right skills should try and triangulate her position a little, as I think proof she was a government shill-as most here suspect-would do far more to advance your case than debating her here. She clearly won’t accept anything but a ‘smoking gun’ on 9/11, so why not get her to commit herself regarding theory? Questions such as whether or not she believes our government has EVER lied to us, and are there not situations where it would be in fact in our best interests they do so?
One further point here; I just checked out the Professors link, and was amazed I had to scroll down past about 15 Professors of Philosophy, English, etc, before I got to the perhaps 10 who were in fields such as structural engineering and physics that were relevant to the expertise required to analyze Jones’s thesis. They should be on the top of the list. But the question that arises, again, is why have so few come forward? Yes, I realize they are going out on an academic limb to do so, but surely there are more than 10 patriots out there that would join the others if they believed in the cause.
Natalie-So now Joe has updated his Liberty posts, what say you? And how can even the few Professors with relevant backgrounds agree there is reason to doubt what happened?
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 1, 2007 at 5:50 AM Ironically, CNN today finally realized that the 9/11 truth movement is infected with Nazi sympathizers and reality deniers:
PAULA ZAHN: We have all heard some absolutely incredible 9/11 conspiracy theories. The web of course is full of them. But tonight we’re bringing one out that feeds on racism out in the open. We were absolutely shocked by one recent poll that found out that one in every three Americans believe the terror attacks were not the work of America’s enemies, but some sort of inside job. And Deborah Feyerick found a smaller percentage who believe an even uglier theory.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This 9/11 attack was not by 19 Arabs. It was not by Muslims.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They talk about a Jewish plot.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everywhere you look you find a Zionist agent.
FEYERICK: A conspiracy by Zionist Israeli intelligence or by Zionist moles in the Bush administration allegedly calling the shots in the Middle East. Websites, magazines, documentaries, radio programs, dozens of them disputing the fact that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was done by a group of Zionists.
FEYERICK: Are you suggesting that al Qaeda had nothing to do with it, that this was all part of a large conspiracy, Zionist or otherwise?
CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN, WRITER: Al Qaeda is in my opinion—has been exploited. I question whether such a group even exists.
FEYERICK: Chicago writer Christopher Bollyn is one of the conspiracy theorists.
BOLLYN: I believe that there are Israeli elements that are connected to the Mossad, that are involved in this attack.
FEYERICK: There’s no physical evidence to support claims that Jews were behind 9/11, but the speculation and rumors, mostly discounted here in the U.S., have gained momentum in Muslim countries where they’re discussed and believed. Deborah Lauder is with the Jewish run Anti-Defamation League.
DEBORAH LAUTER, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: What’s most puzzling is when it reaches the Internet and goes into the Muslim-Arab world, we have this cross-fertilization of hate and this is something we’ve never seen before.
FEYERICK: A whole web of beliefs has grown to support this conspiracy theory. Listen to these Americans interviewed on Iranian television.
VOICE OF ERIC HUFSCHMID: This is a big plot to take control of us, to start war.
FEYERICK: One of the beliefs is that some 4,000 Israelis or Jews in the New York City area were warned by instant messages not to go to work on 9/11. For Wilton Sekzer, a retired police sergeant who is Jewish, the claim is outrageous.
WILTON SEKZER, FATHER OF WTC 9/11 VICTIM: The remains consistent of a piece of bone two and a half inches long and about an inch long, about the size of your index finger.
FEYERICK: And that’s all they ever found?
SEKZER: That’s all they ever found.
FEYERICK: Sekzer’s son Jason died in the towers. He says Jason received no warning. Neither did some 400 Jews who died in the tragedy.
SEKZER: Give me the names of the 4,000 Jews who stayed home. Show me something. There is nothing to show. This is a total, ridiculous, asinine rumor that was started by anti-Semites.
MARK POTOK, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: I think the conspiracy theories in general really do work a bit like a game of telephone. They are told and retold and tend to get more and more far out in the telling.
FEYERICK: When you imply that somehow Israelis were involved in the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, people are going to look at you, critics will say you are an anti-Semite. Are you?
BOLLYN: No, I’m not an anti-Semite. This is the main charge that’s leveled against me and has been for years, even before 9/11, because I am a critic of Zionist policies.
LAUTER: That’s a very common technique among anti-Semites. They will twist things. I’m not an anti-Semite. I just believe XYZ.
FEYERICK: Anti-Semitic or not, the question now, will this 9/11 conspiracy theory become like the Kennedy assassination, analyzed for generations as an unsolved mystery? Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Time to check with our out in the open panel. I’m sure they have plenty to say about this. Lauren, Michael, Deroy, welcome back. All right. So let’s start with the resident Jew on our panel here. You hear this stuff and it just makes you sick to your stomach. There is absolutely no evidence that anybody, other than al Qaeda, was involved with this attack. How upsetting is this to you?
GROSS: Look, we’ve been kicked around for 2,000 years. The face you’re looking at has got a lot of anger in it because of that. That’s not a way to live, wandering around the globe never having a home. It’s pretty difficult because every time there’s trouble, we’re scapegoated. We’re not the only ones that are scapegoated, but we’re scapegoated by people who are frightened. They don’t care. They are paranoid. You can’t debunk this theory. It’s madness as well as idiocy to think that the Jews brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11, but you cannot argue logic to someone who is mentally ill. What frightens me is that the whole nation is frightened and that fear is being fueled by this administration and by the media—not you, just the opposite. I congratulate you and I’m grateful for you seriously, to bring this stuff out, because it is in those times that Jews like other minorities better get scared, better get angry, better fight for what’s right and try and convince people courage is the cure for paranoia, not racism.
ZAHN: Is this just a smear campaign for anti-Semites?
MURDOCK: I agree with Michael. The blame the Jews theme is something that goes back about 2,000 years. It’s a really hardy varietal. But look, I mean we know who pulled off 9/11. Richard Minard (ph) writes about it in his book, the disinformation. He quotes directly from Osama bin Laden who says on a tape we found, we calculated an advanced the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day, unquote, says Osama bin Laden himself.
(CROSSTALK)
LAKE: We have a government that has led us into a war and most Americans, even the smartest of us, sit around and go why, again, are we here in the war? When there are blanks, we often fill in the blanks and those blanks are filled in by misinformation, urban legends. We create stories and people believe things.
ZAHN: You’re talking about a very unpopular war. We’re talking about 9/11.
LAKE: What I’m talking about is the war is based upon what our government told us, this fear that we have from 9/11.
GROSS: This will get worse as the unrest in the Middle East gets worse. This problem will not go away. The reason it wasn’t go away is because we don’t have an administration as we once did that said and counseled us, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. We have just the opposite. We have an administration that fuels fear, that puts up the sign every day that tells us be frightened, stay scared, be worried, and so we are suspicious. We are xenophobic and we don’t like anybody that’s different from us.
ZAHN: How concerned are you that these conspiracy theories will take even deeper hold?
MURDOCK: Look, I think it’s entirely possible. The kind of people who are spreading this sort of stuff will continue to blame the Jews for anything that can go wrong. I think it’s very important as this war on terror continues to point out exactly who the bad guys are which are Islamo-fascists who want you, you, you and me dead and want people dead around the country and they’re engaged in tremendous violence, killing thousands all around the world starting even before 9/11. The ‘93 attack, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. This is a really serious enemy and we need to identify it and we need to educate people.
(CROSSTALK)
LAKE: That’s my point. There are reasons why people are open to belief theories and these reasons will not change unless our government more actively works to inform us of what the real truth is so people are not just playing guessing games.
ZAHN: Lauren Lake, Michael Gross, Deroy Murdock, fascinating discussion. Your anger was palpable during that piece as well. Well understood.
Larry king live is coming up just in a few minutes. Hey Larry. You’re going to talk to the owners of Barbaro tonight?
LARRY KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, well, who wouldn’t be angry with that last story?
ZAHN: I know. I know, but it’s astonishing, wasn’t it, the statistic that one in three Americans believe not that particular conspiracy theory, but one of many?
KING: The old Goebbels theory, you tell a lie long enough, more people will believe it.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 1, 2007 at 6:34 AM Actually, I addressed “Northwoods” long ago, on another thread here at ITT long before Joe entered any discussions, AFAIK:
Item 1: Operation Northwoods
“Loose Change”, (LC hereafter) tells us about a series of proposals that were allegedly presented by the military to officials in the JFK administration, some of which arguably involved deliberate acts of murder in order to justify military action against Cuba. Presumably, this is evidence that murdering thousands on 9/11 is well within America’s propensity.
First of all, one can’t help but notice the blind willingness of the LC “skeptics” to accept that the Northwoods documents are authentic. After listening to everyone from Alex Jones to Stephen Jones tell us that anything and everything coming from the Government is not to be trusted, why is this “revelation” treated as gospel, and not a second thought given to the possibility that the whole thing could be nothing more than disinformation or a hoax. (such as those obviously fabricated DNA results from the pentagon victims) If Northwoods had been legit, might it not be reasonable to suspect that liberals Macnamara and Sorenson would be eager to confirm it, so many years later, because after all it makes them look sensible for rejecting it, and it makes the “right wingers” in the military look bad. Others have pointed out that certain language in the documents is not likely to have been written by Americans, perhaps that the insertion of the documents could be the result of some kind of foreign subterfuge.
Lemnitzer and those who served with him in 1962 as chiefs of the nation’s military branches are dead. But two former top Kennedy administration officials said yesterday that they were unaware of Operation Northwoods and questioned whether such a plan was ever drafted. “I’ve never heard of Operation Northwoods. Never heard of it and don’t believe it,” said Theodore Sorenson, Kennedy’s White House special counsel. “Obviously, it would be totally illegal as well as totally unwise.” Robert S. McNamara, Kennedy’s defense secretary, said: “I never heard of it. I can’t believe the chiefs were talking about or engaged in what I would call CIA-type operations.” Bamford writes that besides the Joint Chiefs, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul H. Nitze also favored “provoking a phony war with Cuba.” “There may be a piece of paper” on Northwoods, said McNamara. “I just cannot conceive of [Nitze] approving anything like that or doing it without talking to me.”
Be this as it may, I actually tend to suspect that the Northwoods proposals are likely authentic. But even if so, they are pretty small potatoes compared to the accusations about 9/11. Start some riots, down a “drone”, maybe kill some Cubans, maybe not. And, if legit, it would be evidence that the U.S. Government is not prone to approving wild schemes, and that wild schemes are not executed without approval. Even though the presence of a Soviet friend so close to the U.S. was an extremely dangerous threat, as evidenced by the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. chose not to deceive the American and Cuban people. I wonder, again assuming legitimacy, if perhaps Kennedy wished he had approved it, while in the midst of the crisis.
Regardless, including “Northwoods” in LC unwittingly makes the case that America does not go around carelessly engaging in deceptive murderous schemes, even if they might have thought about it, and even if it might have actually been well advised in this case. If history had resulted in there being a permanent nuclear threat 90 miles from shore, I have a feeling that a vast majority of Americans would have approved in retrospect of a few innocent deaths, thereby justifying the invasion that would have prevented the fictional permanent Soviet missile presence.
With Northwoods, we’re talking about a peppering of deaths, at worst. Our suspected bomb planters had to know that the potential was there for many tens of thousands of innocent deaths.
In retrospect, I realize that it’s unclear whether anybody at all was really intended to die via Northwoods. I guess you could make that argument, but it would be pure conjecture. It is far from explicitly stated.
But this guy does a much better job at analyzing it than I did. I must say, however, that we came to the same basic conclusions.
He also has answers to some of RP’s questions regarding the cell/air phone calls.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 1, 2007 at 6:50 AM Natalie-So now Joe has updated his Liberty posts, what say you? And how can even the few Professors with relevant backgrounds agree there is reason to doubt what happened?
I responded to Joe re: Liberty above, I assume you didn’t see it before you posted.
There is virtually nobody of any relevant background or education that embraces the 9/11 “theories”.
Jones has been exposed as a photo and quote manipulator, and a shallow, biased researcher.
There’s scarcely a structural or civil engineer among them, but there’s computer programmers, philosophers, history professors and theologians a plenty.
I’m sure you’re interested in the truth, RP. Therefore, I would suggest viewing these videos in addition to the ones Joe points out above:
Posted by Natalie on Feb 1, 2007 at 7:49 AM Do you believe that this government would never sacrifice any citizens in the name of national security? It would allow 3 thousand soldiers to die but not ANY civilians? In the name of the greater good? Certainly our use of air power suggests we have little regard for Iraqi civilians. Could we not call on our own to possibly offer up their lives in a just cause? If not, how would you justify sending so many young men to die while those they are dying for can’t be called upon for any similar sacrifice?
I don’t think it makes any sense to equate military incursions, and the usually unintended civilian casualties that inevitably result. In war, one of our greatest efforts is to protect and keep safe our own soldiers. Friendly fire incidents are one of the most feared and regretted parts of war. I don’t understand how this squares with our supposedly being willing to mass murder our own citizens. These guys constantly try to make the case that this is what we’re all about, but I just don’t see it.
After the allies broke Enigma, they had to let some convoys-with civilians-be sunk or they would have tipped their hand to the Germans. Londoners died daily in bombings. Would it be wrong to shoot down a hijacked plane heading for NYC?
Do you really think that this is going to be accepted by the average person as somehow evidence of mass murder on 9/11? Perhaps a few people were sacrificed in some instance in the past, but what was the motivation? Probably to win the war, and thus protect American’s lives and freedom. That’s a far cry from the motivations that are oft stated by the “truth” crowd. (oil, imperialism, hegemony, etc)
Are you talking about flight 93? Of course it wouldn’t necessarily be wrong to shoot it down, knowing they were going to die anyway and they might kill more people on the ground. Of course it would be better than letting it hit the Capitol Building. In fact, I believe their intention was to shoot it down, but the passengers did their job for them.
I still doubt the government was involved with 9/11. I do remember thinking that day it had the mark of a Mossad operation, not something the Muslims could orchestrate without help from unseen friends. What I find most disturbing is the way the government has responded to the concerns about it from the public. Look at the polls. If Joe is in fact a ‘purveyor of paranoia,’ he’s apparently doing a great job.
You’ve still got a toe in reality, RP. I know of people personally, haters of Bush like yourself, that bought into this nonsense, and I was astounded. It was seductive for them to think they’d discovered that their arch political enemies had committed heinous crimes.
Fortunately I was able to turn them around, and they thanked me for it.
As far as polls go, very, very few people actually believe in the particulars put forth by the “truth” movement. People who believe the towers were bombed and the pentagon was hit by a missile are in the mid to low single digits. Of course, lots more people give you the answer you want when you ask more general questions.
But last time I checked, we don’t solve engineering problems and analyze building collapses by taking polls and watching Google videos. Do you subscribe to that methodology?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 1, 2007 at 8:29 AM “And believe me, I realize Natalie is as far to the right on the Bell Curve as she is in her political world view…..
Just so you know, RP, Joe is even further to the right than I am. He doesn’t even want to pay his taxes and has an issue with democracy:
scorp
You think Im a socialist? You are so far off. I am a pure conservative. Wich is not what Bush is at all. The neo cons have totaly distorted what a conservative is. A true conservative is one who stands for the protection of our constitution the way it is writen. I feel that we Americans should go back to being a Republic not this democracy. Most people dont even no what it means anymore because they are perposely missinformed. The American people are being lied to constintly and have become slaves and dont even know it. Most dont even know that the Federal Reserve is a made for profit privet corporation whos share holders are not American citizens. The American slaves dont know that Tax from their 1040 or W2 goes derictly to the federal reserve to pay off the intrest they charge the tresury for printing the money.
Neo cons are facist. Who was it that said facisim should be called corpratism because it is the perfect merger between the banks and the corporations with the goverment? That is what we have now.
Show me the law that says we have to pay income Tax. Please scorp show me please, please, show me. If you can find the law you can collect the many cash rewards being offerd. Show me the law slave. Show me the law and collect the rewards please slave. Either that or wake up and see what is realy going on.Posted by honestjoe on Aug 30, 2006 at 7:53 PM
Posted by Natalie on Feb 1, 2007 at 9:37 AM Denier’s Conference
Hold onto your binoculars, bird lovers. This so-called “9/11 Accountability Conference” to be held February 23-25 at Chandler’s Crown Plaza San Marcos is being organized by get this a gen-u-wine Holocaust denier.
You heard this cuckoo correctly. The crackpot parade descending on Chandler to discuss why the attacks on 9/11 were an inside job by George W. Bush & Co. are to be led by Eric D. Williams, author of the self-published tome The Puzzle of Auschwitz, which claims there were no gas chambers at the infamous Nazi concentration camp, that Jews were not systematically murdered there, and that, furthermore, Hitler’s Final Solution’s a prevarication propagated by an international Zionist conspiracy.
Wow! This cockamamie cock-of-the-rock thinks the wacky 9/11 “truth” crowd has finally jumped the proverbial shark!
Williams himself makes the connection between Holocaust-denial fruitcakery and the wacktivism of 9/11 refuseniks in his intro to The Puzzle of the Holocaust by referring to his previous tome The Puzzle of 9/11, asking, “If we are being lied to about the events of September 11, and its pursuing ‘War on Terror,’ then what else have we been lied to [sic]?”
Williams, er, denied he’s an anti-Semite or a member of any white-power or neo-Nazi org. Still, his book and his role in the powwow call into question the legitimacy of a conference that, even without him, would be a few clowns short of a circus.
The Rest of the Story ..........Good day
Posted by Natalie on Feb 1, 2007 at 10:57 AM Natalie
I am busy but as soon as Im done I will get to your posts it looks like I missed when you were busy posting last night.
recursive prophet
Natalie said;
“Just so you know, RP, Joe is even further to the right than I am. He doesn’t even want to pay his taxes and has an issue with democracy:”Taxes
The first thing Reagan did when elected was apoint a panel headed by Peter Grace to look into the federal tax system. Here is a quote from the Grace Commission “100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt. All individual income tax revenue is far gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from the government. “
Not one cent of our income tax goes to schools, military, roads, and ect.
The American people have been told that their income tax is needed or goes to fund our government and that is a LIE. The real reason behind the income tax is not to raise revenue but to redistribute wealth and to control society.
and
She is right I do feel that a democracy is dangerous because it is a one-vote system as opposed to to a Republic, which is a three vote system: Three votes to check tyranny, not just one!
The base of power was to remain in WE THE PEOPLE but unfortuately, it was lost to those leaders acting in the name of government, such as politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, ect.
As a result America began to function like a democracy instead of a REPUBLIC.
You were wondering why haven’t I just posted links to much of this and why I re-paste it all here.I find that it has made Natalie respond to more of the evidence when it is pasted for her and others to see. Though she will still act like she cant see some of it (but not as bad as before) and will avoid it or worse she will act like she forgot something that we had gone over and reuse an argument that has been killed by the truth.
That is one of the things that I cant stand so I started posting it here to force her to stop pretending it does not exist. Yet sometimes I have to do it again and again before she will see it, read it, talk about it, come to terms with it, and finaly except it. Also you can see the double think much more clearly.
For example if I was able to paste the Northwoods document on here Natalie could no longer continue to act is if she has never seen where it clearly talks about not just civilians but the wounding and killing of United States military personnel. But since I can only link to it she will continue to act clueless as to what it clearly states in the Northwoods document. Or she wil act as if it can be argued if the Northwoods document ment to wound and kill when there is absolutely no question that it did.This is so close to the debates I have with Natalie you must watch!
The end is exactly how she gets me to feel so many times.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 2, 2007 at 2:52 AM Joe and Natalie: my favorite ITT debaters. You have to admit she really is clever, Joe. Far more than I, and I suspect even you. Have to tell you she is winning overall. Hard to explain why,but 2 big reasons pop out. She is incredibly adept at dialectic, though the effect is weakened by repeated and totally irrelevant ad homs. And 2, there are a few serious flaws I see in Faiths conjectures. I have never encountered your argument regarding their motives. They surely could have drawn us into a desired-for many possible reasons-war in the Mideast with a smaller attack with less loss of life. Why would they take such a huge risk? I think it would be more likely the explosives were already in place as a failsafe against the building falling over and doing far more damage. Of course this idea also has some major flaws, but doing it and then covering it up would make far more sense than planning the attack. I fear you give these people credit for far more competence than they deserve. What was it? Seventeen different attempts to assassinate Castro? Only Mossad could have pulled that off without leaving any fingerprints behind.
Natalie, I did Google the guy heading up that conference on Liberty in Arizona, and he looks pretty tainted. This said, I fear Israel has begun to emulate the behavior of those who persecuted them 6 decades back.
I have long been a sort of apologist for this besotted nation as it is my long standing belief something quite interesting occurred in the DNA of the Ashkenazi tribe going way back that we still dont comprehend. Nearly all of my heroes are from this ridiculously small group of humans. From Einstein to Chomsky to Szasz to Mailer, to name just a few, no other group I am aware of is even close in terms of contributions to civilization relative to their numbers. It inclines me to cut them an incredible amount of slack. But the Israeli government is even more screwed up than ours, with religious fundamentalist exerting more power than they do here. They feel threatened for good reason, and are dependent on our support. This situation has led to them taking of path so contrary to their collective nature Im afraid it is an ominous omen for our future.
You two have been throwing so many facts and long pastes on this thread do you really think any can follow it all at this point? Why not debate the issues based on agreed upon events? Like what actions could be justified if they fulfilled the desires of the majority? We consume far more than our numbers can justify on a planet of dwindling resources. If we are to maintain that disparity we are going to have to kill a lot of people, militarily or otherwise. For example by burning corn for our large autos we have doubled the costs for tortillas-which the majority poor live on-in Mexico in the last 2 months. Is it defendable? Isnt it how we have evolved?
For you, Joe, why havent far more people with expertise in the relevant fields come forward on this? Do you have any doubts? If not, it should raise a red flag, for both of you. And Natalie, why do you and the sites I visited rely so heavily on ad homenum attacks against those trying get the events of 9/11 re-examined? Would you agree that there is an inordinate amount of coincidence at play here? That the current administration has acted on an agenda with little regard for advice from others and made the situation regarding terrorism worse? Any hidden doubts about things not being as you so adeptly present them? I will try and be more coherent tomorrow, but wanted to make some reply tonight and had a busy day. You guys should do an IM debate and then post it here. The facts have been presented and analyzed ad nausea. Until something new comes along, why not try and strip it down to core philosophical differences?
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 2, 2007 at 9:32 AM Joe and Natalie: my favorite ITT debaters. You have to admit she really is clever, Joe. Far more than I, and I suspect even you. Have to tell you she is winning overall. Hard to explain why,but 2 big reasons pop out. She is incredibly adept at dialectic, though the effect is weakened by repeated and totally irrelevant ad homs.
Thanks for some of that RP, but I take exception with your ad hom characterization. If anything, I’ve been the greatest victim of this throughout this thread. In fact, you yourself have seen fit to suspect me of being some kind of Govt. agent, as have others here. I can’t imagine a much greater ad hom than the “shill” accusation. Even just above, you seem to be saying that I’m merely being clever rather than doing what is my intention, which is simply to point out the weaknesses of the “inside job” thesis. Now, you may be confusing my reaction to repeated vicious ad homs directed at me, and the fact that this thread is coming off another one of great length where I was also savaged with ad homs—with me relying heavily on ad homs—which would be an inaccurate assessment.
And Natalie, why do you and the sites I visited rely so heavily on ad homenum attacks against those trying get the events of 9/11 re-examined? Would you agree that there is an inordinate amount of coincidence at play here? That the current administration has acted on an agenda with little regard for advice from others and made the situation regarding terrorism worse? Any hidden doubts about things not being as you so adeptly present them?
I think the first site I listed for you upon your arrival here was 9/11Myths, which is one of the most polite, non-ad hom sites that exist. Debunking 9/11 expresses some of the same frustrations I do with these guys, but the rest of my links are pretty benign as well.
Again, be aware that most of the people that say negative, seemingly ad hom things about the “truth” crowd are for the most part reacting to the same being directed at them, usually in a vastly more vicious way. And of course, you must take into account the utter amazement and various levels of disdain that result from seeing a group of people come to such unfounded conclusions, and rabidly spread those conclusions, about a very emotional event in history that demands a clear and accurate portrayal.
As far as the administration and its performance, that is a completely different issue. A lot of conservatives like myself are dissatisfied and disappointed. However, it too has been the victim of the mother of all ad homs, having been accused of deliberately murdering thousands of innocent citizens with no credible evidence.
Again, I’ll portray this in personal terms. How would you feel if you, your relatives or friends were accused of murder, using evidence that would be laughed out of court? Would you perhaps find yourself guilty of using an occasional ad hom to describe your accusers?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 2, 2007 at 6:06 PM Ah Natalie, such a bright lass you are. You caught my circular ad homenum right away. Been years since I studied logic. I’m weak on the intricacies. I agree there are a lot of personal attacks all over this site, and hope you realize I truly am a fan of yours. Do I believe you work in some way, on whatever level, for me and my tax dollars? Yes, I still strongly suspect that, but perhaps it is but wishful thinking. If only our taxes could always reap such value in terms of the competence of those they employ.
Again, I’ll portray this in personal terms. How would you feel if you, your relatives or friends were accused of murder, using evidence that would be laughed out of court? Would you perhaps find yourself guilty of using an occasional ad hom to describe your accusers?
Now there’s an example of what I am talking about. How could you feel that YOU were in any way being attacked unless you were a part of the government being accused? They are only attacking the veracity of the government, are they not? Has someone on another thread accused you of being the mastermind or a major part of the plot? And regarding the argument you make here, again my informal logic is rusty. Is this one I forgot? The ad homenum redeux? Your initial AH negates my AH reply, thus circumventing the lack of relevance issues? Hmm?
To really make my case on the Natalie Shill conjecture would take hours of deconstruction of all stated in these 34 pages. I sense a certain style that echoes the anti-Faith sites, and a diplomatic structure within your replies. Thing is, it’s irrelevant to the topic here. It would give you a vested interest in the viewpoints you express. But the Faith crowd also has them, which is why in my last post I encouraged Joe to examine his own motives/doubts. When you have invested much time proving a hypothesis, it is likely as hard to see the flaws any more clearly than one who’s income derives from proving it isn’t true will perceive elements supporting it.
Joe’s position on taxes and government is another of your non sequiturs. “If you can bear to here the truth you’ve spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.” Kipling had it right, Natalie, IF you are merely seeking truth. I have read the insults hurled at you, and they only diminish the position of the flamers. When you respond even marginally in kind however, it makes me wonder as you clearly know better.
Pointing out associations with those such as Eric Williams-interesting guy to Google-is quite valid, but read again what you pasted above. The crackpot parade? That 9/11 link you posted overflows with ad homs, Natalie, and if you fail to see them I can paste on some choice ones but it really shouldn’t be necessary. And I’m not talking about pointing out most of the Faith Professors are in fields mostly unrelated to analysis of 9/11. That is valid! I mean statements about Jones I have read that are spurious and misleading, and many other attempts to tar the messengers instead of the message.
