David Ray Griffin: Mohamed Atta's Mitsubishi and His Luggage
9/11 Contradictions: Mohamed Atta’s Mitsubishi and His Luggage
by Prof. David Ray Griffin
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8937
Global Research, May 9, 2008
The Canadian
At the core of the official story about 9/11 is the claim that the four airliners that crashed that day had been taken over by a band of al-Qaeda hijackers led by Mohamed Atta. No proof was ever provided for this claim. But various kinds of evidence have been offered, the most important of which was reportedly found in Atta’s luggage after the attacks. The materials in this luggage were said to confirm the suspicion that the planes had been hijacked by Atta and fellow Muslims. As Joel Achenbach wrote in a Washington Post story on September 16, 2001:
Atta is thought to have piloted American Airlines Flight 11, the first to slam into the World Trade Center. A letter written by Atta, left in his luggage at Boston's Logan Airport, said he planned to kill himself so he could go to heaven as a martyr. It also contained a Saudi passport, an international driver's license, instructional videos for flying Boeing airliners and an Islamic prayer schedule. (“’You Never Imagine’ A Hijacker Next Door.”)
This discovery was clearly very helpful in making the case against Atta and al-Qaeda.
But why was Atta’s luggage there to be discovered? Achenbach said: “Officials believe that Atta and [Abdul] Alomari rented a car in Boston, drove to Portland, Maine, and took a room Monday night at the Comfort Inn . . . . They then flew on a short flight Tuesday morning from Portland to Boston, changing to Flight 11.”
But why did Atta’s luggage not make it on to Flight 11? A 9/11 staff statement suggested that it was a tight connection, saying: “The Portland detour almost prevented Atta and Omari from making Flight 11 out of Boston. In fact, the luggage they checked in Portland failed to make it onto the plane” (Staff Statement No. 16, June 16, 2004). When The 9/11 Commission Report appeared the following month, however, this suggestion was missing. Indeed, the Commission, after saying that “Atta and Omari arrived in Boston at 6:45,” added that “American Airlines Flight 11 [was] scheduled to depart at 7:45” (9/11 Commission Report [henceforth 9/11CR], 1-2).
If there was almost an hour for the luggage to be transferred, why was it left behind? We might suppose that the ground crew was careless. American Airlines reported, however, that “Atta was the only passenger among the 81 aboard American Flight 11 whose luggage didn't make the flight” (Paul Sperry, WorldNetDaily.com, September 11, 2002).
There was, moreover, even a bigger mystery: Why did Atta, if he was already in Boston on September 10, take the trip to Portland and stay overnight, thereby necessitating the early morning commuter flight? If the commuter flight had been delayed by an hour, Atta and al-Omari would have missed the connection. There would have been only three hijackers to take control of Flight 11. Atta, moreover, was reportedly the designated pilot for this flight and also the ringleader of the whole operation, which, after years of planning, he might have had to call off.
Why he would have made such a risky trip has never been explained. A year after the attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller, testifying to the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, said:
[T]he day before the attacks, Mohamed Atta . . . picked up Abdul Aziz . . . and drove to Portland, Maine. They checked into the Comfort Inn in South Portland. . . . [T]heir reason for going there, to date, remains unclear. (“Statement for the Record,” Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry, Sept. 26, 2002)
Two years later, the 9/11 Commission wrote: “No physical, documentary, or analytical evidence provides a convincing explanation of why Atta and Omari drove to Portland, Maine, from Boston on the morning of September 10, only to return to Logan on Flight 5930 on the morning of September 11” (9/11CR 451n1).
We have, therefore, two mysteries. Why would Atta have risked the trip to Portland? And why did his luggage fail to get loaded onto Flight 11? My book, 9/11 Contradictions, is about contradictions, not mysteries. Clues to these mysteries, however, can be found by exploring a full-fledged contradiction: the fact that the Atta-to-Portland story contradicts stories that appeared in the press in the first days after 9/11.
The Original Story: Boston and the Bukharis
According to the official account, as we have seen, Atta drove to Portland in a blue Nissan Altima, then flew on the morning of September 11 from Portland to the Boston airport, where the incriminating materials were found in his luggage later that day. In the first few days after 9/11, however, the story was very different.
On September 12, a CNN report distinguished between Atta and the men who flew from Portland to Boston.
Law enforcement sources say that two of the suspected hijackers . . . are brothers that lived [in Vero Beach, Florida]. . . . One of them is Adnan Bukhari. We have a photograph of him. . . . Also living in Vero Beach, Bukhari's brother, Ameer. . . . Law enforcement sources . . . tell CNN that the Bukhari brothers were believed to have been on one of the two flights out of Boston . . . . Also we can report to you that a car impounded in Portland, Maine, according to law enforcement authorities, was rented at Boston Logan Airport and driven to Portland, Maine. Now the Maine state police confirm that two of the suspected hijackers were on a U.S. Air flight out of [the Portland airport.]. . . The FBI is also looking at two more suspected hijackers . . . , Mohammad Atta and Marwan Yusef Alshehhi.” (“America Under Attack: How Could It Happen?” Although the reporter, Susan Candiotti, said “Logan Airport,” the information she received had to have referred to the Portland airport, from which the U.S. Airways flight originated, and about which the Maine state police would have had information.)
Another CNN report that same day stated that the incriminating materials were found in a car at the Boston airport and, while discussing the Nissan found at the Portland airport, did not connect it to Atta:
Law enforcement officials confirmed that a car was seized at Boston's Logan International Airport and that suspicious materials were found. The Boston Herald said there were Arabic language flight training manuals in the car. . . . Meanwhile, in Portland, Maine, police said that two individuals who traveled by plane from that city to Boston were under investigation. . . . Maine authorities said a car---a rented silver Nissan Altima with Massachusetts plates---was seized from the Portland airport Tuesday evening. (“US Says It Has Identified Hijackers”)
On the next day, September 13, CNN named the Bukharis as the renters of the Nissan and said that the car found at Boston, now identified as a Mitsubishi, was rented by Atta:
"Two of the men were brothers, . . . Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Abbas Bukhari. . . . The two rented a car, a silver-blue Nissan Altima, from an Alamo car rental at Boston's Logan Airport and drove to an airport in Portland, Maine, where they got on US Airways Flight 5930 at 6 AM Tuesday headed back to Boston. . . . A Mitsubishi sedan impounded at Logan Airport was rented by [Mohamed] Atta, sources said. The car contained materials, including flight manuals, written in Arabic that law enforcement sources called “helpful” to the investigation." (“Two Brothers among Hijackers”)
Another CNN report that same day said that law enforcement authorities were led to the Bukhari brothers by documents connected to the Nissan (“Hijack Suspect Detained, Cooperating with FBI”).
A Problem Emerges
However, that same day (September 13), CNN issued a correction (“Feds Think They’ve Identified Some Hijackers”), pointing out that neither of the Bukharis had died on 9/11: Ameer had died the year before and Adnan was still alive. CNN apologized for the “misinformation,” which had been “[b]ased on information from multiple law enforcement sources.”
However, this discovery did not immediately lead to a complete change of story. For example, the next day (September 14), CNN said: “A Mitsubishi sedan [Atta] rented was found at Boston's Logan Airport. Arabic language materials were found in the car” (Mike Fish, “Fla. Flight Schools May Have Trained Hijackers”).
The Emergence of the Final Story
That same day, however, the story began to change more drastically. An Associated Press report, referring to “two suspects in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center,” said:
One of the two suspects who boarded a flight in Portland was Mohamed Atta, 33. . . . The 2001 Nissan Altima used by the men came from the same Boston rental location as another car used by additional suspects that contained incriminating materials when it was seized at Boston's Logan Airport.