Think I’ll get this off now and continue later. Are you by some chance of Ashkenazi descent, Natalie? Consider that query my ultimate compliment.—Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 2, 2007 at 11:08 PM recursive prophet
I have not had any time to post and still dont so I will make this quick.You gave me the impession that you are unaware of the fact that “something new comes along” weekly. In all areas of the 9/11 false flag attack on “US”.
If you want to know about the buildings you should look at all the updates here.
The fact that a device as been made and “recently” tested to cut through vertical steel columns in a fraction of a second. Held on magnetically for quick placement and remote detonated (NO WIRES NEEDED)! Also the device was made by useing an OLD patent that was obtained before 9/11.
Plus more and more steel samples have been obtained and analyzed and do show signs of controled demolition! Something NIST refuses to do. Remeber NIST never to this day have they tested the steel for any kind of explosive residue.
Now in the area of our national intelligence more and more has been comming out that shows for a FACT that at the very least 9/11 was allowed to happen and the administration’s story that they thought the warnings in the months leading up to 9/11 had to do with U.S. interests outside of the U.S. is not credible.
Richard Ben-Veniste said the following to Condoleezza Rice the following question during her appearance before the 9/11 Commission:
“The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well documented, and Richard Clarke’s testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well documented. You acknowledged that Richard Clarke told you that Al-Qaeda cells were in the United States.
(or watch the video).
The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”.
The CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 “that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected” according to a broadcast on National Public Radio
Newsweek stated “On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns” (pay-per-view; cached version of article here)
An employee who worked in the south tower stated “How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we’d been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on”
And a guard who worked in the world trade center stated that “officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks”
According to MSNBC, “There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets”.
For example, a 1998 report forwarded from the FBI to the Federal Aviation Administration concluded that “a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane . . . into the World Trade Center”.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland, had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft”. In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run.
And a pre-9/11 National Intelligence Estimate was entitled “Islamic Extremists Learn to Fly”, and was apparently about Islamic people taking classes at U.S. flight schools.
So Natalie’s excuse for the government does not work!
I am sorry I dont have any time but I will answer all the question you asked as soon as I am done.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 3, 2007 at 6:34 AM recursive prophet
This study unlike NIST’s had done a thermodynamic analysis and this study was done with the effect on NON isulated steel in a building with NO sprinkler system and No fire proofing material filling gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through and it was calculated with office furniture that was highly flamable!!!!!
And this study is with a jet going faster than on 9/11 and has more fuel than on 9/11!Maximum speed and fuel load!
600 miles per hour with more fuel on board than on 9/11!
A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:
3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
—City in the Sky, p 131“our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
—City in the Sky
They felt confident that it could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!
Glanz and Lipton summarize the findings of the white paper:The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers’ calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
—City in the Sky, p 133
AND THAT WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING!!!!John Skilling:
“live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.”
—John Skilling, in Engineering News Record, 4/2/1964
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209’ DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
—City in the Sky, p 134-6
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 3, 2007 at 8:09 AM Hi Joe—I truly do admire your tenacity in bringing this matter to public attention, and as I myself still harbor some doubts I will be happy to serve as a John Q. Public that has yet to decide. But as you can see reading my posts, I am skeptical.
Are you familiar with the word apophenia? Surprised Natalie hasn’t used it. Wiki has a good definition, and I think it is quite possible this phenomenon is at play within the Faith community. With an event as complicated an far reaching as 9/11, there is bound to be a large number of coincidences. If we are not careful which ones we select for constructing our perspective, we may see patterns that are themselves actually coincidental. For example, if you dumped a bag of jelly beans on a table and then afterwards arbitrarily picked one color of the beans that arguably formed a pattern of some sort. It is sort of related to hindsight bias, but I need to develop a better example
Most of what you presented in your last 2 posts I have read before, such as the simulation predictions. And the most recent article in the update link you just posted was filed over a year ago. Hate to be a doubting Thomas, but the biggest ‘holes’ I see are in the Faith arguments, and I truly want to believe. Like the majority on this planet, I see our government as being the greatest threat to world peace, and proof of these charges would seal it. Anything short of that can work against us, making all who stand against this government look like conspiracy addicts willing to create myths to make our point.
I admit there is an awful lot of suspicious coincidence here, but at this point it is only that. If you could even prove that Natalie or some of the Truth sites were sponsored by groups such as this, I think it would make a stronger case than any speculative conjecture or coincidental cherry picking. I agree it looks like a duck, but until I hear the quack I shall not be convinced. (Can’t you just see Natalie’s reply to this statement? ” If you want to hear the ‘quacks’, just listen to some of the ‘Doctors’ at the Faith site” Sorry Natalie, but I just couldn’t leave you such a easy lob for a cheap shot.
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 3, 2007 at 9:01 AM recursive prophet
Yes there are originating IP address’s that are from Langley, VA…
BBC News: Pentagon boosts ‘media war’ unit:The newly-established unit would use “new media” channels to push its message and “set the record straight”, Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff said.
“We’re looking at being quicker to respond to breaking news,” he said.
“Being quicker to respond, frankly, to inaccurate statements.”
A Pentagon memo seen by the Associated Press news agency said the new unit would “develop messages” for the 24-hour news cycle and aim to “correct the record”.
The unit would reportedly monitor media such as weblogs and would also employ “surrogates”, or top politicians or lobbyists who could be interviewed on TV and radio shows.
a new ‘media war’ unit being set up last October.
the Information Operations Roadmap (PDF)Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military’s psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.
“Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience,” it reads.
“Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public,” it goes on.
the Decider in Chief wants to “catapult the propaganda” until we believe his lies.“Burson-Marsteller‘s BKSH & Assocs., has been hired by The Lincoln Group, one of three firms selected last month by the U.S. Special Operations Command to wage psychological warfare on behalf of the Pentagon in Iraq and other hot spots,” O’Dwyer’s PR Daily reports. “BKSH has experience on the Iraqi front earned from work for Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress. Col. James Treadwell, director of the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, said TLG was selected to develop ‘cutting-edge types of media,’ including radio/TV ads, documentaries, text messages, Internet spots and podcasts for the U.S. military. The Pentagon expects to spend $3M in the first-year as a ‘test,’ and could spend up to $300M over five years if the ‘psyops’ operations conducted by TLG, SYColeman and Science Applications International Corp are deemed successful.”
What they do there they have been doing here for even longer.
Lou Dobbs show
DOBBS: Roger, let me turn to one journalism question for all of you. As you know, the Washington Post reporting that the Pentagon used a number of—well, sources, if you will, for misinformation campaigns, including this network. What is your sense as to what should be both the reaction of the media, to being used by—for psyops operations by the Pentagon and what should be the reaction of the American people?
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 3, 2007 at 9:30 AM recursive prophet
You said;
And the most recent article in the update link you just posted was filed over a year ago.
?????????????Articles
Volume 7 - January 2007
Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1
Robert Moore, Esq.
Volume 6 - December 2006
The NIST WTC Investigation—How Real Was The Simulation?, Word version
Eric Douglas, R.A.
Volume 5 - November 2006
9/11 - Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition
Frank Legge
Volume 4 - October 2006
A Critical Review of WTC ‘No Plane’ Theories
Eric Salter
Volume 3 - September 2006
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, Word Document, French Translation
Steven E. JonesUpdates: ISU Physics Dept. talk and Italian 9/11 Conference video
FAQ: Questions and AnswersSeismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
Volume 2 - August 2006
What is 9/11 Truth? - The First Steps
Kevin RyanTo whom it may concern
Frank R. GreeningReply to Dr. Greening (See also How the Towers were Demolished)
Gordon RossIntersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11
Joseph P. Firmage118 Witnesses: The Firefighter’s Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers
Graeme MacQueenNIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire
Frank Legge
Volume 1 - June 2006WTC 7: A Short Computation
Kenneth L. Kuttler9/11 - Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations
Frank Legge9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions
Frank LeggeThe Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks
Scholars for 9/11 TruthMomentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1
Gordon Ross
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 3, 2007 at 9:40 AM Do I believe you work in some way, on whatever level, for me and my tax dollars? Yes, I still strongly suspect that, but perhaps it is but wishful thinking. If only our taxes could always reap such value in terms of the competence of those they employ.
I assure you, it is indeed wishful thinking. It so fascinates me that I get accused of this. It’s not just me, but apparently anyone who dares to present a coherent and effective rebuttal. I’m flattered that you think what I write might qualify for compensation, but…if only!! Actually, the govt. itself seems to be doing next to nothing in attempting to refute these allegations, short of a long overdue little FAQ put out by NIST. It falls upon us ordinary citizens, largely. And in my case I do mean ordinary. As in yawn.
Again, I’ll portray this in personal terms. How would you feel if you, your relatives or friends were accused of murder, using evidence that would be laughed out of court? Would you perhaps find yourself guilty of using an occasional ad hom to describe your accusers?
Now there’s an example of what I am talking about. How could you feel that YOU were in any way being attacked unless you were a part of the government being accused?
No, I don’t feel personally attacked by the movement, I was just trying to convey how improper it is to accuse someone of something so heinous without any evidence, by bringing it down to a personal level. I’m not here to defend the government. All I’m really defending is simple reality, and the plain logic that demands that we don’t distort it. In fact, from what I’ve seen, I would venture to guess that the majority of “debunkers” lean to the left. It just so happens that I’m on the right. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read something to the effect: “I hate this administration as much as the next guy, but this stuff is just stupid!”
To really make my case on the Natalie Shill conjecture would take hours of deconstruction of all stated in these 34 pages. I sense a certain style that echoes the anti-Faith sites, and a diplomatic structure within your replies. Thing is, it’s irrelevant to the topic here. It would give you a vested interest in the viewpoints you express. But the Faith crowd also has them, which is why in my last post I encouraged Joe to examine his own motives/doubts. When you have invested much time proving a hypothesis, it is likely as hard to see the flaws any more clearly than one who’s income derives from proving it isn’t true will perceive elements supporting it.
So in essence you’re calling me a liar, because I explained to you quite politely and earnestly in an earlier post that I’m simply speaking for myself and certainly not getting any money for it. Thanks. ;-) I’m afraid this might be considered another ad-hom by you. ;-)
Most, if not all the money here is being made by the “truth” movement. That little convention we talked about with the denier dude at the helm will cost you $129 a head. Most all of these so called experts has either a book, a DVD or a T-shirt to sell you. Our friends at “Loose Change” are getting ready to take their show to the big screen, and one of the partners brags about how he’s been able to quit his job and “do this full time”. They’ve literally become rockstars with a little Internet movie they made by using selective clips and quotes from the media. Of course they don’t mention the fact that there’s been a 3 foot tall, 20 million dollar investigation conducted that concludes there were no explosive devices used to bring down any of those buildings. We don’t need silly stuff like that in our movie, especially when we’re about to get really rich off it.
Joe’s position on taxes and government is another of your non sequiturs.
Actually, it was meant to illustrate that the people who subscribe to these alternative 9/11 theories are usually from one of the ideological fringes, and/or usually harbor some other pretty non-conventional beliefs.
Pointing out associations with those such as Eric Williams-interesting guy to Google-is quite valid, but read again what you pasted above. The crackpot parade? That 9/11 link you posted overflows with ad homs, Natalie, and if you fail to see them I can paste on some choice ones but it really shouldn’t be necessary. And I’m not talking about pointing out most of the Faith Professors are in fields mostly unrelated to analysis of 9/11. That is valid! I mean statements about Jones I have read that are spurious and misleading, and many other attempts to tar the messengers instead of the message.
Yes, I know that comedy/reality piece was filled with some pretty darn funny ad homs, and sorry that rubs you so wrong. But his opinion of the movement is well supported by facts and investigations. As are criticisms of Jones, who coincidentally also employs a couple “Shoah-shirkers” in his footnotes.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 3, 2007 at 10:09 AM Here’s a link to the video that goes along with the CNN transcript I reproduced above.
It should be noted that Christopher Bollyn and Eric Hufschmid are featured in both the CNN piece and in Steven E. Jones’ footnotes.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 4, 2007 at 5:48 AM Joe-sorry about my brainfart last night; I was tired, and with all the talk of the 08 election was thinking this WAS 08! Sorry. So much data overloading my waning wetware. However when I saw my error I did read the more recent articles. I have to tell you, I seriously question the Faith strategy of posting page after page of supporting speculation, however compelling. It would make sense on sites for the scientific and engineering communities, but not ones such as this. I think you need to work on an effective summary of this info for the general public. Just a thought.
Natalie-first please accept my sincere apology for any offense I have given you here. I was trying to make it clear that your motives or agenda were mostly irrelevant, as we all have them. Thinking about this a couple days ago, I realized you were probably too bright to be one of uncles hacks anyway, though in ways you fit the profile. But you’d be a perfect fit as one of the righteous daughters of Zion. Again likely wishful thinking, as I would love to have the chance to discuss the current operational strategy being employed by Israeli spin writers in cyberspace and other media outlets. They are so dominant here they risk a massive public backlash.
The political winds are blowing from a different direction now, and I would hate to see Israel held to task for it’s collaboration with the neo-cons in the US over the last 25 years. Many of those in the Faith movement are anti-Israel for good reason. There are hopeful signs the body politic there may also be shifting, and in an ideal world both countries could purge the Nazis among them before they again regained control. We all have a hidden little Nazi deep inside, don’t we? I know I do. There are only 13 million Jews worldwide, yet I would not hesitate if I had to choose between saving them or the one and a half billion Muslims. I would not, however, try and argue my choice was fair or just. We are all biased, and primarily inclined to favor those whom for a variety of reasons we respect.
So a couple more questions Natalie. Do you believe it is probable that our government and others employ propagandists to attempt influencing the debate online? Would you agree that the U.S. has helped install dictators in countries all over Latin America (Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, etc.) and beyond solely to further our own interests? Is there ANY doubt in your mind that Joe might in fact be right? Please state your philosophical reasons here, not a further delineation of the various facts which may be disputed forever. Even you admit the government has done a poor job responding to all this, and I suspect what we are really looking at is incompetence on such a level it is hard to believe.
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 4, 2007 at 11:32 AM No offense taken, RP, because I’ve been laughing at these assertions for a long time now, knowing of course that they couldn’t be further from the truth. But it continues to fascinate, and I guess flatter in some strange way.
I think now you understand my frustration at Joe’s lengthy posts consisting of disparate supposedly relevant coincidences. They mean nothing until put together into a credible, verifiable and reasonably concise narrative, and in fact tend to weaken his case, whatever that exactly is. I could surely use the same technique to superficially advance virtually ANY idea, as could you.
But you and Joe both tend to talk way too much about politics, and national agendas. This is indicative to me of a lack of any real, relevant physical or testimonial evidence to support the core assertions put forth by the “truth” movement, although I know you are tending not to buy into them. (Good for you.) Politics is politics, and all nations have agendas, but I hope you agree that intentional mass murder of our own civilians is not on our agenda, and never has been. That kind of thing is reserved for communist and fascist regimes, they really truly having murdered millions of their own citizens quite intentionally.
Yes, I know, Armstrong Williams was paid by the education dept.to promote a domestic social policy, but 90% of the media are paid daily to put a positive spin on the liberal agenda, and a negative spin on anything conservative or Republican. And I’m quite confident there have been numerous instances of liberal journalists getting paid either directly or indirectly by liberal administrations to advance liberal agendas. Their advantage is that they don’t have much of anyone working to expose them, and if someone does, the story never gets any legs. But such is life, and this kind of normal politics is far removed from what some imagine.
Do I accuse some liberal, who argues that Clinton has no responsibility for not getting bin Laden, and letting the 9/11 plot be planned under his watch, of being paid by Hill-Pac to help sweep it under the rug? No, I don’t, but it wouldn’t surprise me. But do I try to turn something as pedestrian as this into some crazy theory like Bill Clinton helped facilitate the towers being attacked because then he could be in the spotlight as the national savior, his sexual predator legacy would be forgotten, and the plan was actually supposed to take place a year earlier and then it was impossible to stop it? No. That would be ridiculous, now wouldn’t it?
The foreign policy of the United States has always been first and foremost to PROTECT its citizens. Whatever dictators may have been supported or not I think has been primarily to further that goal, regardless of the ultimate wisdom and final outcome of each individual case. I hardly see how any talk of dictator installations can somehow be used to argue for an “inside job”.
Extraordinary accusations require extraordinary proof, at least to be taken seriously. That as of yet has NOT been provided by the so called “truth” movement. That is why they are NOT taken seriously by any legitimate segment of the scientific or engineering community, nor by any legitimate journalist or media organization.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 6, 2007 at 7:44 PM Natalie-Other obligations will delay my full reply, but let me say I was somewhat surprised-thought you were older. Now the innocence of your pooh-poohing our history makes me wonder. The talk of dictator installations-like the Shah-is indicative of the corrupt mindset of our government. And there have been countless examples-ask some of the few remaining older citizens of Nevada-where it has sacrificed it’s own in the name of the greater good. I asked you before why this would not be acceptable, and you didn’t reply. It all speaks to the distrust that accumulates over time. Can you really trust a government that would kill thousands of civilians in Iraq to be humane and totally beneficent toward the less influential of its own citizens? “Each one hopes if he feeds the crocodile enough”...? These are the kind of issues I wish to discuss with you.
Honest, I am not necessarily in opposition to your goals, Natalie. What bothers me about our national gestalt is the unbearable hypocrisy. That is what we must address before any rational discussion can transpire. That is why so many are willing to listen to those who believe our leaders were complicit in 9/11. Our consumption of energy funds the activities of those plotting our doom, yet we attack them with missiles instead of curbing our consumption. How do you trust such leadership? Should you? This is what fuels the debate here, not the physics which not one in a hundred comprehend. So many lies from the past naturally fuel suspicion.
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 6, 2007 at 8:47 PM OK, I think you’re saved from the virus. Perhaps not by me alone, but I congratulate you on critically thinking through this minefield of disinformation and coming to the correct conclusions, regardless of the mists of suspicion still lingering in your mind.
You are correct, there was no deliberate implosion of the WTC, there was no missile fired into the Pentagon and the hijackers were not “allowed” to do what they did. Fascinating propositions to some, but non of it fits with the cold hard facts and simple physics.
You are also correct to make the point that governments, certainly not only this one, have helped to fuel conspiracy theories by their reluctance to share information, by sometimes their inability to share information, and yes by the telling of an occasional whopper or by their sometimes stubborn refusal to admit to being wrong.
But you’ve lost me on where some kind of basic evil intent figures in with all this.
Coincidentally, as I write this I am watching a presentation of “In the Face of Evil”, the story of how Reagan from long before his presidency started working against communism, and how during his presidency he was such a key factor in its decline.
It documented the serious intent on the part of the Soviets to dominate the globe, and the many covert actions initiated by Reagan and the CIA. Special Ops, Grenada, aid to local anti-communist forces etc. The alliances with other like-minded freedom fighters, such as the Solidarity movement in Poland, the Pope, Maggie Thatcher and ironically, the likes of Osama bin Laden.
The contrast between Reagan’s world-view, and that of Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry etc. couldn’t be more stark.
At the time, many people including myself thought Reagan was an “amiable dunce”, and a dangerous cowboy who was destined to get us into a nuclear war. Reagan was literally evil, his actions were imperialistic, illegal, dangerous, and ridiculous.
But I, and the liberals at CNN I quoted earlier, have learned so much we didn’t know at the time regarding exactly what was going on inside Reagan’s head and inside his inner circle. We didn’t understand how CIA actions that were portrayed by our liberal leaders as evil were actually noble and very necessary, albeit not always pretty and without side-effects. The Carter approach to dealing with genuine evil in this world, which was on the march, would have been pure disaster, and the march likely irreversible.
So all is not always as it seems. We (and many others who truly cherish freedom) are the good guys in this world. Maybe not always perfect—we may have interned a few hundred thousand of our own citizens in the 40s, and we may have killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese during the 60s and 70s and we may have a few greedy corporations—but our basic intent is good, and our prime directive is to protect our citizens, not intentionally murder them like our former Soviet “friends” were so fond of doing.
It’s really not so much about oil. It’s about conflicting ideas regarding individual freedom. The real hypocrisy is that some of us who are always whining about “human rights” are the first to apologize for and concede to those that really don’t have any regard for them.
BTW, is that yet another ad-hom by you—implying that I am young and naive? :-)
Perhaps you are correct. All I can do is give you my opinion, and I do appreciate yours.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 7, 2007 at 2:13 AM Oh Natalie-Ive always known what was going on in Reagans head; next to nothing! Ever see a show from back then called the Dukes of Hazard? It was Ronnie Ray-guns favorite show, and that alone speaks volumes if you ever saw it. I fear you’ve been reading the wrong history books. And no, my remark about your youth would go under Argument from Experience, but a fallacy nonetheless. (And for most women a compliment as well, logic aside)
Freedom, Natalie? My you ARE an innocent. (there I go again, as the man who gave missiles to Iran to kill children in Nicaragua liked to say) I strongly suspect if I could establish the number of people this country has killed (not including WWs I and II) in the name of our freedom, it would astound you. Know the story of Monkey Hill in Panama? From the Philippines, to Nicaragua, to Iran and Korea and Vietnam, it is always to protect our freedom. The greatest threat I perceive to my freedom is our own government. Its foundation was always habeas corpus, and now Bush has taken that away. Guess if you buy into his lame statement: “They hate us because of our freedom;” it makes sense. He will take our freedom away, and then they won’t hate or envy us, right?
It appears my view that in fact this country represents the greatest threat to world peace is now shared by a sizable majority of the citizens of planet Earth. I guess we can thank W for that, though it has been my belief ever since my college days. Follow the numbers, Natalie. Our level of consumption so far exceeds our percentage of the worlds population that it alone should suggest we are not dealing fairly with our fellow survivors on this island in the sky. They hate us because we use our military power to steal their resources and install corrupt puppet governments that will allow us to continue doing so. We are the bad guys, Natalie, and the rest of the world is awakening to that fact. Bush promised he would bring people together, and he has. He has united a real consenus that the problem is us. Are they all wrong? Just bad PR on our part? And remember, our media serves up a feel good message concerning our image abroad cause it sells more soap.
Thanks for the link. Dont think I will get that particular flu, but I sure do understand why so many have caught it and am suspicious of the vaccine. It may well be too late to deal fairly with the rest of the world; this I will concede. Overpopulation is at the point there is no hope the planet could survive all having anything close to the stolen/borrowed lifestyle we enjoy here. But I will never see it as being about freedom or justice. It is all about a shameless, selfish, wasteful consumption and ‘might makes right. Its how we got this far as a species-we certainly didn’t invent it-and those who righteously hate us would surely do the same or worse if they could. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my dour rants, and hope I haven’t stolen any of your youthful innocence. Hope makes a good breakfast, but a poor supper.—Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 7, 2007 at 7:28 AM THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
This report had done an analysis of an impact and fires resulting from the collision of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy (because of the faster speed) than on 9/11, despite the slightly smaller size and it was calculated with a maximum load that was more weight than on 9/11 and carrying more fuel than on 9/11. Also This study unlike NIST’s had done a thermodynamic analysis and this study was done with the effect on NON isulated steel in a building with NO sprinkler system and No fire proofing material filling gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through and it was calculated with office furniture that was highly flamable!!!!!
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
—City in the Sky, p 131 (They felt confident that it could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!)“our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
—City in the Sky“The residual velocity and mass of the engine after penetration of the exterior wall was sufficient to fail a core column in a direct impact condition. Interaction with additional interior building contents prior to impact or a misaligned impact against the core column could change this result.” (NISTp382 para10)
The most dense and massive component of the aircraft, the engine, could cause, at most, only one column to fail—-and only if it were aligned perfectly and struck the column directly. In WTC 2, one of the engines (and a landing gear) exited the building without significant obstruction. (NISTp390 para5)
So, if the engines could fail, at most, one column in WTC 2 and two columns in WTC1, what could have failed all of the other columns?
NIST states a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.
“Figure 8-10 shows that only two columns had a demand-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p240 para2)
The critical load ratio was well over 10.0, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers’ calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.(AND THAT WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING!)
—City in the Sky, p 133NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
The official theory is essentially based on the claim that fire brought down 3 steel-reinforced skyscrapers for the first time in history and all on the same day:
In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!
The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable!
After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C)
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)
In the original design claims the WTC was rated 1A or built to class 1A standerds.
Yet NIST states that the buildings were rated only as Class 1B, wich still requires testing and means it had to be certified by some place like UL at “2,000 F” (1093 C) for 3 hours for columns and 2 hours for floors.
Also according to NY code at the time of construction it had to be tested to a standerd called ASTM E119 for testing both steel componets and floor assembilies.
“The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii
The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
# NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy.
# Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy.
# Using masses and specific heats for materials heated, a maximum temp in the impact zone can be calculated.
# The result is less than 600 F (316 C) Assuming fuel bruned with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, no heat escaped by conduction, steel and concrete had unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143
“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143
So what caused the building to collapse? Now NIST’s new theory says it was the super strength of the weakest link!
NIST’s Figure 4-8 shows interior seats horizontally restrained by only one (1) 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt.
The weak link in the system, then, was the ASTM A325 bolt at the interior seat.
At lower elevated temperatures (approximately 100C to 400C), the floor thermally expanded and displaced the exterior columns outward by a few inches. (NCSTAR 1-6 p225 para2)
The exterior seat angles and interior stiffened seat had 1-3/4 in. slotted holes, this expansion likely would have sheared the exterior bolts (if not the interior bolts) (NCSTAR 1-6 p69
The truss seat bolts sheared off at 566C. (NCSTAR 1-6 p87 para6-8)
The problem with the pancake theory was for it to work (the pancake collapse) the angle clips or the (1) 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt holding the angle clip to the columns and the stll intact floor had to give way then the floor would fall on the next and so on.
The reason NIST changed their story from the pancake theory to this new one is (besides the other obvious flaws) because they realized that if the floors pancaked like they had said the CORE would still be there. So they had to come up with a way that the core would be pulled down! Without explosives!
So NIST came up with this new theory that…
Sagging floors continued to support floor loads as they pulled inward on the exterior columns. There would have been no inward pull forces if many of the floor truss seats had failed and disconnected.
(NCSTAR 1-6 p lxxix para2)But, how could inward bowing follow floor disconnection, since obviously “there were no inward pull forces where the floors were disconnected”? (NCSTAR 1-6 p 321 para4)
The coulmns wer superheated, the trusses were super heated…. but the clips or the (1) 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt holding the floor trusses to the coulmns were in a safe environment?
So how is the weakest link, the (1) 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt suppose to be strong enough to:
#1 manage to resist bending and warping from this same high heat that caused the floors to warp and sag enough to pull the columns in?
#2 Not give before the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel does?