Once in Maine, the suspects spent the night at the Comfort Inn in South Portland before boarding the plane the next morning. (“Portland Police Eye Local Ties”)
Suddenly, the Nissan Altima had been driven to Portland by Atta and his companion, who had then flown back to Boston the next morning. But the transition to what would become the accepted narrative was not yet complete. The incriminating materials were still found in a rental car left at Logan---although this car was now said to have been rented by unnamed “additional suspects,” not by Atta.
The complete transition was made on September 16, in the aforementioned Washington Post article by Joel Achenbach, which had the incriminating evidence found in Atta’s luggage.
This new story was soon fleshed out with various details, including physical evidence that Atta and al-Omari had been in Portland the night before the attacks. One article said:
The FBI released a detailed chronology Thursday [October 4] showing that two of the suspected hijackers in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center spent their final hours in Greater Portland. . . . After checking in at the motel, Atta and Alomari were seen . . . [b]etween 8 and 9 PM . . . at Pizza Hut; at 8:31 PM, they were videotaped by a KeyBank automatic teller machine, and videotaped again at 8:41 PM at a Fast Green ATM next to Pizzeria Uno. . . . At . . . 9:22 PM, Atta was caught on videotape in the Wal-Mart in Scarborough. (“The Night Before Terror,” Portland Press Herald, October 5, 2001)
The Mysteries and the Contradiction
This new story solved a problem created by the discovery that the Bukharis had not died on 9/11---how to explain why a rental car left at the Portland airport could have led authorities to two of the hijackers. This solution, however, created the mystery of why Atta would have taken this trip plus the problem of explaining the well-reported fact that incriminating materials had been found at Logan Airport. This latter problem was solved by saying that they were found in Atta’s luggage, which did not make it onto Flight 11. But this solution created, in turn, the mystery as to why Atta’s luggage failed to make the flight. The main problem facing the new story, however, is simply the fact that it is a new story, which radically contradicts what the authorities had said the first few days.
The 9/11 Commission dealt with this contradiction by simply ignoring it. It did not mention the early reports that the Nissan left at the Portland airport had documents leading the FBI to Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, that the Bukharis had taken the early morning flight from Portland to Boston, that the FBI was led to Atta (along with Marwan al-Shehhi) by information found in a Mitsubishi left at Boston’s Logan Airport, or that this Mitsubishi was where the treasure trove of information was found. It instead simply told the new story as if it had been the story all along.
Congress and the press need to ask why this contradiction exists and why the 9/11 Commission ignored it. This essay is an abbreviated version of Chapter 16 of Dr. Griffin's 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, March, 2008).
Global Research Articles by David Ray Griffin
Labels: Atta, false flag, luggage, no planes
Bleier: Intro to Morgan Reynolds on No planes on 911
9/11: Plane huggers vs. no planers:
An introductory note to an article by Morgan Reynolds
by Ronald Bleier
March 2006
For those still grappling with which of the three main versions of what really happened on 9/11, the U.S. government’s official version, or the LIHOP or MIHOP versions,(1) you may be better advised to file this post in the appropriate place unless and until you become convinced that the U.S. government planned and executed the terror attacks of that day (MIHOP).
Advocates of MIHOP may feel that Morgan Reynolds’s (2)article on the subject serves as an excellent introduction to evidence suggesting that no civilian jetliners were involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.
I suspect that many will be put off by the counterintuitive nature of the no planes theory, since “we all saw” a plane going into the South Tower on TV in real time.(3) Yes, I know, the no planes thesis may at first be hard to accept. However, once one begins looking at some of the evidence as presented by Morgan Reynolds, and before him, Gerard Holmgren (4) and Rosalee Grable (5)and others, I think many will agree that the evidence doesn’t support the use of planes.
Because the no planes theory is so counterintuitive, few established 9/11 researchers are eager to take up the inquiry despite its plausibility. As an independent researcher with little at stake, it is relatively easy for me to follow the no planes evidence where it leads, especially as it begins to seem the most persuasive and the one most in conformity with Occam’s Razor.
It’s disturbing but not surprising that MIHOP plane huggers, like Jim Hoffman, use their often well-deserved reputations to attack advocates of the no planes thesis with harsh and sometimes ad hominem attacks. Some make no bones about suggesting that their motives are to disassociate themselves from theories that they consider likely to put off potential converts to 9/11 inquiry.
The irony is that many 9/11 researchers have in the past decried the unwillingness of proponents of the official theory to look calmly and carefully at the evidence that has already been uncovered. And yet, when it comes to the no planes theory some “establishment” researchers are similarly loath to directly address the evidence.
If you’re like me, and you look forward to finding out the truth about 9/11 for its own sake and for what it tells us about the Bush administration, about the U.S. government and the media, about the world’s intelligence services and security agencies, about the history of the 20th and 21st century, you’ll be delighted with this brilliant article by Morgan Reynolds.
***
It’s not my purpose here to summarize Morgan Reynolds’s key arguments, but I can’t resist highlighting one of his smoking guns that should be easy for many to visualize.
Reynolds asks the simple question: What happened to the wreckage of the two jetliners that supposedly crashed into the North and South WTC towers? There’s no independent evidence on video or in still photographs, much less in evidence presented by the government, of wreckage consistent with Boeing 767s. If the jetliners flew into the Towers they should have struck some of their 47 core columns. In that case the tails and parts of their fuselages should have remained stuck outside of the buildings or fallen to the ground for all to see and photograph. Needless to say, no such evidence has ever been presented.
Under the circumstances, the government’s production of Mohammed Atta’s undamaged passport is ludicrous, and is as damaging to their case as is anything else.
***
Here is a link to Morgan Reynolds’s important article.
(An alternate title for his article might be: The case against the use of jetliners in the 9/11 attacks)
Morgan Reynolds: We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
1. LIHOP = Let it Happen On Purpose; MIHOP = Made it Happen on Purpose
2. Reynolds is a member of the National Center for Policy Analysis. See his bio on: http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/about/Morgan.html
3. Even as one writes such a phrase – “we all saw the plane crashing into the South Tower in real time,” we recognize that it raises questions. For example: how did it happen that camera crews were ready to film the second plane coming into the Tower when all eyes were on the North Tower which had been struck less than 20 minutes earlier.
4. (http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/noplanework.html)
5. (http://thewebfairy.com/911 http://missilegate.com)
Xymphora update on London Bombings
Xmymphora's update on London Bombings
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Sunday, January 29, 2006
London bombers not terrorists
MI5 has spent months investigating the July 7 London bombing, and has not been able to find any connection between the bombers and Islamic terrorism. No big surprise, considering that they were almost certainly tricked into thinking they were drug mules, and had no intention of blowing up anything (drug dealing pays well). I am a bit surprised that MI5 hasn't been able to make up a story by now. Could the leaking of this MI5 report be an indication that there is some dissent in the British ruling class to framing the incident on Islamic terrorism?
Exchange: 9/11, WTC Collapse, Israel's involvement, science and logic, etc.
The following is an edited transcript of a recent thread mostly by myself, Albert (not his real name), Jeff and Gerard having to do pretty much with 9/11 and terrorism. The discussion began when I circulated a blog entry by Kurt Nimmo, on the conveniently resurrected Osama Bin Laden in January 2006.
Nimmo has been criticized, rightly I believe, for stating certain events as fact, thinly supported by documentation. Nevertheless, I generally find him on target, especially when it comes to skepticism about the official story regarding the “war on terror.” story. I suspect many would agree that it’s a phony war, unless it’s viewed as a war by the U.S. government on our democratic institutions and a means of intimidating the masses.
In my header I mentioned the myths regarding Bin Laden and 9/11.
Ronald wrote:
It looks like it's just as hard to get through to people that Osama is dead as is the notion that 9/11 was an inside job. Or maybe the Osama myth is a little easier for folks to crack. But even if we had a majority on our side, and we're nowhere near that, it wouldn't matter unless we had institutions that could enforce accountability. Since we don't it's called fascism.
--Ronald
P.S. The way I read him, Nimmo isn't saying that Osama is dead: he's saying that there's a barrelful of evidence to point to it, and readers should check out the evidence for themselves. See the link: before he died
> Kurt Nimmo wrote:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=195
> Phantom Osama Groomed for a Return
> Thursday January 19th 2006, 7:59 pm
>
> After a long and suspicious hiatus, Osama bin
> Laden has resurfaced with new threats against
> the Great Satan. Naturally, as with previous
> visages of Osama-the fat Osama, the Osama who
> does not look like previous Osamas, the nose
> job Osama, etc.-the latest incarnation of Osama
> was vetted by the CIA, the spook agency
> responsible for promoting the original Osama's
> illustrious career, that is before he died of
> kidney failure in December, 2001. "In the tape,
> bin Laden said he was directing his message to
> the American people after polls showed that 'an
> overwhelming majority of you want the
> withdrawal of American troops from Iraq but
> (Bush) opposed that desire,'" reports
> al-Jazeera.
>
> snip]
Albert responded: essentially arguing that he believed Osama might be alive and that critics of the 9/11 official story skeptics were underrating Arab anger and their ability to strike Western targets.
Albert wrote:
I think this is honestly one of the worst thought out conspiracy theories I have read in quite a long time. It begins with the premise that 9/11 was an inside job and deductively concludes that OBL is dead. By extension the conclusion is that
OBL being alive is more useful for the Empire
than he being dead. I fundamentally object to
this conclusion for the following reasons:
1) OBL's last several public pronouncements have
not been directed toward the US government, they
have been directed towards people in the West,
whether it be the current address and the
election address directed at Americans or the
other one (I call it the Swedes address) directed
at Europeans.
2) In all cases, the corporate media has
portrayed the addresses as OBL asking for a
truce, meaning attempting to negotiate a truce
with governments, when that was clearly not his
intention. In other words the corporate media is
purposely obfuscating this to save face for
western governments, whom have clearly failed in
their efforts to not only capture him and his
staff, but also in imposing their will on the
rest of the Arab and Muslim population. His
intention was fairly clear and consistent with
his prior addresses, namely that he recognizes
that Western governments define themselves as
democracies, therefore through using this
definition he implicates the peoples of the west
for the actions of their governments. This is
meant to shore up support for his methods in the
only place that matters to him, which is the Arab
or Muslim street.
3) The whole entire framework of this conspiracy
theory, including the 9/11 conspiracy,
understates the sheer antipathy and hatred that
many in the Arab and Muslim world feel towards
the West in general and the US in particular. It
is not a far leap to say that the conspiracy
theory of 9/11 reaffirms the concepts of western
supremacy, that it is impossible for those
primitive Arabs to pass easily through our
defenses. The conspiracy theory OBL's death
continues in the same vein, where OBL is the
Orientalist caricature of eastern power- the evil
vizier who is primitive and isolated (cave
dweller).
Albert
I responded and introduced the question of how the WTC Towers came down
Ronald wrote:
It's one thing to say that there is tremendous and justified anger and rage in the Muslim world, and quite another to look at evidence for:
a. 9/11 as an inside job
b. Osama's death
The three are not of course mutually exclusive. One way I like to start conversations about 9/11 as an inside job is to ask my interlocutor how he/she thinks the 3 towers came down. And then to explain that fire doesn't bring steel framed buildings down in any shape, manner or form, and certainly not in their own footprints and not at the speed of gravity. Only controlled demolitions do that. In that case, Osama didn't have the means. So we must look elsewhere.
As far as Osama dead or alive, I can only repeat what I emphasized below: let's look at the circumstantial evidence and decide for ourselves.
To the further point, about the Muslim world capable of the kind of 9/11 and London and Madrid and Oklahoma City, etc terror attacks, one can say quickly that whether Muslims are capable or not, the history of all these events reveals links between the patsies and elements of government security agencies, which is always one of the key red flags. So once again, it's a matter of judgment and discrimination, and investigation, trying to find the most likely perpetrators.
Ronald
Jeff responded asking for evidence about London and Madrid
Now you're dragging in London and Madrid? What's your evidence? I mean REAL evidence. As far as the explosives in the WTC go, who placed them there in 1993?
Jeff
I responded with a little on Madrid
Ronald wrote:
As far as REAL evidence, I confess that I haven't done much work on Madrid, but it falls into a pattern. Thus when I heard -- mostly from Ralph Schoenman -- that there were connections between the suspects and elements of government security agencies, I found it plausible that it was another inside job. It's not that Muslims aren't capable, it's that they simply haven't been engaging in these terror attacks apart from government security agencies.
You're probably familiar with Operation Gladio where NATO (read US) forces in Europe planned and executed false flag operations particularly in Italy to prevent the Communists from gaining power. Here's an excerpt from Prison Planet, followed by one citation from another website regarding Madrid.
Ronald
***
Operation Gladio from Prison Planet
Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided Turkey's repression of the Kurds.
Re Madrid
- Train bombings like London 7/7 are a speciality of NATO psy-war units. The expert on this ever since 1978 has been Webster Tarpley, who shows in his latest book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, how the bombing of Bologna Stazione Centrale in 1980 by the so-called Red Brigades is of one cloth with the Madrid bombings. The supposed “communist terrorist” Red Brigades were fakes, a patsy outfit created by Lodge P2, the neofascist shadow government running Italy. Likewise, the suspects in the Madrid train bombing were police agents, run by a neo-fascist falange: as Tarpley notes, one suspect admitted he was working for the old guard of the Guardia Civil Unidad Central Operativa.
Re WTC 93, it’s documented, in the NYT no less, that the FBI was responsible for the 93 WTC explosions. As it happened, an FBI Muslim informant taped conversations he made with his FBI handlers. At one point he upbraided them. “I thought you said that the explosives in the truck were to be fake.” All this came out at the trial, which is why the NYT reported it.
***
Jeff responded
In Italy, it was obvious early on that the Bologna bus bombing was not done by the Red Brigades and that nut case, Webster Tarpley's assertion that the Red Brigades were a fake outfit is equally spurious and that I know for a fact, having lived in Italy and known members of Israel's ultra left which the Red Brigades emerged from. I even had a brief, pleasurable interlude with the ex-girl friend of one of them who had become a junkie after he killed someone in a bank robbery. When I went to Rome and looked her up, it turned out that she, too, had become a junkie.
Frankly, I think there is altogether too much of a tendency in this country, and this country, uniquely, to see all forms of resistance against the state that are outside of "acceptable" norms, as being state-sponsored and other groups are, of course, infiltrated.. Some are, of course, but I have yet to see anything re Madrid or London that proves either event was state-sponsored The accusations that all these acts against states that go beyond peaceful street marches are state -sponsored is the leftist version of the "colonialist mentality.". You should be more careful in what you see as legit and what you circulate on your list.
The FBI infiltrator, an ex-Egyptian officer supplied the explosives and reportedly kept the FBI aware of what he was doing, but he did not organize the group that did or drugged them to make them cooperate. True, the FBI had its reasons for wanting the event to happen, much like 9-11, but they were not the only ones involved. Why must we deny the possibility that people who have legitimate anger against the US may act on it, even if what they do may be horrible and kill innocents?
jeff
Ronald responded to Albert on WTC
Thanks, Albert:
One advantage that 9/11 skeptics have over those who accept the official version is that many like me have viewed video of the towers" collapse dozens and scores of times, often in slow motion. We’re looking again and again at the evidence, and making judgments aided by information that wasn’t available on 9/11.