NIST still has not explained this incredible feat done by the weakest link of the WTC.
The shear strength of the bolts controlled the truss seat horizontal tension capacity. (NCSTAR 1-6 p79 para1)
NIST’s table 4-4 (NCSTAR 1-6 p75) shows that the interior seat capacity against horizontal tensile force is only 9 kips. (So does figure 4-16 NCSTAR 1-6 p78)
Column buckling was found to occur when an inward lateral load (pull-in) of approximately 12 kips was applied to three adjacent floor levels. (NCSTAR 1-6 p xlix para1)
Column instability (buckling) was reached with a transverse load of 12.6 kips per column. (NCSTAR 1-6 p115 para2)
Thus, we are 3 kips to 3.6 kips away from a working mode of failure.
In order to have a working failure mode, NIST suggested that;
Instability of an exterior wall subsystem could occur when at least three floors were disconnected (i.e. the floor does not restrain the exterior wall subsystem) and the exterior wall subsystem was subjected to additional vertical or lateral loads. (NCSTAR 1-6 p119 para9)
If the vertical loads were constant and the floors were disconnected, where did the “additional vertical or lateral loads” come from? Evidently, they came directly from NIST:
Since the full floor models did not accurately estimate the pull-in forces at floor/wall connections, the fireinduced damage obtained from the full floor model analyses were modified by observations obtained from the examination of photographs and videos performed by NIST (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A). (NCSTAR 1-6 p231 para5)
Thus, throughout the simulations, NIST tweaked the input until the buildings fell down.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 7, 2007 at 10:20 PM Joe-no time now but just had to get off quick supportive comment. This is a GREAT start to what I had in mind re: condensing the points. One of mine: I found the closing argument very compelling at first, but on further reflection I wonder if anything close to this situation had occurred before? It would help this very well done closing argument immensely if you could show other explosions in steel structured buildings where equal or better still higher temperatures were reached. More asap.-Arpie
Yowsers! Ok-my turn for quick edit—return to original that I got in email-MUCH better-and add the earlier fire with higher tempts just above closing statement below-cant believe you left it out. Why?
“The official theory is essentially based on the claim that fire brought
down 3 steel-reinforced skyscrapers for the first time in history and all
on the same day:”
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 7, 2007 at 11:14 PM THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
What’s missing in your analysis, Joe, is that nobody involved in the design of the WTC today believes in the controlled demolition fantasy.
These guys didn’t even fire test the trusses back then before using them. They didn’t have computers. They didn’t have any real knowledge of the behavior of fire on this large construction system. Even recent buildings have been constructed with insufficient effort put into analyzing the effects of a sudden large fire, not to mention the added effects of a jet slamminng into it at full speed.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 7, 2007 at 11:27 PM recursive prophet
You might need to go to the last page instead of your mail to see it all.
The official theory is essentially based on the claim that fire brought down 3 steel-reinforced skyscrapers for the first time in history and all on the same day:
In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!
The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable!
After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C)
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)
# NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy.
# Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy.
# Using masses and specific heats for materials heated, a maximum temp in the impact zone can be calculated.
# The result is less than 600 F (316 C) Assuming fuel bruned with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, no heat escaped by conduction, steel and concrete had unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.“The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii
In the original design claims the WTC was rated 1A or built to class 1A standerds.
Yet NIST states that the buildings were rated only as Class 1B, wich still requires testing and means it had to be certified by some place like UL at “2,000 F” (1093 C) for 3 hours for columns and 2 hours for floors.
Also according to NY code at the time of construction it had to be tested to a standerd called ASTM E119 for testing both steel componets and floor assembilies.
The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing” NIST, p. 143
“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 8, 2007 at 12:30 AM Joe,
You have picked out some 20 or so quotes from NIST in the past two posts. You have sought to use the information in these quotes to support your position. You seem to think that NIST is capable of putting out all these fine factoids that you use and for some strange reason trust, and then you conveniently choose to reject NIST’s final conclusion on the matter at hand. Why?
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
NIST NCSTAR 1 page xxxviii
Posted by Natalie on Feb 8, 2007 at 12:53 AM Natalie
HAhahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah
First I have shown you again and again that NIST has admitted that they never looked for any evidence of explosives.
How are they supposed to find evidence if they wont look?
They still to this day refuse to do any test of explosive residue on the steel.
Which is odd when the people who are leading and helping with the investigation said;
Mike Taylor of the national Association of Demolition Contractors said “It cascaded down like an implosion.’
Ronald Hambuger a structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports said “It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building”.
So wouldnt they at least look to see if their first impression was wrong?
And yes the tests are good information (not for NIST) but the conclusion
is a joke wich anyone who looks into it can see.Also alot of the people who worked on the NIST report did their jobs well like recording the findings of the tests and researching the carpet fiber ect, ect. but those few at the top who take the evidence and come to their conclusions they have to many ties to Bush and his administration and that might be what made them come up with such a bulls**t conclusion!
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 8, 2007 at 1:38 AM Mike Taylor of the national Association of Demolition Contractors said It cascaded down like an implosion
Mike Taylor doesn’t believe in CD.
Ronald Hambuger a structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports said It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building.
Ronald Hamburger doesn’t believe in CD.
Lots of people thought it looked like something explosive happened, but then lots of things look like a lot of things they aren’t. In fact, it was the enormous force of the upper block falling into the lower that provided the energy that was mistaken by some for explosives.
And yes the tests are good information (not for NIST) but the conclusion is a joke wich anyone who looks into it can see.
Anyone? I guess the question that comes to mind is why doesn’t that anyone include anyone in the world structural or fire engineering community?
Actually, the collapses really didn’t look like any kind of traditional implosion, so both Mike and Ronald were wrong. There are no professional demolitionists in the “truth” movement.
Also alot of the people who worked on the NIST report did their jobs well like recording the findings of the tests and researching the carpet fiber ect, ect. but those few at the top who take the evidence and come to their conclusions they have to many ties to Bush and his administration that might be what made them come up with such a bulls**t conclusion!
The problem with this line of logic is that no other relevant professional in the world has felt the need to express the same kinds of conclusions that you claim that “anyone” would come to. So, if none of them can look at all the accurate facts and figures that were gathered by the innocent mechanics, and at the corrupted conclusion reached by the Bush cronies, and not see anything wrong, might it not make more sense to conclude that indeed there was no corruption and that indeed they aren’t cronies?
Do you have any idea what any field of professional engineering code of ethics entails?
Do you regularly go around throwing out baseless charges against innocent, ethical professionals?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 8, 2007 at 3:33 AM recursive prophet
I thank you for your advice and I changed it much as you suggested. I do think it is more clear that way and it helps to show the many huge contradictions in the NIST report as well as expose the official conspiracy theory as the government myth that it is.
There are alot more contradictions but I wanted to try and keep it as short as I could.
The reason that more have not seen the contradictions in the NIST report is because it is easier to except what the government says as fact than to read 10,000 pages that are ment to wear down and exhaust those citizens who are diligently doing their duty has Patriots buy insuring they and their fellow Americans are not being deceived by their government.
It is not our duty to take what the government tells us as truth. But it is our duty to insure that what our government tells us is truth.
Natalie are you doing your duty?
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 8, 2007 at 6:08 AM It is not our duty to take what the government tells us as truth. But it is our duty to insure that what our government tells us is truth.
OK, then contact some people who actually know how to analyze this stuff. Seek out some independent structural or civil engineers with good reputations, and make your case to them. There are literally thousands of engineering firms all over the world with email addresses galore.
Somebody, somewhere submit your theories to a legitimate scientific or engineering journal or publication for peer review by people who actually know something other than the U.S. is bad.
Stop basing your idea of the truth on polls and Google videos and DVD’s by pot-heads.
Until the “truth” movement does something other than dredge up people of irrelevant backgrounds and education to do flawed uninformed “analysis”, it’s obvious to everyone it has no real interest in what really happened. I don’t care how many computer programmers, theologians or selective evidence loving physicists sign onto this alternate reality, it doesn’t make it real.
Until you can produce some kind of tangible proof of something, some kind of credible testimony, some kind of unequivocal evidence of anything, you might as well be claiming the USS Enterprise zapped the towers from space with the ship’s phasers.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 8, 2007 at 8:07 AM Natalie
Natalie you know that there are Civil Engineers, and Fire and Safety and Demolition Engineers as well as Architects who say it was a CD!
You know about the institutes of Engineers who do not say it was a cotrolled demolition but do say NIST’s explanation is impossible and Yes they do count!
Because you are saying the same thing over again I just copied and pasted this from this thread.
“Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.” (Google’s cached version of the article is here)
“a leading U.S. structural engineer said ‘By comparison [to the modeling of fires] the global structural model is not as sophisticated’ . . . The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls . . . it would be hard to produce a definitive visualization from the analysis so far.’ (free subscription required; copy posted here)(in other words, the government refused to release a visual model of the collapses, and even the non-visual computer models which the government used to examine why the trade centers collapsed are faulty).
Jorg Schneider, Professor emeritus for structural engineering. “WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives”.
Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of “pancake collapse”, which normally only occurs with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in “redundant” welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as the Structural Engineer Charles Pegelow has pointed out.Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural engineering. “In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts”
Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers “Air planes couldnt cause this. Something is cutting the collumns, its called cotrolled demolitions”
Moreover, a leading firefighters’ trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a “half-baked farce”. In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. Similarly, a professor of fire protection engineering, and the former chief of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses.
So we the people had to research and uptain the blueprints ourselves wich we did do much to the disappointment of a few criminals within the government.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 8, 2007 at 5:19 PM Natalie you know that there are Civil Engineers, and Fire and Safety and Demolition Engineers as well as Architects who say it was a CD!
I have to disagree. There may be a tiny handful of such people, but it seems like every time someone claims to be a “civil engineer”, or a “structural engineer”, it turns out that they are either rabidly ideologically biased, fudging their credentials or their experience and expertise are not relevant to the situation. It’s like one of those “MDs” you see on TV pushing the latest hair growth miracle product, and when 60 min. does an expose’ on them, it turns out they got their degree from a Cracker Jack box.
Please, list the single top most authoritative person in each of these fields that subscribes to the CD theory, and list their education and work history:
Civil engineering, structural engineering, fire engineering, and demolition engineering.
Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.
This article was written merely a week after the final NIST report was released, so anyone disagreeing has hardly had time to digest the whole report.
For some reason, these people don’t seem to comprehend that this was an investigation, and its perfectly normal for theories to be fine-tuned as more details are learned and analyzed. There also could well be some loss of context between what the engineers actually think and what the writer of the article finally came out with.
None of these people believe in CD fantasies, in fact the people from ARUP think that fire alone was the primary cause of collapse. Do you think that this helps your case?
The article also talks about a group of structural engineers from the UK who came out with a cheaper, quicker analysis that agreed with NIST:
Virtually all conclusions in NIST’s official report into the collapse of the World Trade Center towers were reached in the UK three years ago, engineers said this week.
A major report Safety in tall buildings was published in July 2002, just 10 months after the towers collapsed (NCE 11 July 2002) by an Institution of Structural Engineers-led panel which included ICE senior vice president and Jacobs Babtie director Gordon Masterton…...
.....“The interesting thing is that the more you read the more it looks similar to what we did in the UK after 9/11,” said Masterton.
“Of the 30 recommendations 24 are identical messages to those contained in our report,” he said.
“It made me quite proud that what we produced in eight months at no cost contains recommendations so similar to a $16M investigation that has taken four years to come to its conclusions.”
If all you’re saying is that there is not 100% lock-step agreement in the engineering community as to the exact mechanism of collapse initiation, you are certainly correct. But you are incorrect to think that this kind of normal and expected arguing over details somehow affects the big picture, which is that some combination of damage, fire and gravity alone caused the collapses.
Actually, I think the focus of the article is more on how designers are bummed because some of their fancy designs might get shot down due to a report that they think might focus too much on fire protection. Can you say “conflict of interest?”
Notice the title: Fire protection demands threaten to stifle design innovation
Now this might be a legitimate, real life conspiracy. There may be factions in the design and financial communities that have impure motivations for minimizing the implications of large fires in tall buildings, and thus to poo-poo them. It may be that ARUP is the most noble character here.
That’s why these conspiracy theories are so dangerous, counter-productive and bordering on criminal IMHO. They take focus away from conflicts of interest that may indeed exist among the pool of people that produce tall buildings and thereby work against the cause of public safety.
Don’t you think that this group of people—the designers, the builders, the financiers, the owners of tall buildings—would be more than thrilled if they could blame their collective failures on a deliberate covert demolition?
For some strange reason, they don’t seem to be receptive to the cover you are offering them.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 8, 2007 at 9:07 PM Natalie
Speaking of conflicts of interest. NIST used specialists/contractors who were dependent on government contracts or on the official story itself!
The Twin Towers were obsolescent “white elephants”, laden with asbestos and needing hundreds of millions of dollars in modernization, worth more in insurance pay-outs if demolished than if they’d stood. But they could not be demolished because of the health risk to the people living in the area do to the asbestos.
In various financial magazines before 9/11 Larry Silverstein was considered a fool for making the world’s largest financial blunder when he purchased the WTC buildings. No one could understand why he would do such thing when it (the WTC) had been losing money for years.
But after 9/11.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building’s collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.
After the attack, Silverstein Properties commenced litigation against its insurers, claiming it was entitled to twice the insurance policies’ value because, according to a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, “the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate ‘occurrences’ for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies.” This was reported in the Bloomberg News less than one month after the attack.
The ensuing legal battle between the leaseholders and insurers of the World Trade Center was not about how the 9/11/01 attack on the WTC could be considered two attacks, when the WTC was only destroyed once. Rather it seemed to revolve around whether the beneficiaries thought it was one or two “occurrences.” The proceedings before U.S. District Judge John S. Martin involved a number of battles over the insurers’ discovery rights regarding conversations about this issue between insurance beneficiaries and their lawyers.
NATIONAL STANDARD FOR FIRE INVESTIGATION: NFPA 921.
Sec 6-5: Important to remember that conflict of interest should be avoided.Again obvious and unprecedented suppression and distortion of scientific analysis for political and economic reasons.
NIST used specialists/contractors who were dependent on government contracts or on the official story itself!
Although the authors of the official reports are very similar, the collapse explanations offered by the reports are quite different. Corley and Thornton-Tomasetti were also involved in the Weidlinger study, released in October, 2002, just five months after FEMA’s. That study, commissed by Silverstein for his insurance claim, exclusively blames column failure for the collapses. It thus stands in stark contrast to the FEMA Report, whose pancake theory blames floor truss failures. Why would the same individuals endorse now 3 contradictory theories in their different roles? Apparently for political and economic reasons. The fact that failures of truss supports could indicate a design fault, and therefore fail to support the “two occurrances” claimed by Silverstein. That is why clearly implausible aspects of the column failure theory required the invention of the more sophisticated and truss-failure theory to sell the collapse theory.
In December 2004, a jury ruled in favor of the insurance holders’ double claim.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 8, 2007 at 9:19 PM World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations [i.e. models] of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers.
Actually, the headline is misleading. It implies that NIST has these simulations, but will not show them. These simulations were not done because NIST didn’t see them as a priority given their other mandates. They are open to the possibility of future work in this area, so the tone of the headline doesn’t really match the facts of the article. But, it gets people’s attention.
I don’t think the engineers wishing for the simulations believe in CD, do you?
If such simulations are done in the future by NIST or others, will this satisfy the “truth” community? Somehow I think not.
They’ll also be labeled fudged, manufactured or faulty.
The engineers quoted in the article seem pretty satisfied with the impact and fire simulations. They didn’t see what you said “anybody” could see, that those fires and that damage couldn’t possibly lead to collapse.
What’s wrong with these guys?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 8, 2007 at 9:54 PM We see no evidence to suggest that the WTC “had been losing money for years”, was “a disaster”, or “under-tenanted”, as the original story claims. In fact it seems the reality was just the opposite: it was doing very well. There’s no reason to believe the asbestos problems were unmanageable, or that the WTC was a “legal and financial timebomb”, either. So the next time someone tells you that the towers had to be demolished because they were a white elephant, don’t let it go: ask them for supporting references, and see if their claims really stand up to scrutiny.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 8, 2007 at 10:19 PM Natalie
You said;
Legitimate Theory: 1) a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomenaIllegitimate Theory: 6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture (9/11 conspiracy theories)
I’m thinking that your logic is distorted by the fact that you mistakenly believe that there is some kind of legitimacy to 9/11 conspiracy theories.
United StatesTruthies are certainly welcome to their opinion, and have every right to advance their ridiculous, unsubstantiated theories.
The conclusions reached by this rather preliminary analysis, which have never been questioned by anyone in the civil/structural engineering community.
Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhahaha“On September 13, 2001, the cover of the New Civil Engineer in the UK consisted of a picture 1 WTC during its collapse with a single word written across it: “unthinkable”. “Just hours earlier, it had been genuinely inconceivable that structures of such magnitude could succumb to this fate.”
Architects that designed New York’s World Trade Center Towers expressed shock Tuesday that the 110-story landmarks in Lower Manhattan collapsed after each tower was struck by a hijacked passenger jetliner.
“Leslie E. Robertson, the lead structural engineer on the team that designed the towers, wrote that “The events of September 11 are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone.” As NIST would also conclude”
Then the lies start here are just a few.
Natalie said;
Actually Frog, the designers have repeatedly lamented that the effect of the fuel was not taken into account.Natalie said;
BTW, my reference to fuel was regarding the fact that the designers of the wtc didn’t take its effect into account along with the impact of the 707 plane.They said:
“What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C; (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
“New Scientist” Print Edition. (interview with Mark Loizeaux)
NS: Could they have been built in such a way that they would have withstood the impact?LOIZEAUX: Bad question - they did withstand the impact. The correct question is could they have been built to withstand the consequences, the fire?
NS: Well - could they?
LOIZEAUX: I’ll defer to the reports coming out, but I will say - is society willing to pay for it? It’s far cheaper to take the battle to terrorists than let them bring it to us.
“It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.”
D. Allan Firmage
“The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube.”*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New Scientiest
*Government “owned” experts of “deception”They exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500FEach of these theories claimed large scale agreement among scientist and engineers!
Large scale agreement among scientist and engineers my ass!
F.R.Greening’s “natural” thermite reaction theory.Thomas W. Eagar “natural” thermite reaction theory.
They say the cascade of yellow-hot particles coming out of the south tower could be any number of things: a butane can igniting, sparks from an electrical arc, molten aluminum and water forming a hydrogen reaction or, perhaps most likely, a spontaneous, completely accidental thermite reaction.
LIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERSLIERS SLIERSLIERSLIERS!
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 8, 2007 at 10:46 PM Natalie and Joe: Well done! You two are back in the zone today, and Joe I think you’ve made a real comeback lately; I would definitely declare you the winner of this page. Your presentation is still WAY too data rich, but you have started down the path of not allowing Natalie to cherry pick your points for rebuttal, and bringing her back to unanswered questions.
Joe-I’m involved in some other projects right now or I would love to join you in taking N to task. If I were you I would go back over your exchanges for the last 2 pages and do a summary of all the tainted language-implied ad homs and authority-and most importantly all her generalizations. I went to link in her last post, and saw the exact same patterns there.
Natalie-I have to tell you after reading again your dialogue with Joe over the last 2 pages I really am starting to sense a disinformation campaign. This applies to both your skipping over many items and continued attempts to marginalize all sources with opposing views. I see this mirrored in the links you post. Have been doing some more reading on this topic and when time permits may outline my concerns for you to deconstruct. But I will be adamant you reply to each specific point. From what I see Joe has been far more consistent in doing so than you.
Joe-you have probably posted this link, but I’ll paste it below just in case. I found the way the information is structured is best I’ve seen on all this. Keep the faith.- Arpie
First they ignore you, then they attack you, then you begin to win. – Gandhi
http://www.oilempire.us/denial.html
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 8, 2007 at 10:53 PM Some sense of the cost of removing the asbestos from the Twin Towers can be obtained by the example of 55 Broad Street. The removal of asbestos in that building cost $70 million when it was empty. That was five times the cost of the building’s construction 15 years before.
Another example is the 60-story Montparnasse Tower in Paris. Experts estimate that the removal of asbestos from this building would take three years with full evacuation, and ten years if the building were to remain occupied during the operation.
the Port Authority had planned to pump $800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos abatement (not removal).
Natalie I must thank you because looking at ways they were covering the asbestos (abatement) I ran across something else that is confirmed by NIST. To save money they tried to kill 2 birds with one stone.
Get this the amount needed for thermal protection after the 1993 bombing was 1.5"in of insulation but after reading about the abatement and how they do it I saw it required more of a coating to cover the asbestos in order to pass as safe abatement.
To get to the point remember when I said;
In the Fire Endurance Testing of the WTC Floor System they admit that they in all cases used half or less the amount of fireproofing that was used in the WTC on the floors that were impacted by fire!!!!!!
They said:
This test will use the 3/4 in. fireproofing thickness representing the as-built condition in the buildings before the process, still under way on September 11, 2001, was initiated to upgrade the thickness to 1-1/2 in.They dont let you know the fact that on the floors where there was fire it had already been upgraded to the thickness of 1-1/2 in!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse. Posted by honestjoe on Nov 11, 2006 at 10:52 AM
Well I was using the amount needed for thermal protection after the 1993 bombing wich was 1.5"in of insulation.
BUT GET THIS! It was not upgraded to 1.5"in but an extra 1.5"in was added which was more than the new requried amout needed for thermal protection but was the amount needed for safe abatement of the asbestos.
...“thermal protection was upgraded…in WTC 1, floors 92-100, and 102…and WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p20, para1)
“The entire impact zone for Tower 1 (92-99) was upgraded with 1-1/2” spray-on fireproofing.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para1)
“The overall average thickness determined from the 256 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in. with a standard deviation of 0.6 in. Thus, the average SFRM thickness on the upgraded upper floors appears to be greater than that estimated from photographs taken on the upgraded lower floor.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para3)
So if most (2/3) of the insulation was removed during impact like NIST says then you are left with the 3/4"in of insulation that NIST tested the steel with.
Which by the way was more than the amount of insulation used during the 1975 fire!
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 12:11 AM RP, you bounce back and forth like a ping-pong ball. First I think you’re cured of this disease, you say you are, and then you seem to have had a relapse.
Or are you just having fun playing the referee? Why don’t you join the game?
And why don’t both of you pick a topic, AND STAY ON IT. Joe floods the place with disconnected quotes and neglects to tie them together in any kind of context, and I’m labeled “losing” because I don’t address each and every one within an hour, putting aside not even knowing exactly what the point is.
Joe cherry picks a few snippets from various conspiracy sites, apparently to try to imply that Silverstein had motive to be in on the deliberate destruction of the place. I post a link to a substantive, coherent and effective rebuttal to this notion and then he rattles off a few source-less paragraphs and starts talking about insulation thickness.
So what’s the topic, and will you stay on it?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 9, 2007 at 2:44 AM recursive prophet
The number of contradictions by NIST are overwhelming. I guess I could break them up into groups like the plane impacts then the fire then the test then the bolts and ect, ect..
For example Now NIST is saying that the 5/8"in bolt at each end of the trusses are so strong that the supposedly sagging floors are pulling the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.
But NIST says;
The shear strength of the bolts controlled the truss seat horizontal tension capacity. (NCSTAR 1-6 p79 para1)Well that makes sense that the amout of pull cannot be greater than the breaking point of the bolt.
But then we have a situation were the temperature alone can cause the bolts to snap/shear.
At lower elevated temperatures (approximately 100C to 400C), the floor thermally expanded and displaced the exterior columns outward by a few inches. (NCSTAR 1-6 p225 para2)
The exterior seat angles and interior stiffened seat had 1-3/4 in. slotted holes, this expansion likely would have sheared the exterior bolts (if not the interior bolts) (NCSTAR 1-6 p69
Ok so the fire cant be less than 400C or the bolts will snap to put it simply.
But the fire cannot be to hot or the bolts will snap.
The truss seat bolts sheared off at 566C. (NCSTAR 1-6 p87 para6-8)
So the temperature of the fire stayed between 400C and 566C. Ok it could happen but…
So how is the weakest link, the (1) 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt suppose to be strong enough to:
#1 manage to resist bending and warping from this same high heat that caused the floors to warp and sag enough to pull the columns in?
#2 Not give before the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel does?
Well guess what NIST admitts the bolts are not strong enough to pull the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.
NIST’s table 4-4 (NCSTAR 1-6 p75) shows that the interior seat capacity against horizontal tensile force is only 9 kips. (So does figure 4-16 NCSTAR 1-6 p78)
Column buckling was found to occur when an inward lateral load (pull-in) of approximately 12 kips was applied to three adjacent floor levels. (NCSTAR 1-6 p xlix para1)
Column instability (buckling) was reached with a transverse load of 12.6 kips per column. (NCSTAR 1-6 p115 para2)
Thus, we are 3 kips to 3.6 kips away from a working mode of failure.
How is that is it simple yet still gets the point across?
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 3:14 AM I added this to the above post.
The exterior seat angles and interior stiffened seat had 1-3/4 in. slotted holes, this expansion likely would have sheared the exterior bolts (if not the interior bolts) (NCSTAR 1-6 p69And besides the snaping point of the bolts (shear strength) we also have another problem.
How can the trusses (FLOORS) pull the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings if they are not all connected?
Sagging floors continued to support floor loads as they pulled inward on the exterior columns. There would have been no inward pull forces if many of the floor truss seats had failed and disconnected.
(NCSTAR 1-6 p lxxix para2)But, how could inward bowing follow floor disconnection, since obviously “there were no inward pull forces where the floors were disconnected”? (NCSTAR 1-6 p 321 para4)
Instability of an exterior wall subsystem could occur when at least three floors were disconnected (i.e. the floor does not restrain the exterior wall subsystem) and the exterior wall subsystem was subjected to additional vertical or lateral loads. (NCSTAR 1-6 p119 para9)
If the vertical loads were constant and the floors were disconnected, where did the “additional vertical or lateral loads” come from?
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 3:32 AM But before any of the above could even possibly happen (though the odds are to great to even consider) the steel has to get hot enough to cause the floors to sag enough to pull the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.
In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!
The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable!
After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C)
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)
The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143
“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143
Are these short and clear?
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 3:55 AM Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc (SGH) developed global models of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers using finite elements to gain an understanding of the roles of the aircraft impact damage and the subsequent fires in the WTC towers with respect to structural stability and sequential failures of components and subsystems and to determine the probable sequence of structural responses that let to initiation of global collapse. The study was conducted as part of the investigation on the WTC disaster by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The finite-element global models of the WTC towers developed simulated the structural performance of the part of the buildings in and above the aircraft impact zone. These models captured the nonlinear responses of the towers subjected to the aircraft impact damage and the subsequent fire effects. The nonlinearities included in the global models were temperature-dependent material properties such as thermal expansion, plasticity and creep of metals, large deflection and the resulting instability, and failure modes of members and connections.