As we watch we can see evidence of explosions going off, in some cases, floor by floor as the building collapses into its footprint.
Slowing down the tape enables us to see squibs coming out of the buildings in floors below the falling buildings indicative of explosives. We’ve viewed tape of NYC firemen discussing the event describing multiple explosions going off, floor by floor. In one tape they use appropriate hand motions and explicitly say that they heard explosions going off floor by floor and describing the boom, boom, boom, boom, booms that they heard.
Some of us have seen a remarkable video taken from the New Jersey shore where we can make out the sound of explosions and see dust as from explosive charges coming from the bottom of one of the towers before it started to come down from the top.
We’ve also sought out additional information that would shed light on the matter. One recent article that comes to mind is by Stephen E. Jones, a physics professor from Brigham Young University (no less) who has written a persuasive paper. Among his findings, was one that seemed a particularly striking smoking gun. He includes a photo of the South Tower and an explanatory paragraph suggesting that the official theory is in contravention of some of the fundamental laws of physics such as the law of increasing entropy and the law of angular momentum. (Torque is also mentioned but perhaps not in the same context as you suggested.)
This section from his paper might very well be entitled: A BLOCK TURNS TO POWDER IN MID-AIR
(Begin Jones citation)
Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-11: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
(Photo not available here. See S.E Jones’s article)
Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.
What happens to the block and its angular momentum?
We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon.
(End Jones citation)
Jones’s complete paper can be found at:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
For those who wish more information on the collapse of the Towers, a good internet site is the section on 9/11 at whatreallyhappened.com. Here are some of their chapter headings, including one which sheds light on the question of how the terrorists may have managed to set explosives in the heavily populated buildings.
9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush
Who Told Giuliani the WTC was going to collapse?
The "Truss Theory": A Fantasy Concocted to Conceal a Demolition
The "Truss Theory" is Implausible
Item: Too big to hide
It’s interesting that you fall back on the popular notion that it couldn’t have been an inside job because too many people would have to be involved and there would be too many whistleblowers to silence. But it’s not a question of numbers, but rather who controls the agenda and the media. Plenty of evidence and whistleblowers have come forward in the cases of the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK but to this day, the perpetrators have not been held accountable.
Regarding, 9/11, many whistleblowers have already appeared as has a mountain of evidence contradicting the official story on dozens of aspects of 9/11. One of the most prominent whistleblowers was Colleen Rowley, an FBI agent who was actually named Time’s woman of the year in 2002. She loudly and clearly pointed to apparent malfeasance in high places, and hinted that ultimate responsibility might go even higher. However, since there was no official willingness to prosecute her findings, they were left to dissipate into the marginalized history of past events.
There are many other 9/11 whistleblowers: there’s Willie Rodriguez, the last man to get out of the towers alive who has testified to bombs going off in lower levels of the buildings before the buildings came down. There’s Sibel Edmonds, bound by gag orders, who testified to corruption at the FBI. There are engineers who built the Twin Towers and testified to their strength and redundant safety and structural features. Many more witnesses from mainstream media and other credible sources could be cited.
Ronald
***
Gerard responded to Albert: (He begins by citing a passage from Albert’s argument.)
Albert writes
[[There is a force called
gravity ….The associated falling mass of
the higher floors creates an impulse force on the
lower supports causing them to collapse, adding
greater weight to the falling body. The more
floors that collapse, the faster the floors below
will collapse and the more likely the body will
fall in place.]]
Actually the law of gravity is not what you’ve just stated.
While its true that the greater weight would make each new floor fail more quickly, it makes no difference to the speed of the fall.
Excluding air resistance *all* objects fall at the same speed. 9.81m/sec/sec. The weight makes no difference.
And the law of gravity is the ultimate proof that the towers did not smash through their own structure.
An object dropped from the top of the WTC, excluding air resistance, would hit the ground in 9.2 secs..
The towers actually collapsed in negligibly more time than this. Even the 9/11 commission says 10 secs.
From measurement on the video , I got 11 secs, a figure which was agreed by a documentary called “
How the twin towers fell “ , a doco, which totally supported the official story and didn’t even acknowledge that anyone was suggesting otherwise.
Since the falling rubble smashing through itself would have resistance all the way, its it impossible for it to have fallen at this speed - unless it met almost zero resistance – which proves that the entire structure was suddenly disembodied , while it was still standing.
There is no argument or debate about this. There is such a thing as proof and that is it. Speculations about probable logistics and motives are irrelevant alongside the basic gravitational maths that we have been using since Newton. In fact the principle was worked out earlier by Galileo, when he dropped two cannon balls – one much heavier than then other from a tower, and observed that they hit the ground at the same time. Newton later quantified the universal gravitational force.
Additionally, you can observe from the video that there are huge clouds of dust pouring from the building while it is still standing. This is concrete being ground into fine dust. The combination of this with the time of the fall creates an inescapable paradox for the non demolition theory.
It takes energy to grind concrete into dust. If one is to speculate that this energy is not being supplied by demolition charges or some other kind of demolition technology, but by the collision of falling rubble with still standing building, then you can’t have a collapse in free fall time. Something can’t be smashing into something else with enough force to create dust, and still fall at the same speed as what it would through air. That’s simple conservation of energy. So a non demolition theory might attempt to explain the dust by resistance of the pancaking, but then the theory fails due to the time factor.
On the other hand, if you speculate that somehow, both buildings miraculously failed in symmetrical fashion by coincidence, allowing a non engineered fall without resistance, thus allowing a free fall speed, then there is nothing to create the dust.
Only a controlled demolition explains both. As I said before, this isn’t open to argument. When you find proof you have a right to state it as such.
[Gerard]
Albert responded to Gerard:
Gerard,
What I stated was correct -- and you are correct that what i stated is not a result of the law of gravity alone. It is the result of the law of gravity and Newton's second law. Newton’s second law It is true that objects fall at the same rate independent of mass, when in a vacuum and not subject to a resistant force. But that is not the case here. In this case you have a resistant force which for our purposes we can look at as a spring. The impulse force is directly proportional to the change in mass associated with more floors falling. This force in addition to the gravitational force is what overcomes the resistant force. The greater the impulse portion of the force, the less time it takes to compress the spring.
BTW, If you have an issue with the fact that I have approximated the structural support of a skyscraper using a spring, then take a good look in the mirror. What you will see is that the WTC existed in a vacuum, where explosions are controlled burns, where the building fell its full height (not its rest height-mound), where you cite government investigation findings to justify your belief in a government conspiracy. This discussion is over, except for one last thing.
Albert
Gerard responded to Albert:
What Albert writes above does not answer the proof I supplied. A free fall time means that there was zero resistance. The fact that the resistance at each floor would become less as the fall progressed is meaningless when the time of fall shows that there was no resistance anywhere.
The calculations are easy to do.
Weight the analysis beyond credibility in favour of the official story by assuming that the structure of the building actually offered zero resistance.
That as each floor was impacted by the one above, no velocity was lost in the energy needed to tear the next floor free. That each floor miraculously broke free spontaneously, a nanosecond before being impacted by the floor above, meaning that the only resistance being offered to the already falling floors is that of the faster moving object above colliding with the slower moving object below , the lower object velocity being zero at the time of collision.
So, take the distance between each floor. Accelerate the first floor at 9.81m/sec/sq through that distance. The speed reached at the instant before collision with the lower floor we shall call V1.
The speed of the combined falling mass the instant after the collision we shall V2.
V2 is calculated thus, on the assumption that the mass of each floor is equal. N = the total number of floors now falling.
V2 = V1 divided by N/N-1.
In other words, when floor 110 hits 109, the velocity is halved. When they hit floor 108, the velocity is divided by 3/2. When thy hit floor 107, it is divided by 4/3, when they hit floor 106, it is divided by 5/4 etc.
This, I think is what Albert was talking about, and the factor was not overlooked when I worked this out back in Feb 2002.
Once V2 is determined, then again accelerate by 9.81 m/sec sq through the distance to the next floor to get the next V1.
In this way, the time taken to fall each floor can be added up. After 110 floors you add up the fall times.
You'll find that it comes to 14.7 seconds.
This method has the problem of ignoring certain unquantifiable factors.
1)The mass of the floors may not be exactly equal, since the lower floors are likely to be progressively more massive than the upper floors.
2)The mass of a few floors may have been reduced or missing, due to pre collapse damage.
3)The collapse may not have started from the very top floor.
4) The total distance to fall is slightly less than the actual height of the building, since it creates a pile to fall into at the bottom.
If we try to quantify these factors we are guessing. So instead of guessing at those factors, they are balanced by making a concession to the non demolition theory of such massive proportions that it is ridiculous. That is, assuming *no* structural strength to the building. That the resistance required to tear each floor free was zero. That the only resistance was the faster moving floors above colliding with the stationary floor below.
Such a ridiculous concession clearly outweighs the unquantifiable factors acknowledged above. The assumption upon which I am basing this, is therefore a perfectly symmetrical spontaneous collapse of each floor, a spontaneous free fall, something which is impossible from an engineering and probability POV. So in fact , its not even a pancaking scenario as such. It's actually a spontaneous progressive free fall scenario, something which is clearly impossible in the real world, which of course is a ludicrous concession to the non demolition theory, far outweighing the unquantifiable factors above.
And yet the minimum possible collapse time is still more than 30% above the time in which the buildings actually fell, which means that even the resistance calculated above did not happen.
The proof stands.
[Gerard]
At this point, Gerard offered a theoretical essay.
The Absurdity is in both Science and Logic
Having presented irrefutable scientific proof that the buildings were
demolished, I would now like to point out that the philosophy of this
discussion was unfairly skewed towards the non demolition theory from the
beginning. It was not a level playing field.
Let me explain why. There seems to be an unspoken assumption at the
beginning of any such discussion that the default truth is that the building
were not demolished and that the demolition proposition is subjected to the
cliché of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
This founding assumption for the debate is fundamentally flawed.
In an honestly weighted discussion,we begin by laying all conceivable ideas
on the table. In terms of why the building collapsed, we have two such
conceivable ideas.
1) The buildings fell down by accident.
2) They were deliberately demolished.
Is there anything which rules out either idea immediately from an obvious
impossibility ?
No. We know that it is possible for a building to be demolished and possible
for a building to fall down.
So at the first stage of our analysis. The two competing theories are equal
in probability.
Supporters of the official story seem to claim the right to a founding
assumption that there is something inherently improbable about a building
being demolished.
If such a claim were to be made, it is made purely on the basis of perceived
politics and logistics, not science. There are a number of dishonesties in
the way in which this is presented.
1) If objections are to be made of means , motive and opportunity , then
they should be clearly compartmentalized into that aspect of the argument,
not inserted into the scientific aspect, because they have nothing to do
with science.
2) Such arguments are circumstantial, and as such should only be considered
if the scientific argument proves inconclusive.
3) If such arguments are to be used,(that a demolition is politically and
logistically inconceivable) then they should be argued properly on their own
terms, not inserted suddenly as default assumptions in order to rebut some
other aspect of the discussion.
For example, simply saying "it would have too difficult to get away with"
does not make it so. One must properly discuss such assertion in the light
of all available evidence.
In fact, if one is to ignore the scientific aspect and concentrate on the
more circumstantial aspect of means , motive and opportunity, one finds a
compelling case that the towers were demolished, something which I can go
into if necessary. However, when we are talking science, lets talk science
alone, and see if it becomes necessary to resort to circumstantial evidence
relating to means , motive and opportunity in the absence of a conclusive
scientific result.
At the very first stage of our enquiry, we find a 50% probability of each
theory on the basis of science. If at this stage, one wanted to quit the
scientific debate and discuss means , motive and opportunity, then we have a
blank sheet. Both possibilities are still equally on the table.
So you can't then just assume a default victory on the basis of means,
motive and opportunity without discussing it. That means that no evidence at
all has been discussed. No science, and no circumstantial evidence. And yet,
this is the most common slight of hand used to claim the non demolition
theory.
So, to return to the science. At this stage, both theories are possible. So
now start to take an overview of probability.
Do deliberately demolished buildings characteristically fall straight down ?
Yes. This is the whole idea of demolition. Is there anything in the fall of
the building which is inconsistent with the way in which a demolished
building would fall ? No.
Do accidentally collapsing buildings characteristically fall straight down.
No. Tall objects topple sideways. This is in fact why we have demolition
experts. To apply sophisticated engineering to induce a building to fall in
a manner in which it would not, if left to its own devices. In fact, no one
can show me a documented example of a tall building which has fallen
accidentally - straight down. Is there anything in the fall of the building
which is inconsistent with how a building , collapsing accidentally from
asymmetrical and unpredictable damage, characteristically falls ? Yes.
So immediately, we have a significant although unquantifiable probability
advantage in favour of demolition. The demolition theory requires only a
routine repletion of what is done as a matter of course, by demolition
companies in carrying out their business.
The non demolition theory on the other hand, requires two instances of
something which has never happened before. And something which is
acknowledged as so improbable that it takes highly trained experts to
engineer it.
So which side bears the burden of demonstrating proof ? Not the demolition
theory. It's the non demolition theory.
Now we get to another logical fallacy. As I demonstrated with the time of
collapse argument, the demolition theory enjoys unassailable scientific
proof. But let's just suppose that someone found a hole in this argument.
What would they have proved ? That the building fell by accident ?
No, what they would have proved is that you can't *prove* it was demolition,
and that therefore both options are still on the table. Let's just suppose
that that someone could prove that a non demolition was scientifically
possible. If so, that does not prove that it was an accidental collapse.
Proving that something is possible doesn't prove that it happened.
If it did, then the demolition argument would also be scientifically proven,
because it is also possible as discussed above. And shouldn't both theories
be afforded the same standards of proof ? Obviously two mutually
contradictory theories can't both enjoy proof, and you can't apply more
generous standards of proof to one than the other. So the question would
still be open.
If someone can prove that an accidental collapse was possible, then how
probable is it ? Has it ever been observed to occur in the real world, or is
it merely a theory about what *could* conceivably happen?
The latter. So even if you prove that an accidental collapse is possible,
then the demolition is still way out ahead in probability terms , because it
is observable by precedent as by routine event, and does not require the
acceptance of any new theory, still untested in the real world by practical
and repeatable experiment.
But lets go further, and suppose that someone came up with a very strong
scientific argument that an accidental collapse was extremely probable. So
probable that it restores the 50/50 rating. It can't exceed that, because
everything about the collapse is already completely consistent with what we
see in controlled demolitions. There is nothing to suggest any anomaly in
terms of that scenario.
So the very best one could hypothetically do with a scientific argument is
demonstrate the same in relation to an accidental collapse.
So , even the most stunning scientific counter argument from the supporters
of the official story, would do nothing more than create an inconclusive
verdict with equal probability on both sides.
If this were to be achieved, the argument would resort to the more
circumstantial aspect of means, motive and opportunity, which I claim still
presents a compelling argument for demolition.