NIST provided temperature-dependent nonlinear material properties, aircraft impact damage to structural members, and temperature time histories of structural elements, which were used as input in this study. The finite element analyses (FEA) of the global models and of the component and subsystem models showed that the key structural responses that led to the collapse of the towers were as follows: 1) floor sagging caused by the failure of thermally-weakened truss members, resulting in pull-in forces between the floor and the exterior wall, and in some cases, disconnection of the floor from the exterior wall; 2) downward displacement of the core due to aircraft impact damage and shortening of the remaining core columns from increased load, plasticity, creep of steel at high temperatures, and buckling resulting from fire-induced high temperatures, and unloading of the core; 3) bowing and buckling of exterior walls caused by the pull-in forces and loss of lateral support from the sagged floors, and floor/wall disconnections at high temperatures; and 4) redistribution of gravity loads among the columns locally, among the exterior walls, and between the exterior walls and the core, resulting from impact damage, relative thermal expansion, shortening of core columns, tilting of the tower above the impact zone, and bowing and buckling of exterior walls.In WTC 1, aircraft impact caused damage to the north and south walls, floors, some core columns, and fireproofing. The subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors on the south side of the office area, where fireproofing was damaged, and inward bowing of the south wall. The damage to the core columns resulted in local load redistribution to the remaining core columns. The subsequent fire-induced high temperatures caused the core to displace downward from plasticity and high creep strains in high stress and high temperatures. The downward displacement of the core resulted in load redistribution from the core to the exterior walls. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent east and west walls. Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members. In WTC 2, aircraft impact caused damage to the south and north exterior walls, floors, and columns in the southeast corner of the core. The floor damage and the subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors and local floor/wall disconnections, and resulted in bowing and buckling of the east wall. The damage to the core columns and fire-induced high temperatures resulted in local load redistribution to the remaining core columns in the southeast corner, which redistributed the core column loads to the east and south wall columns, as the core leaned towards south and east. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the east wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the east and south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent north and south walls. Global collapse occurred when the potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members.
The results of global analysis of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 showed that global collapse of both towers was initiated by the instability of the exterior walls pursuant to their excessive inward bowing which progressed horizontally to adjacent walls.—NIST NCSTAR 1-6D, WTC Investigation iiiAre you smarter than all the public and private engineers and scientists that participated in and contributed to the NIST investigation Joe?
How do you explain how they missed all your obvious contradictions and so carelessly came to the above rather certain sounding conclusions?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 9, 2007 at 4:36 AM Natalie
Please let me know where I can see this model.
Did you notice that number 3 cant happen after number one?
#1 Disconnection of the floor from the exterior wall.
#3 Bowing and buckling of exterior walls caused by the pull-in forces and loss of lateral support from the sagged floors.
How about this one?
NIST does not explain how the Antena on WTC1 fell first, when it was ATTACHED to the cores???? The cores could not have collapsed until the OUTER parts started to fall! Yet the Antena, which was supported by the cores, and connected to them, fell moments before the collapse. What caused the Antena to sink before the sides started to collapse?????? The core could not, would not, collapse in that fashion without an EXTERNAL force (and no the plane is not an external force in this case).
Please! Tell us all here how that Antena, supported by the Core, started sinking before the impact part collapsed!
PHYSICS says its IMPOSSIBLE!!!! Statistically well over 100 TRILLION to ONE!
ORNISTs Report is a mountain of distracting detail. Ryan more succinctly describes their theory as a ‘tin rat’—-They’ll Never Read All This—-theory. The Report on the Twin Towers is 42 sub-reports totaling more than 10,000 pages.
Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report cant find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NIST in thier OWN document state that they DID NOT investigate the use of CD! They NEVER tested for residue from explosives because they did not investigate the possibility of it! WILL YOU AT LEAST EXPLAIN THIS!
NIST has admitted that they never looked for any evidence of explosives.
How are they supposed to find evidence if they wont look?
They still to this day refuse to do any test of explosive residue on the steel!
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 4:46 AM Joe-I think you need to stop getting down to the nuts and bolts here. You are making a very sophisticated, big picture argument, and for whom? I really dont get it. What you should be posting are just links and basics. I wouldnt really be surprised if the 3 of us are the only ones reading this thread. You need to compile all this and send it to not just to NIST but the various Congressional committees that looked into all this. I wish I could talk to you for 5 minutes-have a lot to say but little time for additional writing now.
Dearest Natalie-I do hope youll forgive me, but I am leaning back toward you being in someones employ with a distinct agenda. Take quite a while to write out all the little tells, but re: the Truth, I am still on the fence. Perceiving as I do where YOU are coming from naturally makes me lean in their direction. This whole dialogue has become quite surreal IMHO; enough so that asap I will make time to look into it further.
Re:
I post a link to a substantive, coherent and effective rebuttal to this notion and then he rattles off a few source-less paragraphs and starts talking about insulation thickness.
So whats the topic, and will you stay on it?I read this link, N, and was amazed at all the allusions to vague, unspecified authority there. Wanna bet I cant paste at least 5 examples here. And it really does remind me of YOU. Joe mentioned never before had a steel structure collapsed like that from a fire. If you responded to that, please quote it in your next reply, along with your replies to the unanswered questions Ive quoted below. YOU would accuse ME of going all over the dialectical map?
Seems arguing the various details of the Truth charges is your specialty, N. Are you a one trick pony? Cant you respond to specific hypothetical questions based on areas where we agree? Big one though is unanswered question below on likelihood of paid agents for whatever groups spinning the debate in cyberspace. And please spare me your modesty. You are way too good at the spin to be spending so much time rebutting Joe just to pass the time. Not in these times. So maybe you work for the good guys, OK? Not trying to make a case against your arguments by declaring my opinion you are literally too good to be true. I am merely trying to explain how it does make me wonder, and why Id like to read your views on this subject. Guess Gandhi was right; seems weve reached the second stage, eh Joe?
So a couple more questions Natalie. Do you believe it is probable that our government and others employ propagandists to attempt influencing the debate online? Would you agree that the U.S. has helped install dictators in countries all over Latin America (Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, etc.) and beyond, solely to further our own interests? Is there ANY doubt in your mind that Joe might in fact be right? Please state your philosophical reasons here, not a further delineation of the various facts which may be disputed forever.
That is why so many are willing to listen to those who believe our leaders were complicit in 9/11. Our consumption of energy funds the activities of those plotting our doom, yet we attack them with missiles instead of curbing our consumption. How do you trust such leadership? Should you? This is what fuels the debate here, not the physics which not one in a hundred comprehend.
We are the bad guys, Natalie, and the rest of the world is awakening to that fact. Bush promised he would bring people together, and he has. He has united a real consenus that the problem is us. Are they all wrong? Just bad PR on our part? And remember, our media serves up a feel good message concerning our image abroad cause it sells more soap.
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 9, 2007 at 4:51 AM Natalie
Was every one smarter than all the public and private engineers and scientists that participated in and contributed to the NIST investigation and agreed that the WTC buildings came down because of a pancake collapse?
No they just exposed the bulls**t conclusion of the few who had been cought with their lies before. Oh Im sorry those were not lies just huge misstakes! Yeah sure they were.
How do you explain how they missed all the obvious contradictions that were pointed out to them for 3 years and yet still they so carelessly came to the rather certain sounding conclusions of a pancake collapse?
And I guess these were misstakes to:
They said:
“What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”ÂThe conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C; (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
“New Scientist” Print Edition. (interview with Mark Loizeaux)
NS: Could they have been built in such a way that they would have withstood the impact?LOIZEAUX: Bad question - they did withstand the impact. The correct question is could they have been built to withstand the consequences, the fire?
NS: Well - could they?
LOIZEAUX: I’ll defer to the reports coming out, but I will say - is society willing to pay for it? It’s far cheaper to take the battle to terrorists than let them bring it to us.
“It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.”
D. Allan Firmage
“The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube.”*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New Scientiest
*Government “owned” experts of “deception”They exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500FEach of these theories claimed large scale agreement among scientist and engineers!
Large scale agreement among scientist and engineers my ass!
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 5:05 AM Each of these theories claimed large scale agreement among scientist and engineers!
Large scale agreement among scientist and engineers my ass!
Joe,
Pretty much all those comments were made long before the NIST report was final. The same NIST report that was the result of examining hundreds of photos, dozens of hours of video, conducting hundreds of interviews, and the performing of thousands of professional engineer man hours of evaluation, calculation and computer simulation work.
Most of those comments are in the context of preliminary speculation based on limited knowledge of the building’s design, the extent of the structural damage, and the amount of heat that was transmitted to the supporting members of the structure.
It doesn’t make any sense to equate these statements with there not being “large scale agreement among scientists”.
And again. None of these guys believe in CD fairy tales.
Does that not give you the slightest pause?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 9, 2007 at 8:24 AM Natalie
Its late good night. I’ll reply as soon as I have time.
A region of several square miles was blanketed by fine powder resulting from the explosive collapses of the Twin Towers. This powder, consisting of the pulverized remains of non-metallic components and contents of the Towers, contained significant percentages of asbestos. An analysis of dust within three days of the attack found that some of the dust was four percent asbestos. This asbestos release may be a public health time bomb, because thousands of people breathed dust from the collapses. It remains to be seen how many if them will become victims of the EPA’s false assurances that the air was safe to breathe.
A report by the Arnold & Porter law firm provides some details on the asbestos application and removal:
Some sense of the cost of removing the asbestos from the Twin Towers can be obtained by the example of 55 Broad Street. The removal of asbestos in that building cost $70 million when it was empty. That was five times the cost of the building’s construction 15 years before. Divided We Stand, Basic Books, 1999, page 208
Another example is the 60-story Montparnasse Tower in Paris. Experts estimate that the removal of asbestos from this building would take three years with full evacuation, and ten years if the building were to remain occupied during the operation. Only skyscraper in Paris, popular with tourists, has dangerous asbestos levels, AP, 3/14/05 [cached]
the Port Authority had planned to pump $800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos abatement (not removal). Divided We Stand, Basic Books, 1999, page 212
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 8:48 AM I agree Joe that more could have and should have been done to protect people from asbestos post-collapse.
However I don’t agree that the asbestos problem was so great that it couldn’t have been dealt with over time with a variety of measures pre-collapse.
Ironically, some speculate that had the asbestos application continued to all the floors of the towers, the buildings or at least one building just may have remained standing. May have.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:39 AM I read this link, N, and was amazed at all the allusions to vague, unspecified authority there. Wanna bet I cant paste at least 5 examples here. And it really does remind me of YOU.
Vague, unspecified authority? I’m sorry, all I saw was a well reasoned and well supported case for why the WTC wasn’t a “white elephant”, and why the asbestos costs were certainly not worth participating in mass murder. Just how are the sources for the opposite argument somehow more credible, crisp and clear?
But all evidence aside, does it really make sense to you that a savvy real estate developer would firstly be stupid enough to buy a white elephant, secondly would be stupid enough to risk being caught participating in the crime of the century, and thirdly would be stupid enough to admit it all on TV? And thank you. I admire Mike’s polite, sensible and abundantly sourced analyses.
Joe mentioned never before had a steel structure collapsed like that from a fire. If you responded to that, please quote it in your next reply, along with your replies to the unanswered questions I’ve quoted below.
I’ve responded to this logical fallacy several times previous, so forgive me for not feeling compelled to do it once again. If you can show me a past example of two nearly identical large passenger airliners crashing into two identical quarter-mile high truss-in-tube design towers, both at optimal locations, nearly fully fueled at top speed, with the result being significant structural damage, the loss of likely already patchy fireproofing and instantaneous large multi-floor fires, and they didn’t collapse, I’ll quit my cushy pro-govt. propaganda job and go back to my old job as a hand model.
If you can show me a previous instance of a 47 story building that employed transfer truss design, had diesel fuel lines running all over it, was hit by hundreds of tons of burning debris in its most vulnerable spot, had extensive fires burning for 7 hours, had a large bulge in it, had firemen believing well in advance that it was going to collapse, and it didn’t collapse, I’ll quit my job as a hand model and work full time cleaning Joe’s house and car for free.
Seems arguing the various details of the Truth charges is your specialty, N. Are you a one trick pony? Cant you respond to specific hypothetical questions based on areas where we agree? Big one though is unanswered question below on likelihood of paid agents for whatever groups spinning the debate in cyberspace.
First of all, you can’t build a case for an “inside job” atop a collection of false/out of context/mischaracherized/faith based details. That is the subject of this particular thread. However, I believe I did respond somewhat at length to your wonderings about people being paid advocates. I separated the likelihood of there being paid garden-variety policy pushers from there being partners in capital crime working for presumably millions in their underwear. Actually, accusations of the latter are really quite offensive, don’t you think? Have I questioned your motivations? Did you hear a screech and a bang and come over here hoping to see a car wreck involving your ideological adversaries?
And please spare me your modesty. You are way too good at the spin to be spending so much time rebutting Joe just to pass the time. Not in these times. So maybe you work for the good guys, OK? Not trying to make a case against your arguments by declaring my opinion you are literally too good to be true. I am merely trying to explain how it does make me wonder, and why Id like to read your views on this subject. Guess Gandhi was right; seems weve reached the second stage, eh Joe?
Whatever you want to call it and whether or not you choose to believe it, I’m simply an ordinary nobody who, along with many other people now, feel it is a noble endeavor to counter vile, vicious, false, unsupported, irresponsible, distracting, destructive and IMHO criminal accusations that are being spread across the globe and are making their way into the heads of thousands of impressionable young men, many of whom are already trained from age two to believe Americans and other westerners are worthy only of death.
I think that the wise Gandhi would also suspect that you are using this little “just who are you?” technique to somehow negate my arguments without having to bother addressing them in any kind of depth. I remember several instances (and in fact in your last post) of you promising to “address this issue in depth in the near future, when I have time, links and all.” (paraphrasing)
We’re still waiting. ;~)
Posted by Natalie on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:41 AM Dearest Natalie-I do hope youll forgive me, but I am leaning back toward you being in someones employ with a distinct agenda.
You’re darn right I have a distinct agenda. You’re wrong about the paid part, unfortunately for me. But Joe also seems to have a distinct agenda. Could it be that he’s being paid to generate hits to all those links? I’m just sayin.
So what’s your point? What’s your purpose?
Are you the official referee/agenda evaluator here?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:56 AM Natalie
You said;
If you can show me a past example of two nearly identical large passenger airliners crashing into…THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
This report had done an analysis of an impact and fires resulting from the collision of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy (because of the faster speed) than on 9/11, despite the slightly smaller size and it was calculated with a maximum load that was more weight than on 9/11 and carrying more fuel than on 9/11. Also This study unlike NIST’s had done a thermodynamic analysis and this study was done with the effect on NON isulated steel in a building with NO sprinkler system and No fire proofing material filling gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through and it was calculated with office furniture that was highly flamable!!!!!
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
—City in the Sky, p 131 (They felt confident that it could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!)“our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
—City in the SkyYou said;
two identical quarter-mile high truss-in-tube design towers.The first 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses! The floor trusses were supported by angle clips which had a sole purpose of supporting those trusses….you could remove the floor trusses and not see any major effect on the structural calculations because there were other supports for that purpose.
note: floor trusses are vastly different from the Hat Trusses.
You said;
both at optimal locations.What bulls**t there would have been more weight and stress if they hit at the bottom of the WTC buildings but even then the buildings would not collapse.
The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers’ calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.(AND THAT WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING!)
—City in the Sky, p 133The critical load ratio was well over 10.0, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
You said;
nearly fully fueledMY ASS!
NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy.
fuel capacity for a Boeing 767-200 is 23,980 gallons WICH IT DID NOT HAVE!
But the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707-340 with 23,000 gallons of fuel! = 129,980,000 MJ of energy!
You said;
at top speedNot one report says they hit at top speed wich would have been 530 mph! NIST gave 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft impacting the tower. Which by the way is not enough for the required 6,000 MJ needed to remove the insulation and that is from MIT who also came up with the 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft!
Ha! The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy because of the faster speed alone I wont even go into weight I will just use the same math for speed and not add the aditional weight that was originaly caculated for a fully loaded 707.
The kinetic energy provided by the 707 traveling at 600 miles per hour and impacting the tower is 3,800 MJ of energy! AND THAT IS WITHOUT THE EXTRA WEIGHT!
You said;
with the result being significant structural damage.The WTC buildings could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!
Even NIST admits that the structural damage was not enough to cause instability “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii
You said;
the loss of likely already patchy fireproofingNew insulation is “patchy”? So the extra fireproofing that was put on was piss poor and the 2.5” in of fireproofing was “patchy”!
...“thermal protection was upgraded…in WTC 1, floors 92-100, and 102…and WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p20, para1)
“The entire impact zone for Tower 1 (92-99) was upgraded with 1-1/2” spray-on fireproofing.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para1)
“The overall average thickness determined from the 256 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in. with a standard deviation of 0.6 in. Thus, the average SFRM thickness on the upgraded upper floors appears to be greater than that estimated from photographs taken on the upgraded lower floor.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para3)
You said;
and instantaneous large multi-floor firesIn 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!
The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable!
After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C)
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)
The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143
“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143
You said;
First of all, you can’t build a case for an “inside job” atop a collection of false/out of context/mischaracherized/faith based details.Well you seem fine with the government doing just that. Oh yea I almost forgot YOU natalie just excuse the goverment as making misstakes.
You said;
Most of those comments are in the context of preliminary speculation based on limited knowledge of the building’s design, the extent of the structural damage, and the amount of heat that was transmitted to the supporting members of the structure.So the ASCE, Weidlinger study, FEMA, and 9/11 Commission report were just preliminary speculation based on limited knowledge! Alot of those comments and shows were after those had come out. and the same people who worked on those first three also advised and worked for NIST.
Except Bazant and Zhou whos paper came out 2 days after the WTC buildings came down. Please tell me how is it possible to have a paper researched, written, peer reviewed and published in just two days.
You said;
I don’t agree that the asbestos problem was so great that it couldn’t have been dealt with over time with a variety of measures pre-collapse.Will you please let me know just how they could have affordably done that. Remember they tried to ignore it until they couldnt avoid all the law suits.
They had been doing asbestos abatement (not removal) wich is not a permanent fix. They still eventually would have to remove it especially after you told me that the old poorly put on insulation would come off just by some one slamming a door. How do you sleep at night?
AND YES 2.5"in OF INSULATION IN THE IMPACT ZONE IS A BIG DEAL!
You said;
Ironically, some speculate that had the asbestos application continued to all the floors of the towers, the buildings or at least one building just may have remained standing. May have.Do you not understand that the buildings were designed to endure much higher temperature fires for much longer even without sprinklers!?! AND THAT WAS BEFORE ALL THE IMPROVED INSULATION, fire proofing material filling those gaps and before there was fire retardant office furniture.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 7:56 PM Natalie
You said;
Do you have any idea what any field of professional engineering code of ethics entails?Yes I do and the only defense those lying SOB’s have is that they were to ignorant to hold their positions, license’s, and titles do to the fact that they could not remember basic facts that some one in there position shoud know and they obviously did not have the necessary skills required to research those basic facts before they decided to missinform the American people and the rest of the world!
Why are you not mad about being lied to when the government “owned” experts said jet fuel melted the steel? Doesnt that alone make you realise they have NO CREDIBILITY?!?!?!?!?!?!
*Government “owned” experts of “deception”
*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New ScientiestThey exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500FThey said:
“What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C; (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
Each of these theories claimed large scale agreement among scientist and engineers!
Large scale agreement among scientist and engineers my ass!
“New Scientist” Print Edition. (interview with Mark Loizeaux)
NS: Could they have been built in such a way that they would have withstood the impact?LOIZEAUX: Bad question - they did withstand the impact. The correct question is could they have been built to withstand the consequences, the fire?
NS: Well - could they?
LOIZEAUX: I’ll defer to the reports coming out, but I will say - is society willing to pay for it? It’s far cheaper to take the battle to terrorists than let them bring it to us.
“It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.”
LIERS or to ignorant to hold their positions, license’s, and titles!
Which is it NATALIE?
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 9:26 PM I suggest you take all this up with NIST, Joe. Make a list of what you consider to be your top five or six “contradictions” and your top five or six questions.
Compose a polite, respectful email or letter that doesn’t expose you as a conspiracy guy and see what happens!
I obviously can’t seem to convince you of the ridiculousness of believing that NIST would put out a report with unfounded conclusions based on “obvious contradictions” for the world engineering/scientific community to scrutinize.
I can’t seem to convince you that because there has been no outcry remotely approaching the vehemence of your own from any relevant professional in the entire world in nearly two years, it means that there is no cause for such an outcry.
Take it up with NIST. They are your impediment to proving your case, not me.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 9, 2007 at 10:34 PM NARRATOR: No one was thinking that there might be even worse to come, but the seeds of destruction that would eventually bring the tower down had already been sown.
These images reveal that spray-on fireproofing was completely blown off critical load-bearing steel, and several of the floor trusses were destroyed. Inside, additional trusses would have been weakened or dislodged, and fireproofing everywhere would have been obliterated.
CHARLES THORNTON: (structural engineer) Once the plane hit and the fragments of the plane came through the building, we know it knocked out floors. We also know that it knocked spray-on fireproofing off a lot of the components. Once you lose the spray-on fireproofing you have bare steel. Once you have bare steel you don’t have a fire rating anymore.
NARRATOR: Without fireproofing the steel in the core was now exposed to intense heat.
MATTHYS LEVY: So that fire caused the steel to soften up. The columns in the interior of the core began to soften, buckle, fail. And I saw that the building had really a good chance of collapsing at that point.
NARRATOR: Leslie Robertson’s radical design seemed to have worked, but there was more devastating damage hidden inside. Although the aluminum aircraft shattered on contact with the exterior wall, the speed and force of the fragments and the intact steel engines severely damaged the columns and stairwells in the core, and jet fuel began saturating the building.
PAUL NEAL: Almost immediately after the impact, somewhat bizarrely, I smelled an overwhelming stench of aviation fuel, Jet A1 gas, which I recognized because I’m a private pilot and I’m used to airfield environments. I recall smelling it and almost instantly dismissed it as being illogical and didn’t have any place in the World Trade Center.
NARRATOR: In an instant, the fuel ignited a massive fire that quickly engulfed the damaged area, and this was something even Robertson had not considered.
LESLIE ROBERTSON: (lead structural engineer for the WTC project) With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don’t know how it could have been considered.
CHARLES THORNTON: They didn’t have the mathematical models in the computers to model a fire as a result of the fuel in a 707. I was asked in 1986 what would happen if a plane flew into the Trade Center. And I said it would not knock the building down from the pure physics of the mass hitting the building. But we…none of us really focused on that kind of a fuel fire.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:18 PM Natalie
Not only have relevant professionals come forword but intire institutes of Engineers say NISTs explanation is impossible!
And dont give that poor excuse that because 2 are in Europe and one of those two is in Great Britain and a third is in Australia means that they are not credible.
And it does not matter that they are not saying it was a CD. THEY STILL COUNT!
And NIST is still refusing to show the computer visualizations [i.e. models] to this day!
Just as NIST still to this day refuses to test the seel for for residue from explosives!
NISTs Report is a mountain of distracting detail. Ryan more succinctly describes their theory as a tin rat—-Theyll Never Read All This—-theory. The Report on the Twin Towers is 42 sub-reports totaling more than 10,000 pages.
Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report cant find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was irrelevant to the investigation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NIST in thier OWN document state that they DID NOT investigate the use of CD! They NEVER tested for residue from explosives because they did not investigate the possibility of it! WILL YOU AT LEAST EXPLAIN THIS!
NIST has admitted that they never looked for any evidence of explosives.
How are they supposed to find evidence if they wont look?
They still to this day refuse to do any test of explosive residue on the steel!
Natalie thank you for the contact info.
I and many others including intire institutes of Engineers have been politely asking NIST for explanations and NIST has been clearly avoiding the specifics of the questions and has been vary vague in their replies (when they do reply) to the point it makes one blush with how obvious they’re stonewalling has become to avoid answering these well founded concerns with NIST’s conclusions.
Remember the interview that NIST did with Popular Mechanics where they explained the details of how and why they came to belive the pancake collapse?
Well it is now known as Im sure you are aware that NIST had 4 months before that no longer excepted the pancake theory.
So Popular Mechanics puts out a story that had already been debunked by the very people they had interviewed (NIST). Yet NIST failed to inform Popular Mechanics that the pancake theory had been debunked therefore allowing popular mechanics to put out dinformation so as to cause the American people to become misinformed.
What is really shocking is that popular mechanics has not complained once about being deceitfully misinformed by NIST.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:30 PM Natalie
Your same source says;
Less than a quarter of an hour after it had been hit, all the conditions for the collapse of the South Tower were in place. The huge weight of the top third of the building was bearing down on the weakening structure. Analysis of the steel from this part of the building reveals that the fire here reached 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature that would definitely have caused the steel to buckle.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:37 PM Natalie
Your same source says;
They had two 5/8-inch bolts at one end of the truss and two 3/4-inch bolts at the other end, which is perfectly fine to take vertical load and perfectly fine to take shear loads, but once the floor elements start to sag during a fire…okay…they start exerting tension forces because it becomes a catenary, like a clothesline, and those two little bolts just couldn’t handle it.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:39 PM Natalie
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Your same source says;
The trusses were essential for holding the building together. If too many failed the building would collapse.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:40 PM Natalie
I could go on and on wake up you have been lied to!
You said;
Do you have any idea what any field of professional engineering code of ethics entails?Yes I do and the only defense those lying SOB’s have is that they were to ignorant to hold their positions, license’s, and titles do to the fact that they could not remember basic facts that some one in there position shoud know and they obviously did not have the necessary skills required to research those basic facts before they decided to missinform the American people and the rest of the world!
Your same source says;
Less than a quarter of an hour after it had been hit, all the conditions for the collapse of the South Tower were in place. The huge weight of the top third of the building was bearing down on the weakening structure. Analysis of the steel from this part of the building reveals that the fire here reached 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature that would definitely have caused the steel to buckle.
Why are you not mad about being lied to when the government “owned” experts said jet fuel melted the steel? Doesnt that alone make you realise they have NO CREDIBILITY?!?!?!?!?!?!
*Government “owned” experts of “deception”
*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New ScientiestThey exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500FThey said:
“What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:47 PM Joe,
That program is another example of early speculation on some of the causes of the collapse. There may well have been unintentionally erroneous statements made regarding the steel temps, the strength of the truss connections, the mechanisms of collapse, etc.
However, the main point I was trying to make was that a primary source, Leslie Robertson, the lead structural engineer on the project, specifically stated he had no knowledge of fuel being considered in their analysis of an airliner hitting the building. And further, there is explanation why they would not have been able to ascertain an accurate picture of the effects at that time in history.
Also, it appears that the show was in possession of some pictures that showed fireproofing missing from some of the columns, which is hardly surprising to me. I did not see the show, but I gather this from the transcript, and I remember discussion of the same in the NIST reports.
You need to take the full context of the presentation into account.
Joe, you said:
Natalie you know that there are Civil Engineers, and Fire and Safety and Demolition Engineers as well as Architects who say it was a CD!
I then asked:
Please, list the single top most authoritative person in each of these fields that subscribes to the CD theory, and list their education and work history:
Civil engineering, structural engineering, fire engineering, and demolition engineering. [edited to add: architecture]
Can we get this information, please?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 10, 2007 at 12:34 AM Natalie
Unintentionally erroneous statements? So you just think their bumbling idiots who don’t know what there talking about and they just accidently said A BUNCH OF HUGE BLANTANT LIES! Im sorry I ment boo-boos.
CHARLES THORNTON: They didn’t have the mathematical models in the computers to model a fire as a result of the fuel in a 707.
People were doing quantum physics before there were computers even before there were calculators and I dont even use a calculator when Im double checking their math of the thermal dynamic analysis that was done. If you could see my desk you would see it is coverd with scrap paper that I have used to do the calculations. The statement that he’s made is so utterly absurd that he needs to be arrested. There is no excuse for that lie.
LESLIE ROBERTSON: With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design.
“It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.”
Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires. No thanks to the govenment for finding them either. I wonder why it was left up to us to do the research.
If he had not said “to the best of my knowledge” I would say he should be arrested to.
A. K. Dewdney, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Department of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario. Author of Scientific American’s “Computer Recreations” and “Mathematical Recreations” section, 1984 - 1993.* Essay : “[T]he debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001.” http://www.physics911.net
* Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: “We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations.”
* Member:Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”
* Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney
* CV: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/faculty/akd/PERSONAL/hp.htmlHugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
* Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: “In my opinion the building WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.”
English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch
Original in German: http://www.danieleganser.ch
* Book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA: “As Bachmann told the Neue Züricher Zeitung Online on September 13, 2001, at first glance there seemed to be two possibilities in the fall of the towers. The first was the fire and its effect on the steel supports. But Bachmann had an alternative: “In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.” The article went on to say that “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these “explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building “without having anyone notice.” http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf
* Bio: http://www.ibk.ethz.ch/emeritus/BachmannJörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.
* Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: ” In my opinion the building WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.”
English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch
Original in German: http://www.danieleganser.ch
* Bio: http://www.iabse.ethz.chJack Keller, PhD, PE – Professor Emeritus, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University. Member, National Academy of Engineering. International advisor on water resources, development and agricultural water use. Serves as an advisor to the CALFED Water Use Efficiency Program and former member CALFED Independent Science Board. Awarded State of Utah Governor’s Medal for Science and Technology (1988). Selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world’s 50 leading contributors to science and technology benefiting society (2004).
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”
Steven Jones, PhD – Former Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University. Retired in October 2006 to devote more time to 9/11 research. Principal Investigator for experimental Muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones researched fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium, for the U.S. Department of Energy and for the Electric Power Research Institute.
* Journal of 9/11 Studies Peer reviewed paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? 9/06: “On the basis of photographic and video evidence as well as related data and analyses, I provide thirteen reasons for rejecting the official hypothesis, according to which fire and impact damage caused the collapse of the Twin Towers [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories] and WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane], in favor of the controlled-demolition hypothesis. The goal of this paper is to promote further scrutiny of the official government-sponsored reports as well as serious investigation of the controlled demolition hypothesis.” http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume
* Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._JonesDavid L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
* Personal blog 2/9/07:“David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories] and 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] were brought down by explosives.
... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the “official” assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).
Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!” http://impactglassman
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”
* Bio: http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/Bruce R. Henry, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Mathematics and Computer Science, Worcester State College. Former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles, General Electric Co.
* Article 8/12/06: “The sudden collapse, the seamless downward cascade of the crumbling World Trade Center towers planted doubt in Bruce Henry’s mind.
The way the buildings fell didn’t seem right. The implosion-like plummeting, the absence of central beams and girders refusing to fall, the speed of the collapse—all raised suspicion for the retired mathematics professor from Worcester.
“That was the seed,” said Henry, who taught at Worcester State College. “To me it seems so transparent with a minimal amount of reflection that there’s something catawampus,” or cockeyed, with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Finally, he came to a shocking conclusion that runs counter to the accepted history of America’s darkest day: The towers, he believes, “were brought down by planted explosives.” http://www.information
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”Martin Walter, PhD – Professor and Chairman of the Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado at Boulder. Member, Executive Committee of the Rocky Mountain chapter of the Sierra Club.
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”
* Bio: http://www.colorado.edu/math/earthmath/marty.htmlRobert S. Boyer, PhD – Professor of Computer Science, University of Texas, Austin. Fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Awarded the 2005 Software System Award by the Association for Computing Machinery. Awarded the 6th Herbrand Award (1999) for exceptional contributions to the field of Automated Deduction, by the Conferences on Automated Deduction. Co-author of A Computational Logic Handbook. Editor of Automated Reasoning.
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”
* Bio: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~boyer/Joanna Rankin, PhD – Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University of Vermont.
* Member: Vermonters for a Real 9/11 Investigation Association Statement: “We do support a new, thorough, and truly independent forensic investigation of the events on and surrounding 9/11/2001. We believe that without such an investigation, the threat of further attacks like those of 9/11 remains unabated, our government will continue to erode our civil liberties, and our government will continue to support foreign policies that are destructive to the U.S. and to the world.”
* Bio: http://www.uvm.edu/~jmrankin/?Page=default.htmlKenneth L. Kuttler, PhD – Professor of Mathematics, Brigham Young University.
* Essay: “I provide a short computation, focused on World Trade Center building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] . Based on very favorable assumptions for achieving a fast fall, including ignoring resistance due to intact steel columns, I could only get the building to fall in about 8.3 seconds, whereas the observed roof-fall time is approximately 6.5 seconds. The problem is the large number of floors and conservation of momentum in a collision. Some of the “official” explanations about progressive collapse are evocative but they do not explain the difficulty in the rapid fall of the building along with what is evidently taking place when the video of the falling building is observed.” http://www.journalof911studies.com
* Bio: https://math.byu.edu/~klkuttle/
* CV: http://www.math.byu.edu/~klkuttle/vitaforweb.pdfMichael Elliot, PhD – Teaching Fellow, School of Mathematics and Physics, Queens University, Belfast.
* Signatory: Petition For An Independent International Truth Commission On 9-11. “[T]he Bush administration has never offered a detailed and documented account of its claims about the events of 9-11 which have allegedly revolutionized human affairs. Nor has it explained obvious and serious discrepancies in its own statements and actions. No systematic proof has ever been published or offered as to who the terrorists were, how they operated, where they came from, and why they were not stopped. ...
The Kean-Hamilton panel’s limited funding from Congress makes a mockery of the tragedy of 9-11, considering that it is only a small fraction of the huge sums spent to investigate Bill Clinton.
We therefore call upon statesmen, thinkers, journalists, investigators, artists, scientists, jurists, academics, humanitarians, religious leaders, activists and other eminent personalities from around the world to form an Independent International Truth Commission dedicated to preventing unproven assertions about 9-11 from setting the stage for a new world conflagration. ” http://iitc.911review.org/
* Bio: http://www.qub.ac.uk/Judy Wood, PhD – Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University. Member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM). Co-founder SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division. Currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.
* Essay: “So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.
Did we see this? I believe it’s pretty clear in some of the videos. The “wave” of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation sequence. ...
In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001. The destruction of all seven WTC buildings and especially WTC1 and WTC2 may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation.” http://janedoe0911.tripod.com
* Bio: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Wood_Bio.htmlJoshua Mitteldorf, PhD – Researcher, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona. Former instructor of physics, math, astronomy, and evolution at Harvard, University of California at Berkeley, Temple University, University of Pennsylvania, LaSalle University and Bryn Mawr.
* Statement to this website 1/15/07: “Three prominent and readily observable features of the collapse of the Twin Towers on the morning of 9/11 are inconsistent with the official explanation involving fires and “pancaking”. ...
First, the towers collapsed quickly ...
Second, the collapse was symmetrical. Natural events (including fires) will always be governed by a certain amount of randomness. Some situations are stable and inherently restore symmetry; but the collapse of a tall building is not one of them. ...
Third, each collapse began with an explosion in the upper storIes that carried impressive energy. Jet fuel will burn, but not explode. ... The explosions that are readily observable in videos of the towers’ collapse could only have been produced by commercial explosives. ...
Finally, I mention only for extra emphasis that a third tower (WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories] ) collapsed 6 hours after the first two. It was never struck by a plane, and fires in WTC 7 were far smaller than the other two towers, and confined to one side of the building. Yet WTC 7 also collapsed suddenly and symmetrically, almost as fast as a free fall – hallmarks of controlled demolition. The 9/11 Report of the Kean Commission omits any mention of Building 7, and no government agency has even proposed an explanation of how it fell.
Conclusion: We may differ over the political plausibility of conspiracies that have been proposed in connection with the destruction of 9/11. But the physical implausibility of the official scenario concerning the towers’ collapse should be beyond dispute. This is an area where physicists’ calculations and our commonsense notions of how tall objects fall down both point to the conclusion that sophisticated engineering and carefully-timed explosive charges would be required for the towers to fall in the manner that they did.” Link to statement
* Bio: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jmitteld/Gary Welz, MSc – Instructor of Mathematics at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University New York.
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”
* Bio: http://www.newmedialab.cuny.edu/people/welz/Ted Micceri, PhD – Coordinator of Institutional Research, University of South Florida.
* Article 5/7/06: “As soon as I saw the second plane hit the towers, I knew that it had to be collusion,” said Ted Micceri, a professor of statistical analyses at the University of South Florida and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. “I have a lot of friends who are pilots and I know that if you go off course for even ten minutes, fighter planes from the [North American Aerospace Defense Command] would be at your wing tips.” ...
“Another interesting fact is the collapse of World Trade Center 7,” [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] Micceri said. “All of the records for the WTC were kept there, and no airplane hit it, so why did it collapse and why didn’t the 9/11 Commission even mention it in their report?” http://www.theseliberties.net
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”Kenneth Sowden, MA – Instructor, Mathematics, West Hills Community College.
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”
Robert J. Stern, MS – Associate Professor, Mathematics, Pellissippi State Technical Community College.
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”
Garry Anaquod – Lecturer in Computer Science and Physics, First Nations University of Canada (formerly Saskatchewan Indian Federated College).
* Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government’s official story about the attack on the Pentagon.”
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 10, 2007 at 2:21 AM I see two legitimate structural engineers, Jorg and Hugo, with the only apparent reference to their beliefs being a second-hand cite by a peace-kook on how they watched a video of WTC7 and thought it looked like a demolition.
No indication they were familiar with the particulars surrounding the building’s colllapse.
Am I missing something?
There’s gotta be more than this somewhere. Is there?
Here’s Hugo’s website. No mention of the world trade center, or anything CD.
I don’t see any architects, or fire engineers, or demolition professionals cited.
Lots of mathematicians, though. But being good with numbers doesn’t mean knowing how to apply them. Sounds good, though.
Judy Wood believes space weapons took down the towers. She’s a kook.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 10, 2007 at 7:07 AM Natalie
I have had and still have guests so I need to make this short. Look at the top of this page for more people to attack and I will list the rest for you when I can.
And I still say a physicist trumps any engineer just like an engineer trumps any architect.
Your making the same misstake with Jorg and Hugo as you did with Sibel Edmonds.
You said;
No Joe, you’ve provided no evidence, other than for what everybody already knows. Our intelligence agencies are big lumbering sloths, and they’re hog-tied by incompetence, political correctness, ass-covering and territorialism. This is an unassailable reality.You said;
In fact, Sibel Edmonds is an excellent illustration of my points from a couple posts ago. She and others have been trying to draw attention to this kind of malfeasance, and the powers that be are working hard to maintain their status quo.You said;
Sibel Edmonds doesn’t believe in controlled demolition. Search her site for any mention of anything 9/11 truth and you’ll come up empty.NOW READ HER RESPONSE TO A LETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for your support; kind words.
I usually don’t respond to inquiries via e-mail; I don’t grant interviews in writing either.
However,
Quote #1- Accurate: “once this issue [9/11] gets to be…investigated, you will be seeing certain [American] people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally”
Quote#2- Accurate: “There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized”
Have a nice holiday.
Best,
SibelFrom the “most gagged person in American History.”
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 10, 2007 at 7:41 AM Perhaps Sibel’s credible on some things, I’m far from sure. But I still don’t see any substantive link between her and 9/11 being an “inside job”.
If you have anything of substance on or by Jorg and Hugo, please link it.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 10, 2007 at 7:58 AM Opponents of Poland’s former communist regime reportedly want to pay a posthumous homage to US President Ronald Reagan by erecting his statue in the place of a Soviet-era monument.
In an open letter to the mayor of the southwestern city of Katowice, the former anti-regime activists said that the staunchly anti-communist Reagan had been a “symbol of liberty,” the Polish news agency PAP reported.
As a result, they said, he deserved to become the centrepiece of the city’s Freedom Square, replacing a monument to the Soviet troops who drove out the occupying Nazis in 1945.
They also said that they wanted the site to be rebaptised “Ronald Reagan Freedom Square.”
City hall spokesman Waldemar Bojarun said that Katowice’s councillors would consider the issue.
Bojarun said that he had “enormous respect” for Reagan.
However, he said, the proposal could cost an estimated 500,000 zlotys (128,000 euros, 168,000 dollars) and the city had “other pressing needs.”
There are already separate plans to erect a statue in memory of Reagan in the centre of the Polish capital, Warsaw, which would be paid-for from private funds.
Reagan, who dubbed the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” is widely credited by Poles with having driven communism to the wall.
The conservative Republican made fighting communism the cornerstone of his 1980-1988 presidency, and backed Poland’s Solidarity trade union after it went underground when the regime declared martial law in 1981.
Reagan died in June 2004 at the age of 93.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 10, 2007 at 9:28 AM And I still say a physicist trumps any engineer just like an engineer trumps any architect.
In the context of this discussion, I think not, at least the engineer-physicist part. Would a physicist be capable of designing a skyscraper? Does he possess the necessary understanding of how different materials work together to form a system that will safely stand and be able to resist forces of gravity and wind? Consequently is he capable of understanding the mechanisms of failure better than an engineer?
A physicist is really just a step above a mathematician, in that he works with a set of physical laws, and knows how to use math to calculate how physical things will obey those laws. However, all this knowledge is useless in understanding building failure if one doesn’t understand the complex relationships between different materials and structural members, and how temperatures and stress affect the whole assembly.
For example, Steven Jones is easily able to calculate for us how fast one object will fall in free-fall, or in air of a certain temperature and altitude. But he demonstrates no understanding of how to calculate the progressive fall of a complex structure and jumps to erroneous assumptions based on simplistic models about how long it should take to collapse. He tends to simplify and work in the theoretical realm.
An engineer works in a more practical realm. He learns how to design systems with many parts that are actually built, and are tested over time. He observes failures and learns what caused them. He knows how hard gravity pulls on a beam like a physicist does, but he also knows the properties of that beam, the properties of the global structure that it’s part of and in what way that beam contributes to those properties.
An architect is more of an artist, but he also works in the practical realm. His art must be structurally sound, and so he needs at least a moderate understanding of engineering, and of course physics underneath that, and of course math underneath that. He can draw up a beautiful building, but it still needs to pass by an engineer, at least if it’s something major.
In terms of understanding the collapse of the twin towers or building 7, I would judge that the professional best able to most accurately give you the reason for it would be a structural engineer. Next would be an architect. Next would be a physicist. Lastly would be a mathematician.
Mathematicians and physicists don’t design buildings and put their stamp and their reputations on the final plans. So obviously, they’re not best qualified to understand a building failure.
Engineers and architects do, however. They can take a mathematician’s numbers, run them through a physicist’s formulas, and apply them in a variety of ways to end up with a practical, safe structure. At least until someone drives an airliner into it.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM Just a quick note-its late. Somethings amiss with the auto-email on the server here as I havent received any on any of the topics I follow here. As I couldnt believe you two would go this long without having at one another so I came to check. Will reply to your last post to me soon, Natalie, and funny, but as you mention it and I see all that has been written/pasted here since I last looked in I DO wonder about Joe also. You two should get together somewhere and have this debate in person. I sense an electricity between you two that makes me want to watch a video of the two of you meeting. Think I’ll send a link of this thread to Oprah.—Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 11, 2007 at 8:39 AM Bong Bong! There’s the bell, end of Round 7. I definitely give this round to Natalie. Her impressive footwork is all the more amazing considering its her lovely hands that earn her living. And she certainly used them to her advantage here, with adroit counter punches to Joe’s (Palooka Joe?) roundhouse style. Tap dancing around the ring, her precise, repeated jabs to Joe’s midsection (a few below the belt) have taken their toll. Unless Joe can connect with a serious blow to the body of Natalie’s appeal to authority, I think he’s had it in this refs opinion. Most fighters in his position would not even come out for Round 8, but what he lacks in finesse he makes up for in heart and resilience, so I bet he will.
I was all set to do a lot of quotes here N, but after again going over it all, I tend to think you are basically right. Yes, I still have doubts. But as I have little relative knowledge of the fields one needs to know to weigh in on all this in any meaningful way, I dont feel inclined to really participate in this debate though I will certainly continue to follow it. Quality entertainment.
Natalie I would dispute your low esteem of mathematics. It is the foundation on which all science is based, the common language. But in looking again at those with relevant technical backgrounds that have come forth on Truth, including mathematicians, what really occurred to me in a more objective frame of mind (they do happen occasionally) was the marginal level of the schools they represented. BYU aint MIT or Cal Tech, and most are on campuses at the community college level. It reminded me of the “scientists” trumpeted in causes such as refuting evolution and global warming.
Joe I think you should follow up and contact NIST and other groups that have examined this matter. Take N’s advice and be polite, and learn from the Bush administrations misadventures in Iraq and use spell check. I would also say if you follow N’s lead and refuse to even entertain any doubts about your beliefs, you will be less affective.
I would add, Joe, that you should focus your efforts on activities that could move you cause further. Number 1 on my list would be to press Congress to test the steel for residue of explosives. That would be the one provable smoking gun that could end this debate. With the amount of interest online in all this, I would think you might even be able to generate a fund to pay a certified private contractor to conduct the tests. If the government remained adamant and refused to allow such a test, that alone would convince a lot of fence sitters like myself that someone was hiding something.
As things stand, I would have to agree the number and background of the Professors endorsing the CD theory is unimpressive at best. Why aren’t there more, and why are the true cognoscenti in these various disciplines silent? We agree it is not beyond possibility that 9/11 was in some way connected to people in this country’s military industrial complex Joe. What is missing is undeniable proof amidst a plethora of dubious speculation. Start an online petition to test the WTC steel and I’ll be glad to sign it. Would you sign it, Natalie? Oh, and out of curiosity, if there is anyone else still reading this thread could you please just post a quick hello? We could make this the start of the petition to Congress to test the WTC steel and end these rumors once and for all. Anyone?
I would again like to express kudos to the site admin for allowing this topic to continue. Though the number participating appears small, you apparently recognize there is a lot of passion and effort in play here, and likely others have followed it without feeling capable of reply, like me until recently. Thanks.—Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 11, 2007 at 11:54 PM Natalie
Sorry I have been busy in a debate that does come back to this one.
How could any reasonable person in good conscience look at the big picture and not come away with a multitude of questions and doubts about the official story?
I can’t express how strongly I feel about this. It is well documented by the very Commission that studied 9/11 that the their 9/11 investigation was a colossal failure. They were lied to by every major government institution.
There was a massive cover-up and that is all that is needed to show there needs to be a new investigation.
And its easy to prove the cover-up because the government, by it’s own admission, has covered up the crime.
To demonstrate that there is a basis for reopening the case based upon known evidence of a governmental coverup and lies.
One of the most basic fundamental questions that arose out of 911 were questions regarding our air defenses. HOW could Washington DC be violated in that way?
Given the August 12th story in the Washington Post in which the 911 Commissioners themselves claimed they considered criminal charges against NORAD for KNOWINGLY giving them false information, we now know that after millions have been spent on a formal investigation and commission report, we STILL do not have an answer to the most fundamental question of ACCOUNTABILITY for our failed air defenses.
As we know, NORAD provided 3 seperate timelines of events associated with their response on 9/11. NONE of these timelines proved to be accurate.
WHO has been held accountable? Is the public not entitled to accountability?
HOW could our air defenses fail on such a massive level?
WHERE did the breakdown in communication (if there was one) occur?
WHY has NORAD not been held accountable for failing to give a full and thorough accounting of its actions that day?
These are not conspracy theories. This is not speculation. 3,000 people died because our air force failed to protect us. That’s a fact. These are FUNDAMENTAL questions that are inherently credible in their simplicity.
These are questions that are actionable. People can be compelled to testify and give answers. And if they lie - they can be charged with a crime.
My other debate is where Im saying that now we have another blame game were Bush is trying to blame Iran, which supports the Shites in Iraq, for attacking American GI’s which is nuts. Nearly all American deaths are the result of combat with Sunni forces, not Shites.
It would be insane for Iran to supply the Sunni’s with anything that could be used against any Shites.
American supplied ammo, rockets, mines, etc, which appear on the local black market are more than likely being used against our troops than Iranian produced items.
The current Iran Blamegate thing is more of Bush refusing to face reality, and trying to shift the blame onto others, in this case, Iran.
It’s the job of our media to look past the obvious American Intelligence Black Ops going on now with regards towards Iran.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 12:03 AM If we had done a proper investigation we would not be in Iraq! So follow me and I will show how this all comes together and relates to what we are talking about now.
U.S. lawyers also presented highly detailed new evidence of the Saudi government’s role in funneling millions of dollars to a web of Islamic charities that are widely suspected by U.S. officials of covertly financing the operations of Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups.
Saudi is giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said.
The 9M32 STRELA-2 is a first-generation man-portable, shoulder-fired short-range anti-aircraft missile system, intended for destruction of both subsonic and supersonic air targets (fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, UAV) in ground and low altitudes. Development of this relatively simple system (STRELA-2, or SA-7A) started in 1959 and its basic version was introduced after 1966.
Major improvements carried out in mid-70s consisted in the applications of a new-generation homing system which is not only more sensitive but also more resistant against IR jamming, or IR decoys, and has a substantially shorter reaction time. STRELA-2M can cooperate with a miniature elint seeker which can be fitted to the operator’s helmet and can locate sources of active radiation in an aircraft, like a radar, radar altimeter etc. Since late 70s, an adapted version was mounted on Mil Mi-24 (HIND E) combat helicopters particularly to combat helicopters. To date, STRELA-2 has been considered a very efficient weapon to destroy air targets. Its advantages include particularly the simplicity of construction and the way of rapid and easy employment. Due to its small dimensions and low weight it is easily portable.
The two Iraqi officials would not name specific Iraqi Sunnis who have received money from Saudi Arabia. But Iraq issued an arrest warrant for Harith al-Dhari, a Sunni opponent of the Iraqi government, shortly after he visited Saudi Arabia in October. He was accused of sectarian incitement.
Remember Nov. 27, when a U.S. Air Force F-16 jet crashed while flying in support of American soldiers fighting in Anbar province, a Sunni insurgent hotbed. The U.S. military said it had no information about the cause of the crash.
But a spokesman for a Sunni faction claimed that fighters armed with a Strela missile had shot down the jet.
“We have stockpiles of Strelas and we are going to surprise them (the Americans),” Khudair al-Murshidi, the spokesman told the AP in Damascus, Syria. He would not say how the Strelas were obtained.
Conway, speaking to a gathering of government executives at a Washington hotel, said Marine troop transports generally fly at an altitude that puts them out of range of small arms fire from the ground, and he said they have special equipment on board that enables them to avoid being hit by the SA-7 that is the most frequently seen anti-aircraft missile among the insurgents. “We’ve had lots of SA-7s shot at us,” he said.
“More troubling is the appearance of SA-16s and SA-18s,” Conway said, referring to more modern, portable anti-aircraft missiles. The SA-16, which is an improved version of the SA-18, uses a more advanced infrared guidance system and is effective at altitudes of up to about 10,000 feet.
Crash Inventory
Number One
Black Hawk brought down in Diyala province, 12 dead. Al-Qaida affiliate claims responsibility. They"re Al-Qaida = Sunnis = Saudi. - This crash was posted on this site, as the dead included a number of key military personnel.
Number Two
Blackwater observer copter brought down in central Baghdad. Four of five slain shot in head, execution style. Sunni faction responsible = Saudi. Its not likely the Sunnis had been aided by Shia Iran.
Number Three
Crash in Najaf, presumably Shia faction responsible
Number Four
Apache downed near Taji. Sunni group claims responsibility = Saudi. They dont get much help from Iran.
Number Five
CH-46 brought down in Al-Anbar. Seven dead by Sunnis = Saudi. They don’t trade much with Iran.
Number Six
Contractor Sea Knight copter shot down south of Baghdad. Sunni group claiming responsibility = Saudi. Highly unlikely to have any Iranian backing.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 12:19 AM SEVENTH Copter Down in 22 Days in Iraq
Is any media covering it at all?
A sad and unfortunately all-too-familiar squelching by the media.
A U.S. Apache helicopter went down north of Baghdad on Sunday, local residents said, but the U.S. military said it was not aware of any such incident.
Residents reported seeing a missile hit the attack helicopter, which carries two crew, bringing it down in the Timayma area, near Taji, site of a major U.S. air base 20 km (12 miles) north of Baghdad.
The U.S. Casualty list has been updated by an unofficial “2” since this news broke.
The US military cannot succeed in urban secure-and-hold operations without helicopters.
Just as the Stingers turned the tide against the Soviets in Afghanistan, we’re going to be sitting ducks in Iraq without safe helicopter transport.
There is a near-complete listing of coalition aviation losses at Wikipedia - just google coalition aircraft crashes in Iraq. It’s near-complete, and the numbers of copters downed is WAY higher than you think.
Russia dumped a lot of missiles on Saudi recently Mostly Tor-M1 and S-300 systems that are competitive with the Patriot. I’m scouting out to see if there’s a direct line on Russian sale of man-portable short-range rockets to Saudi.
Putin is in Saudi Arabia today, as we speak:
Putin and Saudi King Abdullah, whose countries are the world’s two largest oil producers, will discuss regional problems and bilateral links, including possible Russian arms sales to Riyadh, which has traditionally used Western defence systems.
A diplomatic source said the visit is expected to lead to a “verbal understanding” on the sale of about 150 Russian T-90 battle tanks to Saudi Arabia, which has traditionally bought Western weapons but is seeking to diversify its defence systems. Russia has also offered Mi-17 helicopters.