You see the hidden philosophical dishonesty which underlines the general
debate on this issue ?
Using dubious science to make weak arguments that it *might* just be
possible for the buildings to have fallen by accident, the official story
advocates then make a wild leap of logic to claim that they have *proved*
that they did fall by accident. This is done on the basis of an assumption
of default truth on their side in relation to the means, motive and
opportunity question. This is flowed by a failure to weigh the strength of
that alleged victory against any examination of the scientific probabilities
in.
In fact, the logical fallacy goes further. There is an unspoken assumption
that proving the an accidental collapse was *possible* proved that a
demolition is *impossible*.
If its to be asserted that scientific proof has been achieved, then why
discuss means, motive and opportunity at all ?
So we see that defence of the official story requires not only belief in the
in the scientifically impossible. That belief is then used to launch an
argument which is flawed in logic at every turn - even if one were to accept
the scientific absurdity on which it is based.
Jeff responded about this time with a question about possible U.S. or Israeli involvement in planning and executing the 9/11 events.
Jeff wrote:
If what you write is true and the buildings were deliberately exploded, are you are assuming that US government agents or perhaps Israeli agents placed the explosives? I am of the opinion that explosives were used but, if so, who placed them there is a wide open question.
[Jeff]
Gerard responded to the question of Israeli involvement
I don’t see any particular reason to suspect Israel. Of course, its conceivable that a foreign govt was involved, but if so then why not France or Germany or Italy or Zimbabwe ? Why Israel in particular ?
The prime default suspect must be the govt of the country where it happened. Unless one is to believe that it was a hostile act, by another govt, for which the USG is now covering up ( a speculative scenario which requires a fair bit of evidence in order to become credible), then it was done with the full blessing and knowledge of the USG. So even if another govt was involved in the logistics, that effectively amounts to the USG simply outsourcing some of the logistics of its frame up, and this leaves the USG still as the ultimate target of accusation.
Its like when somebody hires a hit man. The hired professional pulls the trigger, but the person who hired them is the ultimate architect of the crime.
I have a site dedicated to evidence of all aspects of the Sept 11 evidence. (Well…I don’t think any site covers all of it, but mine comes as close as any)
It overwhelmingly fingers the USG as the prime architect of the entire Sept 11 event.
Once the full range of evidence is digested, it then follows logically that every govt is covering up, because it becomes apparent that the official story is so ridiculous that no govt or intelligence agency in the world could possibly believe it.
However, while this certainly raises the possibility of other govts having co-operated in the logistics, I don’t see any real direct evidence of it. That’s not to say that I am asserting with confidence that no one else was involved. I just can’t assert with any confidence that they were.
A good place to start is the summary article
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html
This will link you to the rest of the site which contains the specific research and documentation to support the summary.
[Gerard]
Jeff responded to Gerard
While it is clear that you have spent considerable time thinking about why the WTC buildings collapsed, you have not devoted the same amount of time to some of the incidents surrounding the attack which suggest that Israel, if it was not actually involved in the attack, had some forewarning, Otherwise, how would one explain the presence with a video camera, five Israelis, at least three of whom were identified by name as Mossad agents in the national Jewish weekly, Forward (3/15/02) who were working for a moving company, Urban Moving, that turned out to be a Mossad front (same article) filming the burning towers from across the river in New Jersey and who were arrested when a woman called the police saying that some Middle Eastern looking men were filming the burning towers and laughing and joking. The men were arrested, their boss had already left for Israel, and they were held for two months in jail before being deported. The Forward article wondered why the story never appeared in the mainstream or any other US media. Then, there was the instance, of Israelis working at the Israeli Odigo messaging service receiving a warning two hours before that there would be an attack on the WTC and they reported it to their boss. This story ran in Haaretz and the Washington Post. What did Israel have to gain. Well, at least Netanyahu thought that it was good for Israel, now that they were also victims of terror, and it expedited a very public plan that had been initiated by pro-Israel Jewish neocons for Netanyahu in 1996 called a "Clean Break: which called for regime change in Iraq, Iran and Syria, and it became quite obvious that Afghanistan was just a warm-up before going into Iraq. There is more, the reports of Israelis shadowing the hijackers, but that's enough and I have no more time at the moment. Italy, France,. Germany, or Zimbabwe? No motive. Big question. What are Mossad agents doing running phony moving companies in the US? Moving explosives, maybe?
Jeff
Gerard responded to Jeff
Actually, I have spent considerable time looking at this evidence. (Dancing Iraelis and Odigo)
The claim that five Israelis were arrested for laughing and dancing is very poorly documented, and there are internal contradictions in the story which you cite.
For example, the very same article quotes a relative of the arrested men as saying that they are blond haired and blue eyed. How does this reconcile with the claim that men of “middle eastern appearance” were seen by the witness ?
Of course , it’s possible that the claim that they were blonde is not true, but you can’t pick and choose from the same article arbitrarily, accepting one claim as fact and another as not even worthy of being cited.
I came across this when I checked the documentation supplied by Henry Makow in an article promoting the dancing Israeli theory.
Makow dishonestly failed to acknowledge the contradiction in his article.
Secondly, the initial basis for believing that anyone was dancing is extremely poor. A “witness identified only as Maria “ reported second hand to the press by the FBI. You’ll find that on my site, I don’t use anything as poorly verified as this as the basis for a major theory. It is legitimate to use the report to note that this *may* have occurred and if so, that people arrested *may* have been Israelis, but to extrapolate this to anything other than a thin suspicion that Israel was involved to a degree worthy of special mention does not meet the same standards which I apply even handedly to all the other evidence.
If this were to be used, then there is equally strong evidence for the direct involvement of Australia, UK and Pakistan, but I notice a curious disinterest in accusations towards any of these countries.
Having established that the documentation is so weak, we must then subject it to a critical thinking test. Why would the ruthlessly efficient and professional Mossad have five of its agents being so undisciplined as to be making a public display of cheering the collapse in a public place ? Assuming that it happened at all, one can only conclude that they *wanted* to be seen. Just like the alleged hijackers who seemingly went to a lot of trouble to be noticed everywhere they went.
The story that some of the alleged hijackers – supposedly strict Muslims, about to meet Allah the following day - went out drinking and womanizing the night before, even leaving their Korans in the bar is quite rightly met with a torrent of ridicule by those applying any measure of critical thinking, observing that *if* it happened at all, then they were deliberately drawing attention to themselves. Likewise the ludicrous story of Atta, supposedly going into a govt loans office and trying to borrow $650,000 for a crop dusting business, flying into a furious rage when refused, threatening to destroy all of NY and DC and to cut the throat of the woman behind the counter, and then offering $20,000 to buy a large framed arial photo of DC which was on the wall and then flying into another furious rage when refused.
Anybody with a modicum of critical thinking falls about on the floor laughing at these pathetic cartoon scripts, and rightly so. And yet the assertion, supported by only the thinnest of documentation, that 5 Israeli agents, engaged in such a huge and sensitive covert operation, blew their cover in public with an undisciplined display of public cheering is treated seriously as the entire basis for singling out one particular country as having a special role in the operation.
The overwhelming conclusion is either that it never happened, or if it did then it was deliberately for the purpose of creating suspicion towards Israel.
I’ll come back to the probable motives for that.
Now to the Odigo text message story. The documentation for this is even thinner. Two guys saying that they got a text message?
How about all the phone calls from the planes ? We believe them at face value? The supposedly intercepted phone call from OBL telling his mother that something big was about to happen and he might have to disappear for while? Once we get to this level of documentation, anybody can make up anything they like and present it as evidence. Of course, it doesn’t hurt to keep in mind that it’s *possible* that the story could be true, but if this is the basis for building entire theories of Israel’s involvement and claiming them to be supported by solid evidence, then I can prove the Loch Ness monster, alien abductions, the weeping statue of Mary and anything else you like. I can prove that a 757 *and* a missile *and* a two engine prop plane all flew into the pentagon and that they fl;ew in low and straight *and* dived steeply *and* hit the lawn first.
http://memebrs.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness.html
And again, if such laughably thin documentation as the Isaeli stories are to be accepted as significant evidence , then why the disinterest in similarly strong evidence against UK, Pakistan and Australia ?
Please don’t misinterpret this as a claim that Israel is innocent of any involvement at a general level in the entire process of the frame up – which includes the subsequent spin. It’s not. I accuse virtually every country in the world of involvement at some level for the reasons I stated earlier. But if we are to single out specific countries for special mention of notably significant involvement, we should cite real evidence which meets the same standards of documentation and critical thinking as what I have presented on my site against the USG.
Any help from any other country, even if properly documented, can only be seen as outsourcing of logistics by the USG.
Furthermore, if there was significant evidence of special Israeli involvement, one would expect that once suspicion had been ignited by the observations above, that further digging would start to unravel more. But it hasn’t happened. The very fact that we saw clues which scream at us “look at Israel” within weeks of the event, but then find nothing more in the next four years of investigation, strongly suggests that there is nothing more to find. By contrast, the initial clues which screamed “look at the USG” – specifically the failure of the air defence system, led to an unstoppable torrent of more evidence pouring out from all directions.
So let’s apply some critical thinking as to why suggestions of special Israeli involvement would be deliberately planted in the media. From my experience as an investigator over the last four years, I have discovered a general pattern that the official story never relies on one viewpoint. Because they know that significant numbers of people will never buy the story, no matter how hard they sell it. So there is always an official story and an “unofficial official “story.
The official story appeals to one set of prejudices in the general community. The alternative story anticipates that large numbers will sense that there is something wrong with this story and therefore leaks a suggestion of an alternative story appealing to difference prejudices into the mainstream media , just enough to be noticed by those suspicious of the main story, and then quickly denies the alternative story in order to lead those suspicions in a particular direction.
I can point to this process in many other issues, but to get more specific about this now, starts to spread the discussion to a dysfunctional width. It’s already approaching that with what I’m writing now.
So cutting me a bit of slack in acknowledging that I’m asking a little bit of faith on me in other issues at this stage…
Here is what happens. The US is a country obsessed with race and religion, so suspicions based on race and religion appeal to the prejudices of most of the country. What we have is the main story “the Arabs/Muslims did it” which appeals to the fears and prejudices of large parts of the US population.
Of those who are unlikely to buy this, what is the next most common prejudice to appeal to ? “The Jews did it”
Collectively, most of the US population is heavily susceptible to one of these prejusdices. So the main story, “The Arabs/Muslims did it” is supplemented by its fake opposition story “The Jews did it.”
Those who don’t buy the first story will be alert for any clue indicating the second story. So a few clues are manufactured, allowed to leak into the media enough for some of those types of people to pick up on, and then quickly denied to increase suspicion that that is where the true area of the cover up lies.
The USG doesn’t care whether you blame the Arabs/Muslims or the Jews. As long as they’ve got you hating someone on racial/religious grounds and don’t really know what happened or understand why.
I should point out here that I blieve that the Israeli govt would fully cooperate with such an underground demonsization of itself, because the Israeli govt and Mossad are the biggest Jew hating organizations on earth. To understand this fully, we need to go more into the history of Nazism and how high levels of Jewish organizations collaborated in slaughtering ordinary Jews and then making an industry out of their professed outrage in order to further the tensions created by it. The object is not to protect Jews nor to advance their position in the world but to promote strategic racial and religious tension which plays both sides.
The very top of the Jewish hierarchy are Nazis. As just one example of this, one only needs to look at how the Simon Wiesenthal foundation, while making a big show of hunting down every last petty officer who is alleged to shot a few Jewish prisoners – most likely because he would have been shot himself if he didn’t - collaborated in the protection of many of the worst mass murderers in the Nazi regime, including Werner Von Braun – one of the most unspeakably evil criminals of the Nazi regime- given a new and comfortable home in the US as a venerated figure without a whimper of protest from the supposed Nazi hunters, and the way that the worst of Von Braun’s crimes – his personal supervision of the slaughter of thousands of slave labourers in the camps dedicated the Nazi weapons programs, although well documented at an academic level, has been covered up in popularly taught history.
http://missilegate.com/rfz/
http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/reich.of.the.black.sun.pdf (too big for dial up)
There’s also a lot of good information in relation to this playing both sides routine at this site
http://www.tenc.net
This author misses one important piece of the puzzle. He’s extremely pro Israel, and mistakenly believes that Israel is there for the protection and advancement of the Jewish people. Nevertheless, if one ignores that, he presents some excellent documentation for how the USG plays both sides, that while overtly supporting Israel, it also covertly aids it enemies. His documentation in this regard is excellent insofar as it goes, and if he could understand the final piece of the puzzle - that the Israeli govt and Mossad are playing the same game, then you’d have a more complete picture.
But put some his research together with the observations that top level of the Jewish hierarchy are part of the Nazi game to use ordinary Jews as pawns in the game – to slaughter them en masse and then take political control of the outraged reaction and use it against the Arab world - then you start to get the whole picture. Particularly as the Author above provides some excellent documentation for the Nazi roots of many militant Arab organizations. He just misses that the very same roots are in the top of the Jewish organizations.
I don’t claim to have presented the whole case for that here, but enough to get one started on it.
To return to more specifics, the two pieces of “evidence”, cited ad nauseum for some special role of Israel are little more than hearsay, apply inconsistent standards in that evidence of similar strength against three other countries is routinely ignored, and that if they happened at all, then they present better evidence for cooperation between the USG and Israel/Mossad to deliberately create exaggerate the role of Israel.
This of course is a paradox, because that assertion in itself is evidence of heavy Irsaeli/Mossad involvement, but the point is that uits of a different type and has different implications to that which is seen by viewing the evidence superficially.
In closing, the WMD scandal is a good example of how both sides of the argument are controlled by the same people.
The USG could have fabricated any number of reasons fro invading Iraq. The WMD excuse was one of the most ridiculous they could have thought of. Having decided on that, they then made no effort whatsoever to make it look credible. When they can pull off scams like S11, then at least some attempt to fabricate post invasion evidence of WMD in Iraq – enough to fool Joe 6 pack – was child’s play.
But they didn’t even try. The WMD fiasco was designed that way. It was designed to be a propaganda disaster. Thus all of the anti-war sentiment – which they knew would be significant anyway, no matter what story they sold - was safely channeled into a pre-planned direction.
It was clear to me at the time that the mainstream media was orchestrating *both* the case for war and the case against it.
This is a classic example of how the strategy of having both an official story and an “unofficial official” story is implemented.
I realize that if this idea is new to you, it might be a bit of a leap and I don’t claim to have fully argued it here. I’ve really only set it out as a concept and scratched the surface of some of the evidence for it.
Rather than get too deeply into that at the moment, I would prefer that people simply take this a general explanation of where I’m coming from , but accept that this can’t be fully explained unless one first develops a full familiarity with some very specific evidence on a number of specific issues which fit this pattern.
That’s because the “dual lie” paradigm is not an idea which developed in a theoretical vacuum. It is rather a repetitive observation of a pattern I’ve eventually noticed in the specific evidence relating to every issue which I’ve looked into in any depth. As an example of one of those – I put forward the specific S11 evidence examined on my site. A fuller understanding of the specific evidence of exactly what really happened (to the extent that it can be determined) is essential as a precursor to any analysis of the various theories surrounding who did it.