Putin, whose delegation will include officials from the state arms export monopoly Rosoboronexport, is scheduled to hold a meeting on Monday with Saudi Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, who is also defence minister, officials said.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 12:20 AM Maj. Gen. Jim Simmons, deputy commander of Multinational Corps-Iraq, told reporters there was no indication Iranian weapons were behind the latest spate of helicopter crashes.
More copters downed in the last 22 days than in 3 years. IMO, I think we have a trend.
A Poisson analysis was ran on the likelihood that 6 downed copters in three weeks was just a blip.
The odds were about 1 in 1.3 billion.
Thats 116 helicopters a year!!! But, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, mathematics has a well-known liberal bias.
In addition to the cost in human lives Each downed Apache costs the US Taxpayers between $14.5 million and $56.25 million, depending on type and features.
The original unit cost for the AH-64A was about US$14.5 million. In September 2003, Greece ordered 12 AH-64D (in addition to the already existing fleet of 20 AH-64A ) for a total cost of $675 million (presumably including weapons and support), indicating a gross unit cost for the AH-64D of $56.25 million. Singapore purchased a total of 20 AH-64D Longbow Apache aircraft in two batches between 1999 and 2001. Pakistan is thought to have ordered 6 Apache Longbow for its various anti-terrorism missions; unofficial reports suggest that the Pakistan Army has a requirement of up to 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow by 2010.
* According to Maj. Gen Stephen Speakes, the Army was sent to war in Iraq $56 billion short of essential equipment.
* Army officials told the White House that it needs at least an additional $24 billion, not in the 2007 budget, just to pay its current bills.
* Cash shortfalls have forced the Army to lay off janitorial staff, close base swimming pools, and even stop mowing lawns on Army bases.
* But cuts have also hit soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army officials had to cut $3 billion for replacement of weapons in heavy use in Iraq, such as armored Humvees, two-way radios, remote control surveillance aircraft and trucks.
* National Guard units now lack 40% of their critical readiness gear because its been sent to Iraq, and the Army lacks the funds to replace it.This budget crunch comes at a time when running the US Army never cost more.
* To stem the flow of soldiers leaving the Army because of repeated deployments to Iraq the Army was forced to spend $773 million on retention bonus this year compared with just $85 million three years ago.
* The Army had to spend an additional $300 million on recruiting this year than in 2003.
* The quality of the Armys oft touted all volunteer force has slid with the Armys decision to accept more enlistees that scored in the lower third of aptitude tests.
* As a result the Army had to issue 8500 moral waivers this year compared with just 2260 ten years ago. (Moral waivers are issued for past criminal convictions, drug use and other proven legal/moral violations.)How much of the Armys budget problems are due to poor budgeting and how much from private sector gouging? You decide.
Here are few more facts.
* The cost of equipping an infantry soldier tripled, from $7000 in 1999 to $24,000 today.
* The cost of Humvees went from $32,000 in 2001 to a breathtaking $225,000 each today.
* The cost of training, feeding and housing Army recruits went from $75,000 per soldier in 2001 to $120,000 today. (The Army uses private contractors, largely Halliburtons Kellogg, Root & Brown, to provide most non-training services, such as food service and base maintenance. )The Iraq Study Group undoubtedly heard all about the Armys budget crunch during their closed-door hearings. Which explains why its recommendations did not include large additional US troop deployments.
The (Armys) equipment shortages explain why Gen. John Abizaid, the top commander in the middle East, recently told lawmakers that the US couldnt maintain even a relatively small increase of 20,000 soldiers in Iraq. The ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something we have right now, he testified in November. (Jaffe, WSJ)
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 12:24 AM Army Struggles with Backlog of Damaged Gear Even If Wars Ended, It Would Take Three Years to Catch Up on Repairs says
ABC News
The Pentagon has sent about 40 percent of its military equipment to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. There, it is routinely targeted by small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs.
1. all or almost all the Reserve copters are there
2. pilots that go, dont come back
3. neither do their copters
4. the copters are reduced in number over time
5. which leaves a need for any pilots back stateside for something to do
6. why not add Advanced Infantry Training or Urban Warfare Tactics to your resume?
The current Iran Blamegate thing is more of Bush refusing to face reality, and trying to shift the blame onto others, in this case, Iran.
When we should be looking somewhere else.
Of the $1.9 trillion the US spent on weaponry.the Air Force received 36% and the Navy got 33%. The Army got
16%.Ships, subs, planes and all the high-end, high-tech gizmos that go with them, are SO much more profitable for defense contractors than the care and feeding of Army grunts thats its no contest. And these high-dollar honey pots are also much more boast-worthy for politicians in districts where those contractors maintain plants and defense contracts make damn sure their facilities are strategically located around the country.
Which explains why the poor grunt on the ground is getting the short end of defense spending. Lockheed cant build and sell infantrymen. And profit margins on rifles, bullets and bulletproof vests is small change compared to the other stuff that can be sold to Uncle Sam. So, why waste a perfectly good war on nickel and dime infantry stuff when they can go for the real gold?
Just keep this in mind the next time you hear your Senator or your member of Congress heaping praise on our fighting men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. When theyre done, ask them what Jaffes WSJ report is all about, and how it translates into supporting our troops. Ask them just who they are really supporting—-our troops or their favorite defense contributor(s)? Then ask them how many of the over 3000 dead US soldiers died because they lacked proper gear? Oh, and ask them to let you know right away when one of those $250 billion nuclear subs nails Osama bin Laden or pacifies Iraq.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 1:04 AM If, indeed, the Iranians are funding, arming and training Shiite militias and we are threatening military action against Iran, then doesn’t it logically follow that we should be threatening military action against Saudi Arabia which has been funding the Sunni insurgency, an insurgency that has killed far more Americans than the Shiite insurgency?
You are not likely to get an answer from the criminals currently in charge of our government, but asking the question publicly will open the debate and display the hypocrisy of the current p.r. campaign designed to boost efforts to attack Iran.
Asking the question will once again lay bare for the American public the incestuous links between the administration, the Republican Party and the Saudis. It would also continue to undercut the notion that Bush, et. al. “support the troops” in any way, shape or form, as they give a free pass to the Saudis who are supplying money and weaponry to those doing the most killing of Americans in Iraq.
If we invaded Iraq to give the Iraqi people freedom and democracy shouldnt we invade the Saudi’s?
Saudi Arabia’s human rights record is extremely poor; see the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report. Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disneyworld!
If we invaded Iraq because of 9/11 shouldnt we invade the Saudi’s?
15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Many in the Saudi government played a direct role in funding 9/11. Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disneyworld. Lets capture the Saudis who funded 9/11 and rid the country of its ayatollahs!
How can a government that’s been intent upon using the terrorist attacks to carry out the invasion of Iraq, prevent bringing to justice those who’ve been established as being directly responsible for it?
Senator Graham’s Revelation
It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship.In his book, “Intelligence Matters,” Senator Bob Graham made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry’s final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees.
“The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured. The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives.”
“Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.”
“We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with two of the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”
The Treasury and State Departments have catalogued the Saudi government’s decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
If we invaded Iraq because of WMD’s shouldnt we invade the Saudi’s?
Saudi’s have an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. According to Mohammed Khilewi, first secretary at the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from China, supported Pakistan’s nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S. government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia’s case, considering the fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any developing country.
The report by FAS establishes that despite the show of U.S. support demonstrated by this astounding quantity of arms sales, Saudi Arabia’s human rights record is extremely poor; see the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report. Saudi Arabia’s position as a strategic Gulf ally has blinded U.S. officials into approving a level and quality of arms exports that should never have been allowed to a non-democratic country with such a poor human rights record.
According to the report published by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Saudi Arabia is America’s top customer. Since 1990 the U.S. government, through the Pentagon’s arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department’s direct commercial sales program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-paying customer; a compulsive buyer of our weaponry. The list of U.S. sellers includes almost all the major players such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.
When it comes to our complex diplomatic threading with Saudi Arabia the easiest answer appears to be the “oil factor,” upon further inspection the Saudi’s influence and role extends into other areas, such as the Military Industrial Complex and the too familiar Lobbying Games.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 1:46 AM Gosh Joe, you’re actually talking about things that actually may be debatable. I’m not overly knowledgeable about middle east politics, and I haven’t really been following this latest Iran weapons supply accusation. But it makes sense to me on the surface that the power-hungry few in Iran would be trying to undermine us and bog us down in Iraq, and prevent a democratic system from ever taking hold there, because they know the majority of the people in Iraq simply want to live in peace. That’s all they need when they’re trying to keep their own freedom-hungry population at bay, not to mention achieving their ultimate goal of establishing control of the entire region.
However, you really hurt your credibility with your dogged belief in wacky twin tower CD theories and such. What I’m thinking is if he’ll believe that, how credible is his interpretation of what he hears about Iran, etc., and are his sources on this the same kinds of sources that have so badly mislead him on 9/11 stuff. The anti-western propaganda machine far over-powers the efforts of the “truth” movement.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 12, 2007 at 2:25 AM Natalie
When you where saying Iran were you meaning Saudi? I hope.
The government has made hundreds of false claims And I have proven it on this thread But YOU keep excusing them as simple misstakes.
You post the truther misstakes that I have put on this thread and I will post the government lies on this thread! WHO DO YOU THINK WILL HAVE MORE?
I dare you! Come on NATALIE lets see who is truly the DISINFORMATION King on this thread is it the truthers or the government.
I will let you pick the entire thread or a page off of it which ever you chose!
I can list 50 lies that you have posted to defend the gov. and now the government admits that they were misstakes which is the nice way of saying they lied. I am talking about non debatable LIES by our government or as you call the lies government misstakes!
You said:
This was arrived at through the very intensive “investigation” and “further study” that the truthies so often demand.For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.
And 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 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 . . . .”
And 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”.
But let’s back up and look at the 9/11 Commission in more detail. Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to “intelligence failures”, so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved.
The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of “public myths” thought to be true, even if not actually true (and see this article).
The administration then starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), and refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.
More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration’s official version of events. As stated by the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government’s international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, “there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.”
For example, the 9-11 Commission report fails to mention the CIA director’s urgent warnings to top administration officials in July 2001 of an impending attack (indeed, the 9-11 Commission was briefed on these warnings, but denied they knew about them until confronted with contrary evidence). Moreover, numerous veteran national security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 commission, even though they had information directly relevant to the commission’s investigation. And the 9/11 Commission Report does not even mention the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 or any explosions in the buildings (the word “explosion” does not appear in the report). There are literally hundreds of other examples of entire lines of evidence which contradict the government’s account which were ignored by the Commission.
A very well-documented book by a distinguished professor shows that the 9-11 Commission was a whitewash. According to law professor Richard Falk of Princeton, the author of this book “establishes himself, alongside Seymour Hersh, as America’s number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths” (Seymour Hersh, as you might know, is the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal). See a synopsis of the book here; and a summary of a portion of the book here.
Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now “question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report”, and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and “suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts”.
Moreover, a leading firefighters’ trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a “half-baked farce”. In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. Similarly, a professor of fire protection engineering, and the former chief of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses.
Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.
And the government agency tasked with examining the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies in the collapse of the buildings, failing to even examine any of the following evidence: the buildings impossible near free-fall speeds and symmetrical collapses; the unexplained fact that the core of the North Tower failed first; the apparent demolition squibs; the fact that the buildings turned to dust in mid-air; the presence of molten metal in the basement areas in large pools in all of the buildings; the unexplained presence of unusual compounds in the steel; the unexplained swiss-cheese like holes in the steel; and the unexplained straightening out of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree.
Indeed, an article from a respected civil engineering trade journal states:
“World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations [i.e. models] of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers”.
The article goes on to state “a leading U.S. structural engineer said ‘By comparison [to the modeling of fires] the global structural model is not as sophisticated’ . . . The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls . . . it would be hard to produce a definitive visualization from the analysis so far.” (free subscription required; copy posted here)(in other words, the government refused to release a visual model of the collapses, and even the non-visual computer models which the government used to examine why the trade centers collapsed are faulty).
The same journal points out that “Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.” (Google’s cached version of the article is here)
See also this question and answer exchange at a recent government press conference (skip to 1 minute and 23 seconds into the video). And this short video on building 7 and the subsequent investigation (you may wish to disregard brief partisan portion).And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?
Or that a former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis—has stated that “this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free “untouched and uninvestigated”?
Or have you heard that the FBI long ago found and analyzed the “black box” recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found?Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times?
And amazingly, many years after the FBI stated it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11, that agency apparently still does not have hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime.
Still think the government really investigated and disclosed what happened on 9/11?
Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.the commissions executive director and de facto member of the Bush administration, Philip Zelikow, controled the entire investigation as well as the writing of the report. Most of the 9/11 commission members were simply there to present an appearance of unanimity. Therefore the official story is not represenative of work by the U.S. government as a whole, but is largely the view of the Bush administration.
The commission’s story has been shown to be entirely false do to their lies of ,omission and distortion, and one significant event their report omitted entirely was the collapse of WTC7. They left this part to be fabricated by NIST.
This second report done by NIST inorder to tie up the loose ends is a direct product of the Bush adminastration, with cabinet member Carlos Gutierrez’ name emblazoned on page one. Of course NIST itself is a government agency whos directors are also presidential appointees. Those relying on this report always fail to note the fact that the leaders of NIST’ WTC investigation were appointed directly by George W. Bush.
Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony. Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster.Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.
Another expert who served on NIST’s advisory committee was Charles Thornton, of the engineering firm Thornton and Tomasetti. Thornton’s partner, Richard Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11Early on Thornton said: “Karl, we all know what caused the collapse.” He was talking to Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel. Also see James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (New York: Times Books, 2003), 330.
Oh and let us not forget that the Bush adminisration has been criticized heavily for their disdane of science. The House Committee on Government Reform found “numerous instances where the administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings.” Also a group of leading scientists, now including 49 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 175 members of the National Academics, has said that the Bush administration engages in “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.”
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 3:36 AM Joe, I think the root of the problem here is that you’re laboring under the false assumption that everything the Govt. does is suspect and that they’re always trying to hide something and always have ulterior motives of some sort. While this may be true in some isolated cases, I think you’re distorting these into a false global reality that causes you to come to invalid conclusions.
The steel wasn’t tested for explosive residue because they were trying to cover up a CD, not simply because nobody had the slightest suspicion that explosives were used.
NIST didn’t show computer simulations of the collapse because they’re trying to hide something, not because their priorities and budget didn’t allow them to make any and they considered it not to be necessary to fulfill the mandates of their investigation anyway.
Similarly, a professor of fire protection engineering, and the former chief of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses.
James G. Quintiere doesn’t believe in CD.
Moreover, a leading firefighters’ trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a “half-baked farce”.
Bill Manning doesn’t believe in CD. His complete quote, including the sentence that truthies, including Joe, almost always leave out:
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.—Fire Engineering, January 2002
Yes, I was talking about Iran, in response to you talking about Iran. They seem to be doing all they can to help us fail in Iraq, and for all I know Saudi Arabia is too.
Still can’t drill in ANWR? dang it.
Still can’t build any more nuclear power plants? darn
Posted by Natalie on Feb 12, 2007 at 5:57 AM Bong Bong! There’s the bell, end of Round 7. I definitely give this round to Natalie.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 12, 2007 at 6:44 AM Natalie
So you agree we should invade Saudi NOW for their role in 9/11 and their continued support of terrorist and for their people to be freed from their oppressive government and for their active role as a player in the nuclear black-market.
How can a government that’s been intent upon using the terrorist attacks to carry out the invasion of Iraq, prevent bringing to justice those who’ve been established as being directly responsible for it?
IF THERE HAD BEEN A REAL INVESTIGATION OF 9/11 WE WOULD NOT BE IN IRAQ!
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 6:50 AM A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:
QUOTE
“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.”SourceA report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving
QUOTE
“everything from molten steel beams to human remains.”The article also mentions that the subdivisions of the WTC
QUOTE
“continued to burn for approximately three months.” SourceA Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter “Toolie” O’Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were
QUOTE
“dripping from the molten steel.”Sourcetranscription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:
QUOTE
“When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.
I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat.”SourceA report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
QUOTE
“Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”
SourceAn article inThe Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
QUOTE
“As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”SourceA publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:
QUOTE
“Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster.”SourceA member of the New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based:
QUOTE
“Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”SourceThe book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage:
QUOTE“.. or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” (American Ground, p.32)
A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling
QUOTE
“heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” SourceDr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer ,
QUOTE
“They showed us many fascinating slides [Eaton] continued, ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.” (Structural Engineer , September 3, 2002, p. 6;.)Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel.Source
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
“Nobody’s going to be alive.’ Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002)
The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C Source“Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write
QUOTE
“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.”...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.”...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. The New York Times described this as
QUOTE
“perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”QUOTE
“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges—which are curled like a paper scroll—have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes—some larger than a silver dollar—let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending—but not holes.”
SourceNote that sulfur is:
QUOTE
“The most popular vaporizing agent due to the fact it lowers ignition temperature for most pyrotechnic mixtures.” —From the web page: Pyrotechnic ChemicalsSource
Take also this into consideration:The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams—then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
QUOTE
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005;)
Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:
QUOTE
“The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true…. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame…. In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types… The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500°C.”“But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio… This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke…. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse… The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable… Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.” (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 7:16 AM Molten Steel
Is the most devastating proof of an inside job along with free fall speed of collapse. You can’t break the laws of physics.
1. There is lots of testimony of molten steel by eye-witnesses
2. It was analyzed in the FEMA report!! Therefore it exists!
3. NIST completely ignored it and called it “irrelevant to their investigation” as if the structural support of a building is somehow “irrelevant”.
4. Normal fires (i.e. jet fuel) fires are incapable of melting steel
5. ONLY a thermate/thermite reaction can explain molten metal for WEEKS after 9/11. Explosives can also melt steel.
6. Steven Jones found thermate.
7. Dust Samples independently analyzed confirm the explosives hypothesis.
Building designer Les Robertson claimed to have seen the molten steel 21 days after the buildings fell to the ground. Later in an interview with Steven Jones he claimed he didnt know of anyone who saw molten steel! Guess whathe supports the NIST report and also claims that they didnt consider jet fuel (a lie) and that they also didnt consider planes moving faster than 180 mph (another lie). These people are lying and we know it. We can hold them accountable for their lies.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 7:26 AM Here are the Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001 that NIST never new about or has seen at least thats what John Gross says.
A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) who arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation
American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. “Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.” These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
What could have caused those box columns of 4-inch thick steel to melt like this?EXAMINING THE HEAT OF GROUND ZERO
Dozens of hot spots were mapped. The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, showed a temperature of 1377° F (747° C). This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement.
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.”[9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.”[Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU News, 10/2001 ]
Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”[Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]
Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 ]
According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”[National Guard Magazine, 12/2001]
New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”[New York Post, 3/3/2004]
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.”[Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002] Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers.[MSNBC, 11/16/2005] He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.”[Deseret Morning News, 11/10/2005] There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 ] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying, “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.”[ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001).
...........clean-up crew discovered hot spots of “literally molten steel” more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, required the help of a professional.
A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) who arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation
American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. “Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.” These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 8:20 AM Natalie
NIST did an official investagation,and they did’nt see or hear about any of what I posted above? PLEASE WAKE UP!
Though this is not near as bad as some of the other LIES they have been cought telling. It was still worth a letter. This makes the 72nd letter in regards to the 72nd LIE that has been told and was big enough to bother responding to.
Spell check!e-mail excerpt
I recently saw footage of a talk you gave at the University of Texas at Austin, where you were asked about molten steel at Ground Zero.
You responded by denying the existence of such steel, even though countless examples can be seen on video archives. Audio and written testimonies also support the molten metal samples, and it was analyzed in the initial FEMA report. Your denial is contradicted by hard evidence.
Therefore, your denial constitutes perjury and obstruction of a proper investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. As a researcher familiar with these issues, I can only surmise that your denial was due to the fact that molten metal is prima facie proof of the use of explosives, most likely thermate.
As such, I, as well as my colleagues, have moved to archive your comments and forward them to international investigative authorities in the European Union, as future criminal evidence to the continuing cover up by NIST about the collapse of the WTC.
I would hope that your findings would reflect the nature of the scientific data that has been gathered and analyzed at Ground Zero. Independent scientists around the world who have studied the information have widely concluded that controlled demolition, not office fires, brought the towers down. This is also the case with WTC 7. I can provide links should you doubt the certitude of this claim.
Please know that steps are being taken internationally to hold American officials accountable for the cover up of these atrocities, and that your complicity may result in criminal charges being filed against you, including perjury, obstruction of justice and accesory to murder.
I would hope that your scientific analysis would take all relevant data into account before reaching a conclusion, and that past omissions by FEMA or NIST will in the future be rectified.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 8:54 AM Natalie
Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.
Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph.[14] A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.[15] Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. It is a very suspicious statement given the fact that it would be reasonable to consider the maximum speed of a plane flying into the Twin Towers. Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.[16]
Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[17] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?
NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no evidence to indicate consideration of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. This statement is clearly false. See John Skillings statement: Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire The building structure would still be there.[18]
In an interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal. This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.[19]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[20]
Robertson is also incorrect when he says that if they had seen [Molten Steel, they had not] performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was. This statement is false. FEMA analyzed samples of the molten steel.[21] However, NIST did not even mention the molten steel and called it irrelevant to [their] investigation.[22] This could have simply been a mistake by Robertson.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 12, 2007 at 7:30 PM Joe,
I think that letter containing all those ridiculous accusations may actually be criminal in itself. I hope it’s not from you, but if it is, I hope you haven’t sent it yet.
I recently saw footage of a talk you gave at the University of Texas at Austin, where you were asked about molten steel at Ground Zero.
You responded by denying the existence of such steel, even though countless examples can be seen on video archives.
Countless examples? We’ve all seen the tractor with the glowing material in its jaws, which was likely not steel BTW, but what else are you talking about? Please link us to oh, let’s say six other video clips. I would think there would be literally hundreds of photographs of such an extraordinary thing as a “molten pool or river of flowing steel”. Please, even if you are able to do this, explain how you know that this material is steel.
But what if there was a few instances of some molten steel? Who knows what other fuel sources there may have been, and who knows what reactions might have taken place among the various pulverized and/or ground up materials? Who knows what kind of chimney effects might have been present? And who knows exactly what these supposed pools were really composed of?
Who knows if someone describing “molten steel” didn’t just really mean red hot? Who knows how much artistic license might have been taken by journalists trying write an interesting story that painted an intriguing mental picture?
To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There’s no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming “molten steel” have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.
The bottom line is that this just sounds like a bunch of he-said she-said, with a lot of misinformation, misinterpretation and possibly exaggerated journalism mixed in. I have yet to see a photograph of a cooled blob of “molten steel”, much less one with a chemical analysis attached.
But the even further down bottom line is that what relevance would molten steel in the basement have to a collapse that clearly initiated way up at the impact zone? It really makes no sense whatsoever, at least as far as this little shill can see.
Robertson is also incorrect when he says that if they had seen [Molten Steel, they had not] performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was. This statement is false. FEMA analyzed samples of the molten steel.[21] However, NIST did not even mention the molten steel and called it irrelevant to [their] investigation.[22] This could have simply been a mistake by Robertson.
The samples analyzed by FEMA were not “molten steel”. They were some steel members that had gotten erroded by high temperatures and/or chemical reactions.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 12, 2007 at 11:17 PM Bong! Round 8 is a draw. Joe lost serious points for going so far off topic, Natalie for following his feints and for sarcastic ad hom shots. Both lost major points for ignoring referees instruction to look forward, and neither responded to his question about testing the steel NOW. The residue would still be there, so why would you both ignore a possible path to a knockout punch? Think both fighters are trying to just stay on their feet until the final bell, sports fans, continuing on rote and not wanting to be the one to throw in the towel. Same combination punches thrown; same predictable replies.
And speaking of spectators to this brawl, would any still out there let it be known before the stadium lights go out? Curious if any are there, and if not a chat room might be a more appropriate venue for this debateathon. When the ref starts looking at his watch wondering when the bout will get serious and in some way resolved, it seems likely most of those observing have surely lost interest. Starting to see the same issues recurring in some sort of loop. Recursion?
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 13, 2007 at 1:05 AM Natalie
You said;
The samples analyzed by FEMA were not “molten steel”. They were some steel members that had gotten erroded by high temperatures and/or chemical reactions.NATIONAL STANDARD FOR FIRE INVESTIGATION: NFPA 921.
Sec 12-4: Unusual residues ...could arise from thermite, magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials!
The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires. “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”
Note that sulfur is:
QUOTE
“The most popular vaporizing agent due to the fact it lowers ignition temperature for most pyrotechnic mixtures.” —From the web page: Pyrotechnic ChemicalsSourceYou said;
what relevance would molten steel in the basement have to a collapse that clearly initiated way up at the impact zone?NIST states:
“An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out.” Source: NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344 “NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower.” Source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (August 2006)footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower at this SAME CORNER just minutes before its collapse: [url=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-
2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9/11”]this glowing liquid metal is consistent with flowing liquid iron from a nearby thermite reaction zone.[/url]NIST scientist finaly admits you cant get aluminum to glow the yellow color seen at the WTC.
You said;
The bottom line is that this just sounds like a bunch of he-said she-saidEyewitness evidence can be used in a court of law.
You said;
But what if there was a few instances of some molten steel? Who knows what other fuel sources there may have been, and who knows what reactions might have taken place among the various pulverized and/or ground up materials? Who knows what kind of chimney effects might have been present? And who knows exactly what these supposed pools were really composed of?Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:
QUOTE
“The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true…. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame…. In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types… The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500°C.”“But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio… This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke…. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse… The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable… Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.” (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Steven Jones confirmed that testing the molten metal samples that they contain “very little chromium” ie: structural steel.
The molten metal is in fact MOLTEN IRON, being compromised of “mostly iron”...one of the byproducts of a thermite type reaction…this is Jones’ findings (and others)
This is what is described running down the I-beams, collecting in pools in the sub basements of the towers, and cascading down the south tower minutes before it’s demis.
You want to know about red hot?
Solid metal from the WTC rubble existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900F, 845 - 1040C.) The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead, zinc and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures.
No plausible theory has been offered to explain the persistent, extremely high temperatures of the rubble pile other than an on-going chemical (thermite/thermate) reaction.
You said;
The samples analyzed by FEMA were not “molten steel”. They were some steel members that had gotten erroded by high temperatures and/or chemical reactions.That is exactly the point being made that No plausible theory has been offered to explain the persistent, extremely high temperatures of the rubble pile other than an on-going chemical (thermite/thermate) reaction.
THIS IS EVIDENCE TO IGNORE IT IS CRIMINAL!
FEMA test The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires. “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 1:21 AM Natalie
The case is made by the testimony about molten metal in conjunction with observations about temperature, especially the NASA thermal imagery. The temperature is the issue and whether it was steel and whether it was molten versus red hot in any particular photo is secondary because NO plausible theory has been offered to explain the persistent, extremely high temperatures of the rubble pile other than an on-going chemical (thermite/thermate) reaction.
This is what John Gross (NIST) want to avoid and is why he lied about being unaware of the NASA thermal imagery.
NIST understands that the only plausible theory offered to explain the samples analyzed by FEMA that had gotten erroded by high temperatures and/or chemical reactions is the on-going chemical (thermite/thermate) reaction.
And what are you going to do Natalie, just ignore the fact that John Gross (NIST) flat out lied again?
Are you going to excuse this as a misstake as well? I guess it was another one of those common governmental memory lapses.
The government, those employed by the government sure seem to have a lot of those memory lapses.
recursive prophet
The steel has been tested a few times and the government (NIST) did not like what was found so they chose to ignore it as another unexplainable phenomenon that does not matter to the investigation!
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 2:22 AM Molten Steel
Is the most devastating proof of an inside job along with free fall speed of collapse. You can’t break the laws of physics.
I’m still waiting for all those “countless examples” of videos of the molten steel, and presumably pictures of the all the cooled blobs or long rope-like formations of cooled molten rivers of steel.
The duration of the collapses was between 12 and 16 seconds. This is light-years behind true free-fall speed. An object falling in free-fall could travel from a height nearly twice that of the towers in 12 seconds.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 13, 2007 at 2:28 AM To : recursive prophet
Yes, there are still some folks watching this discussion. Except that now I observe because I am astounded that this could go on as long as it has. I no longer read entire postings of honestjoe, he has already made a convincing arguement months ago and Natalie ... well when honestjoe says “yes it is” Natalie says “no it isn’t. This haggling over technical minutiae and the quoting of “experts” whose names I have never heard before and I daresay will never hear again, is of no use as far as this discussion goes. I am not a structural engineer. I do however know several structural engineers and have for nearly 40 years. They were the ones who made me aware that the “offical” story might have a few holes in it. For this reason I will say this:
1.) the business with Osama and the 19 hijackers is a total non starter.
2.) Plane hits big building, building falls down, I could have bought that. However , plane doesn’t hit building, building falls into its footprint, who am I going to believe, you Natalie or my lying eyes?
3.) Air Defences?
4.) Put options?
There is plenty of other stuff, you all know what it is, its been discussed at length already on this thread. My guess as to how events unfolded is this: the WTC buildings were losing money but it would have cost way too much to properly demolish then due to asbestos and other hazardous materials . The building owners conspired with someone who either perpatrated the attack or allowed it to happen. WTC 7 was prepared for demolition years before and the fact that it fell might have been a mistake or the building owners snuck that one in , hoping no one would notice amid the mayhem of Sept. 11 2001. Do I have evidence of this—only the evidence that everyone has, this is my interpratation. I hope I live long enough to read a proper history of these events.
xyptol
Posted by xyptol on Feb 13, 2007 at 2:57 AM Natalie
We have been over all of this even your NOW 12 to 16 seconds bullsh**t. You used to say 13 to 16 seconds but whatever even the goernment “owned” scientists say 10 seconds and some of them even say 9 seconds.
Glad to know you dont agree with the government “OWNED” scientists any more. You cant say that you are unaware of this FACT because it has been pointed out to you on this thread many times even the 9 seconds.
So stop doing the circle jerk and going over the same old sh*t to avoid the fact that NIST has been cought lying AGAIN and that they are avoiding, omitting and covering up crucial evidence.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 3:56 AM Yes, there are still some folks watching this discussion. Except that now I observe because I am astounded that this could go on as long as it has. I no longer read entire postings of honestjoe, he has already made a convincing arguement months ago and Natalie ..
Xyptol-Thanks for letting me know I’m not the only one still watching. Unlike you I remain unconvinced, but am definitely leaning way back to my original possible but very unlikely opinion. Sadly this means I must still quickly scan all Joes new posts in case he comes up with new facts or experts with more impressive credentials. Any other fans of this record breaking ITT debate? Please let us know. Imagine what these 2 could do with a lot of potential converts observing?
recursive prophet
The steel has been tested a few times and the government (NIST) did not like what was found so they chose to ignore it as another unexplainable phenomenon that does not matter to the investigation!
Joe-now we are getting somewhere, assuming you can post a link that quotes someone at NIST commenting on this, or at least mention the tests were done. I could swear I recall you stating they had never done any tests. If they did, do you seriously think such a large group could be trusted to be let in on this conspiracy? If they found explosives residue and ignored it, someone would likely leak it. Just the later book contracts would be worth millions. Any explanation how they could pull this off? If not, you just threw a roundhouse and fell out of the ring in the process. To me, as I’ve said before, this is a big issue. And, you never replied to my point-which greatly influenced Round 7 going totally to N-about the low caliber of most Truth Professors with relevant backgrounds. Why aren’t any from one of the top ten schools?Natalie-loved your Yahoo. I may use it myself elsewhere. IMHO you have Joe on the ropes still, but were I you I would keep jabbing his midsection-lack of credible academic support for the CD theory. Also, could you guys call me Arpie instead of RP? Makes it easier for me to surf through all this using a find search. RP brings up too many suRPrises. And no, that link-know the one bout the Polish links?-did nothing to change my thinking about Ronnie Ray-gun, the only possible candidate in my view for being a dumber president than W. At least his C average was at Yale, not Podunk U. in California’s sub-U system which I know well. My daughter graduated from Berkeley with high grades and still lacks a meaningful education. Read the novel “Radiance.” In these times, the truth is most often found in fiction, and vice versa.—Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 13, 2007 at 4:02 AM recursive prophet
The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C Source“Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write
QUOTE
“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.”...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.”...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”The steel has been tested a few times and the government (NIST) did not like what was found so they chose to ignore it as another unexplainable phenomenon that does not matter to the investigation!
Its obvious from the tests that were done what else could be expected if the test were continued that is why they wont complete the tests.
All they would have had to do is complete the tests and that would have stoped all the screaming for a real investigation but they wont. why?
Since 9/11 people have asked that it be done but they refuse. Even when the money for the test has been offered to pay for it.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 4:10 AM All they would have had to do is complete the tests and that would have
stoped all the screaming for a real investigation but they wont. why?Ah Joe. You just handed Round 9 to Natalie unless you can come up with something better. Let me answer your above question for her. (with your permission, N) Because if they (Faith) won’t accept the results from the partial tests, theres no reason to expect they would accept any tests that didn’t prove their point. Any experts you can site that have looked at NISTs test results that think there is reason to continue? It would seem the residue would get spread around enough that it wouldn’t be that hard to find.
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 13, 2007 at 4:33 AM Arpie
Note that sulfur is:
QUOTE
“The most popular vaporizing agent due to the fact it lowers ignition temperature for most pyrotechnic mixtures.” —From the web page: Pyrotechnic ChemicalsSource
High temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation!John N. Cooper was educated at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California, Berkeley, where he received his B.S. and Ph.D. in 1960 and 1964, respectively. After teaching two years at Makerere University College, Uganda, and one year at Carleton College, Minnesota, he joined the Faculty at Bucknell in 1967.
He published 35 papers in the fields of chemical education and inorganic kinetics and structure, based on research supported largely by the Petroleum Research Fund. His principal interests were in the structure of cobalt(III) complexes and the kinetics of ligand substitution and inorganic substrates’ oxidation-reduction reactions.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html
This site is new (about a month) and has had someone new just about every day.
There are so many but they are all in some group like http://911scholars.org with 400
http://stj911.org with 230
ect. ect. There are thousands of groups in the US but the largest groups are out side the US. The rest of the world is way ahead of US. Anyway the point is that this new site is set up in a way that is exceptable for everyone and so as word gets out you will see more and more on the site. YOU NEED TO GO TO IT EVERY DAY BECAUSE SOMEONE NEW IS ADDED ALMOST EVERYDAY!Heikki Kurttila, PhD – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority (TUKES), Finland.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 4:37 AM Since 9/11 people have asked that it be done but they refuse. Even when the money for the test has been offered to pay for it.
Did you edit this in Joe. Links that mention this offer, and gov. refusal?
Limited Metallurgical Examinationâ€, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination.
This is conjecture posing as fact, Joe. Who exactly says it shows evidence of explosives? What is their background/bona-fides? Links, m’boy, gimme links with credible sources. I want to believe Joe, but not being of the ‘Faith’ movement-wow just realized I’ve been calling you guys Truth. Which is what I wish it was cause I’ve never put much stock in faith. Cooper-seems he’s been leading guy here for quite a while, hasnt he? Funny, guy with that kind of background would end up at Bucknell; it makes me wonder. You didnt mention what his doctorate was in; Chemistry? No explosives experts on your list?
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 13, 2007 at 4:52 AM Just sent some questions as edit to my last reply then realized you might not see them. If you were so inclined what I’d like to see is your top ten people with acknowledged expertice in these fields and their ed/exp. background sumary. I can tell you I grew up in Jersey, and Bucknell is Podunct East. Ask yourself why more of the mainstream hasn’t picked up on any of this.
I admit a bias from the start. After being impressed by Jones paper I asked my ultimate source to the world of science news/analysis, and he said the whole movement was a joke. This guy functions on a level I can barely comprehend, so his assessment was quite significant to me-we agree on most things. I think you need to take a few deep breaths and perhaps reexamine your evidence. And Wiki the word ‘apophenia.’
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 13, 2007 at 5:12 AM Natalie
We have been over all of this even your NOW 12 to 16 seconds bullsh**t. You used to say 13 to 16 seconds but whatever even the goernment “owned” scientists say 10 seconds and some of them even say 9 seconds.This is another huge logical fallacy often passed off as somehow meaningful and sensible.
There was never any effort, nor any real need or interest in calculating down to the second the collapse duration on the part of NIST or FEMA. Their estimates were purely for the purpose of literary description and were not meant for anything more than that. Neither FEMA or NIST had the slightest suspicion that there was anything wrong with the fall times. And of course, there wasn’t.
This was a clever little trick invented by the “truth” movement to appeal to people’s simplistic scientific sensibilities. It sounded somehow so sophisticated— yes, it reminded people of that funny little equation they didn’t quite get in high school physics class—yet it was simple enough to write out in a few characters:
The square root of (twice the height in meters divided by 9.8) = free-fall time in seconds.
And so, the fact that most people were saying that the towers fell in about ten seconds, coupled with FEMA and NIST using that same ball-park figure in their reports, along with the fact that most people don’t understand how even a second makes a huge difference in terms of objects falling, all this allowed them to say with a certain resonance:
looky there, the buildings fell in free-fall time, or nearly free-fall time, that’s impossible!! There’s no way that could happen without the help of explosives!!
But, when the fall time is examined in terms of precision, in response to these ridiculous assertions, calculations of what it theoretically should have taken are 11.5-13 seconds. Direct observations reveal even longer collapse times, anywhere from 12.5 - 16 seconds. This obviously doesn’t bode well for the CD theory.
In other words, no official said 9 or 10 seconds with the intent that this was a scientifically accurate time. No official or investigator even thought it relevant to pin the times down to the tenth of a second.
And the difference between 9 and 16, or even between 10 and 12, is HUGE, when it comes to how far an object will fall in those times.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 13, 2007 at 5:46 AM Natalie-quick question from a newbie-I have read these debates about the time frame before and dont quite understand how there can be any doubts about the time frame. It was all filmed by countless cameras, so how can there be questions about the elapsed time on the fall?
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 13, 2007 at 6:23 AM Arpie
It has been offered many times since before the one million was for conclusive evidence either way. That was after the cops and fire department with the widows of 9/11 had nearly rioted to stop the destruction of evidence (removing and disposing of the steel).
Where do you want me to start back when the ASCE was on the job people were angry with the sh*t job they were doing and one of the ASCE’s excuses was their budget. People had to raise hell and even offered money and to help raise money for a proper investigation.
After alot of screaming (it was the only way to be heard) FEMA took over and the people leading the ASCE investigation then ran the FEMA investigation and it was better but still very much lacking. When the preliminary findings (a joke) were coming out people had to again raise hell and the old budget excuse was used so people offered money and to help raise money and even to do some of the test with their own labs and equipment but FEMA would not release any of the steel to any of the scientist who were willing to use their own resources to do the test unless they were specifically hired/contracted by FEMA and even those were limited to what they were able to test and what kinds of tests they could do.
Thats right they would ship it off but they would not give it to any of the scientist!
It was not about a need to recover money from the steel because there were plenty of people who offered money for some of the steel. They gave some away to be used as monuments and such but they would not let it be tested by anyone. This goes on to this day!
We had to fight to have to have 9/11 investigated at all every step of the way! I could go on and on. It has been a long hard road.
Arpie which time do you want to know about? There has been money offered many, many times and money raised at many sites that was offered for the steel and ect, that could help with the investigation. What happend with alot of the money that was raised through donations was in many cases it was given to the dying first responders.
Nataie said;
The steel wasn’t tested for explosive residue because nobody had the slightest suspicion that explosives were used.Yet she admitts that the first impression of those leading and aiding the ASCE, FEMA, and NIST investigations thought it was or it looked like it was brought down as a CD.
“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”
But lets not test it! Natalie says we should just ignore it because its not suspicius!
Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”!
Fire brought down 3 steel-reinforced skyscrapers for the first time in history and all on the same day but nothing to be suspicius about.
Natalie said;
NIST didn’t show computer simulations of the collapse because their priorities and budget didn’t allow them to make any and they considered it not to be necessary to fulfill the mandates of their investigation anyway.People have offered money for that as well even a million as long as the input has not been tweaked.
Lets not ignore the small amounts that were offered of the people who donate their money and dont have extra cash laying around but they still did and do it for a better future.
Arpie because of your qusetion and it seems surprise about money being offered for a better investigation I wonder if you know how we even came to have any investigation of 9/11.
Have you seen 9/11 press for truth?
And this…
And this…
How much do you know about the first responders and the FACT that there dying? We truthers gave money for the first test and we still give money to the first responders.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 7:01 AM Natalie
I shall now start to show your Government owned scientist saying it was no more that 10 seconds.
DO YOU REMEMBER THIS OLD POST?
You said:
Some people in and out of government speculated early on that steel in the towers may have melted.I just read again their reports and watched and read again their interviews and watched the videos that went step by step with their reports. They are not speculating they are saying it as a fact that the jet fuel was so hot it melted the steel—-like rubber or chewing gum and ect.. Some much worse!
I strongly suggest that you try doing that and I would be amazed if you were not angry at the insult to the American peoples intelligence. It made me so upset that it brought me to tears. Please Natalie try it so you can be reminded of the lies. Please, please so you can see all of the early lies such as the construction of the WTC buildings and ect..
Those lies have still infected the minds of some people to this day! Didnt you just one week ago reference to an article that was based on lies, omissions and distortions?
It’s easy to see how—they say at the outset that their analysis is based on an assumption—that the temperature of the steel “apparently” reached 800 degrees celsius, or 1472 degrees fahrenheit, meaning the steel would have been red hot. A jet fuel fire burning in open air as in the towers would only reach a maximum of 1200 degrees fahrenheit, and we know from photos taken of the impact zone that people were walking around inside the very area where the fires are supposed to have been raging so fiercely that Bazant and Zhou believe the steel could have been raised to red hot temperatures. No serious scientist is still quoting that nonsensical paper that they put out two days after the collapses, and why you would not know this is beyond me. Try again, And please don’t try to seize the moral high ground—you are either incredibly ignorant or intentionally trying to deceive readers of this thread with reference to discredited work.
Re Prof. Bazant’s paper, this line from the bottom of page 3 sure gives one a lot of confidence - not!
“Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that the WTC towers had to fall the way they did.”
I watched his latest video with Bazant trying to explain his bulls**t how can you not see what a joke this guiy is?
You are so confused. Look at this clown, half way through he admits he had to make up his data because he didn’t have the actual figures.
Did you even listen to this clown? This is the OFFICIAL representation?
Hilarious!
Ha! This guy totally debunks his own story.
Shows a slide, written ON THE SLIDE. Says building collapsed in 9 seconds (uh-oh, I thought the debunkers debunked that- now what?)
The official story disregards physics. What do you think about that??
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 7:06 AM Natalie
The Physics of 9/11By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.
He says 9 for WTC1 and 10 for WTC2!Then he says “The NIST investigation was an extremely detailed analysis” and he shows us how the buildings came down at those speeds thanks to NIST!
Labeling the mass of the upper block m, and its speed v, the block would have a momentum m*v and an energy of (1/2)*m*v^2. Its weight would be m*g, where g is the constant of gravitational acceleration (9.81 meters/second^2).
The time rate of change of momentum = The sum of the forces,
[m*v(final) - m*v(initial)]/dt = F - m*g.
We can regroup the terms of the force balance as follows:
F = m*g + m*[v(final) - v(initial)]/dt,
F = m*g*[1 + {v(final) - v(initial)}/(g*dt)],
F/(m*g) = 1 + {v(final) - v(initial)}/(g*dt).
¦ Problem 1, Numerical Example of Progressive Collapse
Free fall without air resistance from a height H takes time T, given by
T = square root [(2*H)/g].
At any time 0 < t < T during the free fall, the velocity is given by
v(t) = -g*t, (negative sign for downward direction),
and position is given by
h(t) = H - (1/2)*g*t^2.
So, for H = 440 m (=1443 feet) the free fall time is T = 9.5 s, and the velocity slamming into the ground is -92.9 m/s = -208 mph.
THATS 9 SECONDS! Its faster than free fall! WITH NIST’s CALCULATIONS!
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 7:33 AM Natalie
By the way The Physics of 9/11 By physicist and engineer MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. was done in November 28, 2006!
And Prof. Bazant’s paper showing 9 seconds was November 5, 2006
But stay tuned I have six more government “owned” scientist who agree with NIST and say 9 to 10 seconds with a very detailed mathmatical calculation from each!
THATS RIGHT THESE ARE THE LATEST!
Which one do you want me to start with? Your to slow I’ll decide for you.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 7:45 AM Indeed Joe, you are correct.
Garcia comes up with 10s and Bazant estimates an average of 10.8s. I wasn’t aware of anyone else coming to a conclusion as a result of sequential equations other than Frank Greening, which is where I get 11.5-13s.
But I don’t see where anyone is saying 9s. And I still don’t think that FEMA or NIST was interested in a precise number, whether or not they might have been closer than I thought. And you are surely wrong when you say that Garcia bases his calculations on NIST’s, who as we well know didn’t do any work beyond the collapse initiation.
Dare I say though, that Garcia may be wrong on this. Of course, not being very sharp at math, I’m not absolutely sure how he’s defining the collapse. Nonetheless, Garcia, like most physicists and engineers, doesn’t think that even 10s is surprising in the least.
Let’s be sure to read the entire article for complete context.
Bazant on the other hand says 10.8s. That’s fully 1.6s longer than free-fall, and that’s a lot. There’s perhaps your difference between a physicist and an engineer. When we read the entire Bazant report, however, we see just how complicated the whole thing really is, and we realize how silly it is for any of us to throw out numbers like 9, 10 ,11,12, or whatever and presume we have accurately and scientifically done our duties.
Once again, Bazant sees nothing surprising in how fast the towers fell.
But color me skeptical even of these brilliant men. There is a lot of visual evidence for longer collapse times, which of course makes the CD theory even more implausible.
Perhaps what’s really going on here is that everyone has a different definition of what constitutes complete collapse. All may be correct for their own definitions, but we’re assuming all definitions are the same where they may not be.
The bottom line is that the “truth” movement is trying to define the collapse times, whatever they exactly were, as something unobtainable without explosives, that being of course, patently false.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 13, 2007 at 5:25 PM Natalie-quick question from a newbie-I have read these debates about the time frame before and dont quite understand how there can be any doubts about the time frame. It was all filmed by countless cameras, so how can there be questions about the elapsed time on the fall?
Arpie, I think after reading my post above, along with all the links provided, you’ll understand why there is so much variation in estimates of collapse time.
Sorry about calling you RP.
Perhaps I’ll call you referee Arpie. ;-)
Posted by Natalie on Feb 13, 2007 at 5:41 PM Natalie
I should have known you would turn around and agree with them even when the official story disregards physics as you have proven to be aware of.
Garcia and Bazant both say that WTC #1 came down in 9.5 and 9.3 seconds! How in the world can you not see that!
So, for H = 440 m (=1443 feet) the free fall time is T = 9.5 s, and the velocity slamming into the ground is -92.9 m/s = -208 mph.
Please be aware that I do not agree with them about how it came to collapse at free fall speed. Yes it fell at free fall speed but it was because of the vacuum created by explosives not because of magic like the goverment would have you belive.
I am only posting this stuff so YOU Natalie are aware of the fact that the official story disregards physics by their own admission and their own calculations wich are very detailed but are nothing more than garbage and disinformation for us the American people to be fooled into beliving the government myth.
Garcia’s assumption that the impact floor and all floors under that fell at free-fall speed, with only slight delay by the mass of each floor, is obviously spurious. Is he saying that the columns offered no resistance at all? That’s what he seems to be saying, since he talks of 3-meter free-fall increments between the floors, delayed only by the floors. He also has the stress waves going up into the upper block and disintegrating the upper block, in an attempt to explain the videos. This means that the lower block was offering resistance, and also contradicts his argument that the upper block was an ever-growing hammer . Garcia does not even attempt to explain the steel beams and other debris thrown far out to the sides, which if not caused by explosives, must have been caused by resistance.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 5:42 PM Natalie
You said;
The tower’s resistive systems played no role. The at least 85,000 tons of intact steel structure below the impact zone provided no resistance. It all magically got out of the way.”That was you defending Bazant estimates a while back!
When I said;
Ha what a joke!!!!
I am sorry to say your last post was so embarrassing that I’m blushing over your ignorance. Honestly you can’t truly still be that out of touch with the latest government theories concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. I find it hard to believe that you still are unaware that nonsense you just posted had been tossed out for the garbage that it is a long long long time ago by NIST.
Please dont tell me you got that off of one of your so called debunking web sites for I may end up laughing so hard I’ll pass out.
Natali you said: Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. “The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam,” he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (10 to the 12th Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). “That’s about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb,” he noted.
Since each tower weighed about 500,000 tons, Kausel is making a huge error by assuming all the mass is concentrated at the tops of the towers. Nor would it be correct to make the simplifying assumption of the mass being concentrated at the midsection, since the lower portions of the buildings had much heavier-gauge steel.
But even more important is the fact that Kausel based this on the incorrect findings of Tomasz Wierzbicki and others from MIT who calculated that all of this was consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining and that was when he and others at MIT where told the exterior columns where made of A36 steel. Which by the way also cancels out the number of core columns that where severed. Oh and guess where he and the others at MIT got the incorect information about the exterior columns? Thats right from the lying government who got cought and then said it was a boo-boo.
Natalie you said: The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. “Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy,” he stated. “Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City. Kausel concluded that the “the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below.”
In this scenario most of the kinetic energy of falling mass would not be converted to pulverizing forces until the rubble hit the ground. Yet clearly, the buildings were pulverized in mid-air. The amount of energy needed to convert the towers into the fine dust that blanketed Lower Manhattan is on the order of the total potential energy of the buildings’ elevated mass.
This is also based on the pancake or domino theory, that NIST no longer agrees with and for which there is no evidence. Nearly every version of the theory promotes misrepresentations of the Towers’ construction, such as omitting the cross-trusses.
Oh lets not forget some of the other crap that was said:
“In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection,” Connor continued. “When it broke, one end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while simultaneously tugging (pulling) the vertical members to which it was still attached toward the center of the building and down.” This phenomenon started a parasitic process that accelerated until total failure and the structure fell in on itself, he said.
Eduardo Kausel proposed an alternative failure explanation that he acknowledged was independently developed by Zdenek Bazant, a professor at Northwestern University. “I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements floor trusses and columns so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse,” he said.
To turn the columns into the consistency of chewing gum would have required heating them to at least 1200 C, well above what can be achieved with jet fuel, even with a directed flame and pressurized oxygen. Not to mention it takes much longer than the 45 minutes that is in the NIST report to heat the steel.
Then he actualy tried to convince sombody that “The towers’ resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended,” he noted. As it was, the debris took about nine seconds to reach the ground from the top.
Did you catch that? the towers’ resistive systems played no role. The at least 85,000 tons of intact steel structure below the impact zone provided no resistance. It all magically got out of the way. Note that the Kausel cites a collapse time that is simply impossible—even admitting the use of controlled demolition—since the elapsed time of an object on the Tower’s roof in a vacuum was 9.8 seconds. Even air resistance slowed the descent of rubble enough that it took 13 to 17 seconds to reach the ground.
Natalie I hope you know I hardly even touched that bulls**t you posted for whats the point when NIST gave that s**t up a long time ago.
Posted by honestjoe on Oct 24, 2006 at 5:51 PM
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 6:19 PM Natalie
The collapses of WTC towers 1, 2, and 7 are the first examples in history of steel-framed high-rises undergoing total collapse from any cause or combination of causes other than controlled demolition!
That alone should be enough for them to test for explosive residue!Nataie said;
The steel wasn’t tested for explosive residue because nobody had the slightest suspicion that explosives were used.DO YOU SEE WHAT A HUGE PILE OF BULL**T THAT IS?
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 6:38 PM Natalie
You said;
I wasn’t aware of anyone else coming to a conclusion as a result of sequential equations other than Frank Greening, which is where I get 11.5-13s.Using the velocity of force propagation proposed by Dr. Greening which saw the force being felt at five storeys from the collision in the first 13 milliseconds, then we can deduce that in the next 50 milliseconds the influence of the force exerted by the falling mass will be felt over a further 20 storeys. The falling section will now tend towards a velocity given by the formula v1[m1 / [m1 + m2]] = 8.52 * [16 / (16 + 5 + {20/2})] = 4.4 m/second. The kinetic energy will now be embodied in the original 16 storeys, plus the five storeys under plastic loading, and the twenty storeys under elastic loading. This total kinetic energy, should, according to Dr. Greening, now be regarded as being available at the collapse front, and is calculated as now being only some 52% of its original energy input from the freefall initiation. Thus all of the kinetic energy, even that in the lowermost stories is regarded as being available to progress the collapse front, and the energy balance can now be examined for this point in time of the collapse.
by using the same reasoning and analysis as Dr. Greening and by
adopting the figures proposed by him, the upper section can be shown to have been exhausted at a point in time prior to completion of the shortening phase of the buckle failures induced in only those columns identified by Dr.Greening as being the first affected by the collapse. This analysis shows that the collapse would progress for a further 50 milliseconds, beyond the point that was predicted in my article, before suffering arrest. Should the collapse be somehow enabled to
continue, the energy demands will continue to present themselves. The 20 storeys now identified as feeling the effects of the collision will require energy to facilitate their downward movement and acceleration and the 3% plastic shortening of the columns will continue to present a demand until the minimum buckle length is reached. Other demands begin to become apparent such as disconnection of the floor connections and importantly, the disconnection of two vertical failure
lines within the spandrel plates and core bracing at and about each corner to allow perpendicular buckle movements. The energy demands will offer no respite to the falling section especially as the order of the collapse is lost with the advancement of time and continually growing assymetry.As energy consumption at the collapse front begins to exhaust the energy available to the crushing mass, it will decelerate to such an extent as to then allow the elastic strain in the columns to act upwards against the kinetic energy in the floors and columns. The inertia of these columns would continue the elastic deflection of lower storeys, the kinetic energy will thus continue to spread downwards as the columns search for new equilibrium positions, and there would undoubtedly be a bounce and vibrations set up but with the opposing force now being reduced to only the static mass of the upper section, any possible return of kinetic energy from the lower storeys back to the collision front will not result in continued compression but rather as
a lifting of the upper section, an increase in potential energy. Concrete Pulverisation Concrete pulverisation was immaterial to the initial argument of whether the collapse would be arrested or continue. It was included as indicative of the energies required and showed the early arrest of the collapse, but if considered as zero the collapse would have been arrested within the next few tenths of a second as the strain energy requirements instead drained the energy supply of the impacting mass. I specifically chose the analysis by Dr. Greening so as to avoid unnecessary debate on this important but not directly considered aspect.However, regarding Dr. Greening’s new analysis there are one or two points which are worth examining. The analysis using 5MPa and 8.5m/sec would use up 128 MJ for one floor, but an average collision would have 20 MPa and 35m/sec, so this would roughly give a total consumption for the pulverisation of concrete throughout the tower of 220GJ. We know that the potential energy of the tower was roughly 1000GJ. We also know that a momentum only analysis of a tower of equal storey mass would give the collapse front progressing from initiation level to the ground level in just under 12 seconds and reaching a velocity of 52m/sec. This would give a remaining kinetic energy of 690 GJ using a mass of 510 ktonnes.
A similar analysis of a tower whose mass more emulates the tower would show 13.5 seconds, reaching 46m/sec and having kinetic energy of 540GJ. To remove 220GJ from this figure in order to pulverise the concrete would leave only 320GJ and this would indicate a collapse front of 17.5 seconds taking into regard only the energies consumed in momentum changes and in pulverisation of concrete. None of the energies required to distort any of the steel structure, nor to pulverise the remainder of the tower construction materials or contents, nor to disperse the debris and dust, nor any of the other energy demands and sinks associated with the collapse, are included in this figure of 17.5 seconds, only the inherent momentum demands and the pulverisation of the concrete.
Further doubt has been cast on a gravity-driven collapse using the analysis Dr. Greening has provided in reference to the pulverisation of the concrete. Combining this with our knowledge of the theoretical minimum collapse time having regard only to momentum transfer, it is shown that a collapse time of 17.5seconds, is the theoretical minimum collapse time having regard only to the momentum transfers and the concrete pulverisation. This timing contrarily does not take regard of the loss of effective mass that would be present due to the pulverisation and the ejection of the concrete pieces outside the area where they play a role in promulgating the collapse. Having regard to this and the
other energies involved, the theoretical minimum collapse time can be seen to be approaching double that of the figures given for the collapse timing in official reports, even with no account taken of the energy demand from the distortion and destruction wrought to the steel superstructures.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 7:52 PM Natalie
*Government “owned’” experts of “deception”
Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum—-one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors—-and intact steel support columns—-the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.
Even air resistance alone slowed the descent of rubble enough that it took 13 to 17 seconds (depending on the surface area of the falling debris) to reach the ground.
Where is the resistance from the rest of the building and the undamaged steel?
For the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving or vanish before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone with “NO” air resistance.
The the surface area of the roof intact would meet enough air resistance that it would take 17 seconds to hit the ground meeting no other resistance but air.
There was no air resistance (a vacuum) and the tower’s resistive systems played no role. The at least 85,000 tons of intact steel structure below the impact zone provided no resistance.
Where did it go? How did it get out of the way? What happend to it?
You said;
Dare I say though, that Garcia may be wrong on this.Duh!
Yes he’s wrong he agrees with NIST and the government myth, otherwise known as the official conspiracy theory or OCT!
The official story disregards physics!
Both in speed of fall as well as the impossibly high temperatures of the fire and the absurd claim that the steel became like chewing gum from the magically hot fires that disregard physics as well!
You said;
Once again, Bazant sees nothing surprising in how fast the towers fell.Thats because Bazant sees nothing surprising in how the official story disregards physics!
His own calculations disregard physics!
Also all of them claim steel temperatures that are impossible to achieve in such a short period of time and by a hydrocarbon fire. They disregard the laws of physics in regards to the temperature as well!
They said:
“What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”CHARLES THORNTON said:
Less than a quarter of an hour after it had been hit, all the conditions for the collapse of the South Tower were in place. The huge weight of the top third of the building was bearing down on the weakening structure. Analysis of the steel from this part of the building reveals that the fire here reached 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature that would definitely have caused the steel to buckle.MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. said;
The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F) for perhaps 10 minutes. It ignited the many plastic furnishing and some structural elements which then continued the fire. The exposed steel beams in the impact zone heated to between 700 C to 1,000 C. Steel at 700 C has 50 per cent to 70 per cent of its strength at habitable temperatures; and steel at 1,000 C has between 10 per cent to 30 per cent.The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C; (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
“New Scientist” Print Edition. (interview with Mark Loizeaux)
NS: Could they have been built in such a way that they would have withstood the impact?LOIZEAUX: Bad question - they did withstand the impact. The correct question is could they have been built to withstand the consequences, the fire?
NS: Well - could they?
LOIZEAUX: I’ll defer to the reports coming out, but I will say - is society willing to pay for it? It’s far cheaper to take the battle to terrorists than let them bring it to us.
D. Allan Firmage
“The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube.”*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New ScientiestThey exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500FEach of these theories claimed large scale agreement among scientist and engineers!
Large scale agreement among scientist and engineers my ass!
Why are you not mad about being lied to when the government “owned” experts said jet fuel melted the steel? Doesnt that alone make you realise they have NO CREDIBILITY?!?!?!?!?!?!
And what are you going to do Natalie, just ignore the fact that John Gross (NIST) flat out lied again?
Are you going to excuse this as a misstake as well? I guess it was another one of those common governmental memory lapses.
The government, those employed by the government sure seem to have a lot of those memory lapses.
Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.
Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph.[14] A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that “A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.[15] Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. It is a very suspicious statement given the fact that it would be reasonable to consider the maximum speed of a plane flying into the Twin Towers. Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”[16]
Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire”. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[17] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?
NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no “evidence to indicate consideration of thousands of gallons of jet fuel”. This statement is clearly false. See John Skilling’s statement: “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire The building structure would still be there.”[18]
In an interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had “never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal.” This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: “Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.”[19]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[20]
Robertson is also incorrect when he says that “if they had seen [Molten Steel, they had not] performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was. This statement is false. FEMA analyzed samples of the molten steel.[21] However, NIST did not even mention the molten steel and called it “irrelevant to [their] investigation.”[22] This could have simply been a mistake by Robertson.
The case is made by the testimony about molten metal in conjunction with observations about temperature, especially the NASA thermal imagery. The temperature is the issue and whether it was steel and whether it was molten versus red hot in any particular photo is secondary because NO plausible theory has been offered to explain the persistent, extremely high temperatures of the rubble pile other than an on-going chemical (thermite/thermate) reaction.
This is what John Gross (NIST) want to avoid and is why he lied about being unaware of the NASA thermal imagery.
NIST understands that the only plausible theory offered to explain the samples analyzed by FEMA that had gotten erroded by high temperatures and/or chemical reactions is the on-going chemical (thermite/thermate) reaction.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 10:25 PM Natalie
Wake up! How could there be no resistance and yet the Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air?
Both towers exploded into vast dust clouds, which photographs show to be several times the volumes of the intact buildings by the time the destruction reached the ground. The dust clouds continued to expand rapidly thereafter, growing to easily five times the buildings’ original volume by 30 seconds after the initiation of each collapse.
The dust clouds rapidly invaded the surrounding city, filling the cavernous spaces between nearby skyscrapers in seconds. Eyewitness reports were consistent that it was impossible to outrun the dust clouds. Photographs can be used to calculate the speed at which the dust cloud from the North Tower grew. There is a photograph of the North Tower dust showing the spire and showing dust 700 feet in front of the nearest part of the building’s footprint. That distance is calculated using buildings as reference points. Since it is known from real-time movies that the spire fell about 30 seconds after the initiation of the collapse, and that it took about 10 seconds for the bottom of the dust cloud to reach the ground, the average speed of advance on the ground in that direction was approximately 35 feet per second.
Another feature of the dust clouds was that they upwelled in immense columns, climbing to over the height of Building 7 (over 600 feet) in the seconds immediately after each collapse.
Such behavior clearly indicates the input of huge quantities of heat far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 13, 2007 at 10:50 PM Garcia and Bazant both say that WTC #1 came down in 9.5 and 9.3 seconds! How in the world can you not see that!
So, for H = 440 m (=1443 feet) the free fall time is T = 9.5 s, and the velocity slamming into the ground is -92.9 m/s = -208 mph.
No no no. Garcia’s talking about theoretical free-fall here, like in a vacuum, not what happened in the actual collapse. Later he goes on to calculate floor by floor the accumulated resistance and how it affects the total collapse time. Read it again.
Natalie You said;
The towers resistive systems played no role. The at least 85,000 tons of intact steel structure below the impact zone provided no resistance. It all magically got out of the way.
That was you defending Bazant estimates a while back!I don’t believe I said that exactly, but this is a good opportunity to show you where you’re going wrong. The collapse mechanism was mainly the floors and their accumulating mass pancaking down upon one another. There was not resistance from the columns per say, as if a huge weight was crashing down upon the top of a sturdy column. That would be some substantial resistance I would assume. The main weakness was the connection between the columns and the floor assemblies.
That’s why most of the outer steel columns peeled away as the mass descended, and that is why the interior columns remained standing for a brief period after the floors were stripped from them.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 13, 2007 at 11:19 PM Bong bong! Round 9 to Natalie, and likely the match. Her great footwork and few well aimed counter punches did less harm than Joe did to himself swinging at shadows.
First, I thought this was agreed?
Natalie said;
The steel wasn’t tested for explosive residue because nobody had the
slightest suspicion that explosives were used.recursive prophet
The steel has been tested a few times and the government (NIST) did not like what was found so they chose to ignore it as another unexplainable phenomenon that does not matter to the investigation!I replied:
Cooper-seems he’s been leading guy here for quite a while, hasnt he? Funny, someone with that kind of background would end up at Bucknell; (which even Word Spell Check doesn’t recognize) it makes me wonder. No explosives experts on your list?
I also asked you present list of those who supported idea the tests indicated an unexplainable explosion. You never made any reply on these requests. You persist in spewing out all these arcane arguments that only Natalie-fueling most of my suspicion regarding her motives in doing so-will read and respond to. Nothing short of a themate smoking piece of steel or a death bed confession is ever going to convince her, yet you continue. Remember, Joe, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. I truly admire your passion and dedication, but I really think it is currently misdirected. You paste in so much unverifiable speculation there is NO continuity to the dialogue here-you are all over the map.
This Ref is calling the fight here unless Joe can come out of his corner with an Alpha list of people respected in the fields of CD, Applied Physics, Computer Simulation, or one of several other disciplines relevant to the question at hand; did the WTC collapse solely due to the impact and explosion of the planes? Or, he can explain why he keeps coming up with long arguments based on technical aspects and observations about the collapse that none here are really qualified to evaluate. For that we must rely on those with expertise in the various areas, and this does not include Drama Professors.
Joe should also explain why he avoids replying succinctly to questions posed. List of top ten experts with relevant expertise? That is Natalies knockout punch Joe, and as you now appear to be so disoriented you cant even recognize the hand held in front of you let alone count the fingers, I see no point in watching her deliver it in slow motion. With all the attention this matter has engendered just on the web, why haven’t any of the heavy hitters from the various areas of science involved joined the Truth ranks? Again you lay out a summary from the Jones paper, which also impressed me. But physics is not my field. If there were a few from Livermore or Cal Tech or Princeton, who specialize in the 500 shelf that agreed with him, it would be worth reading. But BYU and Bucknell aren’t generally considered cutting edge in the international scientific community. Until a few that enjoy widespread recognition are visible in your corner, it really does look like your not going to do any better than staying on your feet in Round 10. As I said before and again you failed to respond, your corner crew reminds me of those that try and keep those fighting evolution and global warming on their feet for another round.
Joe, your argument about the concrete seems interesting, and Psik was quite focused on it as well as Jones. But again, where are the experts on CD? On cement in building collapses? I somehow doubt you will even try to answer these questions, but continue pasteing in claims from questionable and isolated in their field authorities. If you don’t start focusing on just summaries of the physics and a spotlight on the physicists making them, you really are wasting your time here.
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 13, 2007 at 11:24 PM Natalie
MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. said
My Conclusions
The WTC towers collapsed at speeds approaching that of free fall because: blah blah blah blah blah ect, ect, ect, blah blah blah…So, for H = 440 m (=1443 feet) the free fall time is T = 9.5 s, and the velocity slamming into the ground is -92.9 m/s = -208 mph.
You need to read it again.
You said;
The main weakness was the connection between the columns and the floor assemblies.First NIST said;
That the 5/8"in bolt at each end of the trusses were so weak that they failed causing the entire and still intact floor to fall then initiating the total collapse of the buildings because they claimed the floors (trusses) were needed to hold the building together (omitting the cross-trusses) so when they were removed the entire building came down as the floors pancaked on each other.So when it was proven that they were omitting the cross-trusses and therefore the building would still be there because the 5/8"in bolt that held the floor trusses were designed solely for that… to hold up the floors….. not to handle any of the structural issues of the exterior columns or the interior core columns…. there were other structural members built into the framework to handle those stresses….. there were additional beams joining the exterior to the core where needed.
You could remove the floor trusses and not see any major effect on the structural calculation. The building would still be there so NIST needed a way to pull the building down without explosives.
Now NIST says;
That the 5/8"in bolt at each end of the trusses are so strong that the supposedly sagging floors are pulling the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.But NIST says;
The shear strength of the bolts controlled the truss seat horizontal tension capacity. (NCSTAR 1-6 p79 para1)Well that makes sense that the amout of pull cannot be greater than the breaking point of the bolt.
But then we have a situation were the temperature alone can cause the bolts to snap/shear.
At lower elevated temperatures (approximately 100C to 400C), the floor thermally expanded and displaced the exterior columns outward by a few inches. (NCSTAR 1-6 p225 para2)
The exterior seat angles and interior stiffened seat had 1-3/4 in. slotted holes, this expansion likely would have sheared the exterior bolts (if not the interior bolts) (NCSTAR 1-6 p69
Ok so the fire cant be less than 400C or the bolts will snap to put it simply.
But the fire cannot be to hot or the bolts will snap.
The truss seat bolts sheared off at 566C. (NCSTAR 1-6 p87 para6-8)
So the temperature of the fire stayed between 400C and 566C. Ok it could happen but…
So how is the weakest link, the (1) 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt suppose to be strong enough to:
#1 manage to resist bending and warping from this same high heat that caused the floors to warp and sag enough to pull the columns in?
#2 Not give before the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel does?
Well guess what NIST admitts the bolts are not strong enough to pull the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.
NIST’s table 4-4 (NCSTAR 1-6 p75) shows that the interior seat capacity against horizontal tensile force is only 9 kips. (So does figure 4-16 NCSTAR 1-6 p78)
Column buckling was found to occur when an inward lateral load (pull-in) of approximately 12 kips was applied to three adjacent floor levels. (NCSTAR 1-6 p xlix para1)
Column instability (buckling) was reached with a transverse load of 12.6 kips per column. (NCSTAR 1-6 p115 para2)
Thus, we are 3 kips to 3.6 kips away from a working mode of failure.
We’ve had a myriad of “explanations” that have are all mutually exclusive and promulgated by largely the same set of people. Now, as I recall many 9/11 truth researchers criticized these reports and at the the time proponents of each of these theories claimed large scale agreement among engineers and, similiar to your tact, that these researchers were merely talking out of their ass. Unfortunately for the “engineers” (and yourself), the truthers are batting 1.000 to their 0.000 so far. The blanket acceptance of the latest theory is disgustingly sad.
Appealing to authority here is really laughable considering the appaling track record of these theories and anyone who chooses to merely restate NIST’s conclusions without verifying their data and analysis is engaging in the worst form of doublethink and intellectual dishonesty.
Arpie
Note that sulfur is:
QUOTE
“The most popular vaporizing agent due to the fact it lowers ignition temperature for most pyrotechnic mixtures.” —From the web page: Pyrotechnic ChemicalsSourceDo you need more? Look at what the military uses in theirs.
The “collapses” of WTC towers 1, 2, and 7 are the first examples in history of steel-framed high-rises undergoing total collapse from any cause or combination of causes other than controlled demolition!
BIG RED FLAG!
That alone should be enough for them to test for explosive residue!
So Arpie it seems that what matters to you is who the scientist him/herself is and not their work. You should care more about the quality of their work and not who you think has better pedigree or if they went to an Ivy League college or not.
Appealing to authority here is really laughable considering the appaling track record of these theories and anyone who chooses to merely restate NIST’s conclusions without verifying their data and analysis is engaging in the worst form of doublethink and intellectual dishonesty.
So you agree with those from an Ivy League college that claim the building came at 9.5 seconds even though it disregards the laws of physics?
ARUP in the UK has taken issue with the report (they do not model expansion due to heating) as well as the New Civil Engineer. The primary problem is that NIST is unwilling to debate its report, even with engineers who support the fire theory but have taken issue with NIST’s particular theory. Need I remind you that the track record of the explanations for the collapses has not exactly been stellar.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 14, 2007 at 12:40 AM MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. said
My Conclusions
The WTC towers collapsed at speeds approaching that of free fall because: blah blah blah blah blah ect, ect, ect, blah blah blah…
So, for H = 440 m (=1443 feet) the free fall time is T = 9.5 s, and the velocity slamming into the ground is -92.9 m/s = -208 mph.
You need to read it again.So you agree with those from an Ivy League college that claim the building came at 9.5 seconds even though it disregards the laws of physics?
One more time Joe. Garcia was not talking about the collapse time, he was defining free-fall. Here it is in context:
So, for H = 440 m (=1443 feet) the free fall time is T = 9.5 s, and the velocity slamming into the ground is -92.9 m/s = -208 mph.
What actually happened in the buildings? We consider a suggestive numerical example…....
Later, he shows how he comes to 10s, not 9.5:
......I continued this particular calculation, floor by floor, as a sequence starting from rest: free fall for 3 m, impact delays transit for 0.01 s and decreases descent velocity by 0.5 m/s, free fall for 3 m, transit delay and velocity decrement as before, and so on. The block reaches the ground in 10s with a total of 87 floor impacts. The collapse of 344 m (1128 feet) accelerates from -7.2 m/s (-16 mph) after the initial impact, to -46 m/s (-104 mph) at the ground.
I see he’s talking about just the bottom of the upper block reaching the ground in 10s. The rest of the mass finally reaching its resting point may account for the longer time estimates that we see from others.
Nobody’s saying they collapsed equal to or faster than free-fall. And different people, as far as I can see, are defining the duration of collapse in different ways.
ARUP in the UK has taken issue with the report (they do not model expansion due to heating) as well as the New Civil Engineer. The primary problem is that NIST is unwilling to debate its report, even with engineers who support the fire theory but have taken issue with NIST’s particular theory. Need I remind you that the track record of the explanations for the collapses has not exactly been stellar.
Hmmm….explain to me how a fire only theory somehow helps your CD enhanced theory.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 14, 2007 at 3:53 AM So Arpie it seems that what matters to you is who the scientist him/herself is and not their work. You should care more about the quality of their work and not who you think has better pedigree or if they went to an Ivy League college or not.
Joe, I give up. You’re never going to get it. As I stated before, I am NOT qualified to judge the quality of their work. Are you? Have a doctorate in Physics, Math, or Chemistry you haven’t told us about? I haven’t any relevant expertise in these subjects, but I do know what institutions represent the best in these fields, and I do know about the Peer Review process. Not perfect by a long shot, but again lacking direct knowledge I have to look at the fact that only those on the scientific fringes are saying theres been an oversight that proves it was a CD.
So you agree with those from an Ivy League college that claim the building came at 9.5 seconds even though it disregards the laws of physics?
Problem is that NONE of those with any prestige in Physics are claiming the laws of it have been contravened; only those on the margins. I’m getting a sense of Deja Moo, here Joe. I heard this kind of BS before-mostly from Creationists.
Natalie-Well, far as this Ref is concerned, as I raise your model fist in the air, you have won this match in the eyes of the only one left to judge it. What really intrigues me at this point is why you bother to continue, as I’m sure you will. Your argument about not wanting Joes misstatements to go unchallenged just don’t cut it, as we both know if you stopped replying he would have no one to argue with. Are you his Mom or something? Would love to read your explanation as to why you keep on being his partner in this bizarre waltz in cyberspace at some point. Wonder if you yourself know now. My head is definitely with you at this no CD at WTC, but my heart is (like yours?) still with Joe and would love to see him proved right in all this on some level.
Like xy whatever, I wont bother to read Joes rants any more, but for the opposite reason. I now feel certain you are wrong Joe, and this whole issue will only undermine ongoing efforts to expose real conspiracies that are out there. We all have to come to terms with our own limitations at some point, and rely on others with more expertise. Things do slip through all the scientific filters, but if the Truth folks claims had any validity there would be more with established reputations in the relevant fields joining them. 9/11 was over 6 years ago Joe. Don’t you think its time to move on to some area where all your energy and passion could be put to better use? We agree-unlike Natalie-that those now in power are capable of complicity in 9/11, but that alone doesn’t prove they are complicit. Time flies, my friend. Use it wisely.—Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 14, 2007 at 4:51 AM Thanks for the nod, Ref. I think you’ve successfully identified the basic reason why the “truth” movement is improperly named:
Few (if any) relevant genuine experts agree with their theories.
The closest they can come to a structural engineer’s endorsement is an oil-rig worker with a BS degree who theorizes that some kind of mini-nuke was used to bring down the towers. (Charles Pegelow)
The closest they can come to a physicist is a politically biased, religiously extreme cold-fusionist who alters photos and clips quotes to misrepresent original intent. (Steven E. Jones)
As to why I continue to post here, I ask that of myself from time to time. Perhaps I really am done here now, but I can’t promise anything. (I don’t know why they haven’t closed this thread; I wish they would) Here’s a portion of a previous post that might explain things a bit:
“I like and appreciate what you have to say. You may want to give poor Joe a rest; he is not very stable in the best of times, and he is becoming loopier by the day.”
Thanks, scorp, you may be right. We don’t want another suicide watch ala Rabbit. However, my intent from the start of this thread was to talk to many more than those who choose to post here. I use this forum kindly afforded by ITT, and the averse participation of colorful souls like Rabbit and Joe, to hopefully steer a few “skulls full of mush” away from this cauldron of nonsense, however and whenever some search engine guides them here.
One thing I’ve realized from observing and participating in this debate, is that the most vehement and actually the most effective and substantive rebuttals to Joe, et al come from folks and publications on the left, in fact the author and host of our subject article being prime examples. That tells you something, considering that to join the movement would be particularly attractive to them, as they’d like nothing better than for it all to be true.
I’ll sign off (for now) with a repost Arpie, for the benefit of any who happen upon this tiny pixel of cyberspace, of some of the best tools one can use to ascertain the truth, if like you, they are truly interested in that all too often forsaken concept.
Sorry about the ad-homs. Sometimes you just gotta hom along.
Before you incorporate the arguments put forth by the 9/11 “truth” movement into your daily interactions with friends and family, you may want to fact check them first, and consider them in the context of common sense. You will be spared possibly permanent embarrassment if you simply run your revelation du jour through the following before opening your mouth at that party, or sending that email to that friend who still assumes you are sane.—- Natalie, the Fruit Bat. mmmmm…....fruit
9/11 myths
Debunking 911
Peer reviewed papers debunking the “truth” movement.
(using Steven E. Jones’ standard for peer review) ;-)16% of people believe in UFOs. 6% believe in bombs and missiles.
(most of this 6% don’t have more than a high school education and/or live in trailer parks) (not that there’s anything wrong with that—I don’t, and I used to!)
Not a single institute of Structural, Civil, Fire and Safety or Demolition Engineers on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory. Not a single institute of Architects on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory. Not a single institute of Engineers in any field on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.
Which begs the question— Why do you? Oh yeah…...faith.
We all know that the select group of incredibly intelligent and talented people who are capable of designing and building huge structures such as the World Trade Center Twin Towers universally agree that a combination of airplane impact damage, heat from fire and gravity caused their collapse.
However, it should also be noted that another group of highly accomplished people, comprised of those who are capable of safely demolishing such structures, concurs.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 14, 2007 at 8:43 PM Joe-It was a hell of a scrap, and I give you many kudos for hanging in there with so much working against you. Think you really should stay involved in uncovering misdeeds by our government; just pick one of many where there is more consenus.
This was a lost cause from the start Joe, but if you are determined to keep at it you need to get some focus. Like the offer for paying to have steel tested. Congress now can take on some issues they couldnt just 4 months ago, and unless Truth can come up with something really solid-that is widely acknowledged as such by top professionals-you are just wasting your time and undermining all who are trying to call the Bush administration to task for its past actions. Use your passion where some real results can be achieved. And one thing to note-I think this forum has been closed to new posters. Told a friend here about it and he tried to send a reply saying he also admired your dedication but couldnt-so that may explain why more havent gotten weighed in here. So, you may have reached more than we know. Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 16, 2007 at 10:28 PM I don’t know why they haven’t closed this thread; I wish they would.
Begging for mercy ... eh, Natalie?
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Feb 17, 2007 at 6:13 AM Not exactly David, but how are ya? Did you ever get over your virus? ;-)
That’s a nasty bug.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 17, 2007 at 10:34 AM I am very well, thank you, Natalie, and hope you are the same.
It’s likely the bug was a healthy touch of paranoia.
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Feb 18, 2007 at 4:17 AM Interesting. Anything you’d care to share regarding how and when you arrived at your current attitude David?
I don’t remember you as being a hardcore believer, like Rabbit or Joe, but I think I remember you at least strongly leaning in their direction.
Your insight might prove to be valuable, and highly relevant to the recent context and direction of this discussion.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 19, 2007 at 9:27 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Terry J. Allen
- Balls, Blows and NFL Eunuchs
- Death by Privatization
For-profit prison healthcare system implicated in death of inmate. - Restless Vagina Syndrome
- Capitalist Health Insurance for All
- Zicam: Homeopathy Fails the Sniff Test
- More Drugs, Please
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