For Ronald’s benefit, you will notice that my observations on peak oil fit a similar pattern. The official story being “consume, don’t worry, endless growth will bring benefits for us all and oil is our friend” and the unofficial official story being “be very afraid, oil is destroying the atmosphere and we’re about to run out of it anyway”.
Both stories are false, but collectively they instinctively appeal to almost everyone who is concerned enough to think about such issues, and thus control the entire debate as one lie against another lie, with both lies suiting the interests of those who pull the strings. The others on this list can ignore what I just wrote here, but I think Ronald will understand what I’m getting at in relation to previous discussions we’ve had.
[Gerard]
Jeff responded to Gerard
The Israelis were named in the Forward, they were arrested, held two months and the last thing I read, in the Forward, that they were suing for false arrest. Stick with your explosives.. Makow is no source for anything as I have told him, and I consider you different. I could have added the story about the phony Israeli artists that Carl Cameron of Fox documented and then the story was killed, our the four instances of phony Israeli movers who were arrested in different parts of the country by local police, which was reported in local newspapers, turned over to the FBI and that was the end of it. You have established nothing except a special interest in protecting Israel and your comparing it to other countries that might have been involved such as Italy or France is a joke. If you intended this message for me, you wasted your time because I have been following 9--11 and moved on. Some of the stories about Atta, BTW, remind about a number of the phony stories that were created from whole cloth about Oswald. I believe the US government was involved in some way, to what extent we will never know.
[Jeff]
Gerard responded to Jeff:
Gerard wrote:
Jeff,
The phony Israeli movers ? What does that here to do with S11? At the very most it shows that Israel has spies in the US, So what ? So does China, presumably. Does that mean that China did it ?
I didn’t use Makow as source, I used Makow’s article to check the links to original documentation. They were named ? So were the hijackers. Were they blond or of middle eastern appearance ? If the witness reported Middle easterners, why did the FBI arrest blond men ? If the blond claim is alleged to be untrue, under what criteria are selected parts of the report taken as fact, and others dismissed out of hand ?
[[You have established nothing except a special interest in protecting Israel]]
Hmm… I just said that they were Nazis.
[[your comparing it to other countries that might have been involved such as Italy or France is a joke.]]
Yes that was a joke – to show that anybody just make up an accusation against anyone. However, I made serious comparisons with the role of Australia, UK and Pakistan, countries which [[You have established nothing except a special interest in protecting]]
I made it clear that I didn’t expect uncritical agreement with everything I was saying, merely asking that you check the proven documentation in relation to S11 evidence. As a courtesy I was explaining a little of the background of where some of this eventually leads.
This blind dismissal demonstrates the mass attraction of the alterative official story. If you don’t want to blame the Arabs/Muslims, then blame the Jews. Then everyone can keep on hating on religious/racial grounds and avoid the unpleasant task of thinking.
[Gerard]
Jeff responded to Gerard:
To tell you the truth, I've had it up to the eyeballs with 9-11, that bone has been gnawed to splinters, and so what? Most American believe that the US, at least knew about the event before hand but that hasn't and is not likely to translate into anything meaningful. Like the world has moved on since then, and there is reasonable speculation that 9-11 was initiated to give the US the opportunity to launch its enduring war. That is really enough for me. At the moment the drums are beating for an attack on Iran, the consequences of which would make Iraq look like a garden party. I don't think the US will attack but the Israelis are apparently gearing up to do so which, from the standpoint of Iranians would be the same thing. That is helluva more important at this time than anything one can say about 9-11, and that's what I didn't finish your piece. I am not ignorant of the story. I have interview Nafeez Mosadegh Ahmed twice because I am much more interested in the political connections than I am in the physical event itself.
[Jeff]
Gerard responded to Jeff
[[I am much more interested in the political connections than I am in the physical event itself.]]
Understanding the physical event is a vital prerequisite to understanding the politics. People who think that the Govt had “something to do with it “ or “allowed it happen” barely understand anything more than those who believe the entire story.
This will become self evident who to those are prepared to avail themselves of the full story of what happened.
The idea that you can determine what it means without knowing what it is represents lazy thinking. S11 has direct connections to global developments which were already in place by 1947, and they are heavily connected to events going back to pre WW 1.
It is not an isolated “event” which popped out of the blue. But knowing what that event actually was in combination with deconstructions of other similar events will fit the pattern together in a way which wont happen, if one simply satisfies oneself that “the govt had something to with it”.
The End
9/11 -- The Firefighter tapes
Angie begins with a review of David Ray Griffin's speech in NYC in late 2005.
Okay, I saw Griffin speak on Saturday. I don't know if he's read all
503 of the oral interviews that were put up on the New York Times'
website, but during his lecture, he indicated that "at least 25"
firefighters knew in advance that WTC7 would collapse, and that in
fact "a collapse zone was established" in advance and people were told
to stand "5 blocks away" for safety reasons & that the 'expectation'
of the collapse of WTC7 was communicated 4-5 hours in advance. He
also read from the quote from Fellini which Mitsy found (copied below
& Rob, by the way, you know Mitsy - she's the mother of our youngest
911 Meetup member) as well as from another fire chief who spoke about
heavy fire on many floors in WTC7, and Griffin found it peculiar that
the 3-4 story gap described by Fellini & the fires by the other chief
were never captured on film, and that the fires alleged to be on the
south side of WTC7 couldn't have been that big or they would have
swept through and been visible on the northside or blown out windows,
etc., and that in any event, the nature of the collapse & it's speed,
etc., demonstrated that it was intentionally demolished.
Angie
911 Truth Movement Musings (Watching the Watchers)
http://www.Angieon911.com
Frank Fellini -" The major concern at that time at that
particular location was number Seven, building number seven,
which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,
it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors
across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the
fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in
the building collapsing.
So for the next five or six hours we kept
firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which
included the whole north side of the World Trade Center
complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building
number seven came down.
We just started organizing things on the north
side of the north foot bridge to remove apparatus that was
moveable and recover the bodies that we could locate and
remove -- in the meantime the job was sectored with Chiefs Blaich,
Visconti,
Hayden
and Haring, having different sectors of the World Trade
Center complex. Blaich, Hayden and Visconti were all working
south in the north tower, the north bridge. Chief Haring was
by City Hall Park on the Church Street side of the
operation.
At some point in the afternoon prior to number
seven coming down, Chief Nigro, Chief Callan, Chief
Cruthers, Chief Meyers, Chief Butler and I had a meeting in
the auditorium of the high school that was located around
Murray Street."
file://localhost/Users/mj/Desktop/9%2F11%20Investigation/Oral%20history/
Fellini_Frank=damage%207.txt
--- In 911nycmeetup@yahoogroups.com, "angiesept11"
wrote:
>
> I also posted the following at portland indymedia where the format
> makes for easier reading:
> http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/10/326218.shtml
>
> Angie
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> New 9/11 stuff & Advance Knowledge of 3 Bldg. Collapses
>
> Summary:
> Newly released transcripts of firefighters interviewed after 9/11
> reveal advance knowledge of twin towers' and WTC7 collapses with a
> little speculation about what this could mean. Also a discussion on
> what else was & is going to be released and how that info is being
> redacted first.
>
> >>>>>"Dr. Griffin will be speaking about the recently-released
> archives of police, firefighter and citizen responses on 9/11/2001
> (this Thursday in Connecticut and on 10/15 in NYC). According to Dr.
> Griffin and others, those archives strengthen the already-formidable
> case that the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were destroyed in
> controlled demolitions with explosives."
> http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/42578/index.php
>
> Can't seem to post this comment in response to boston indymedia page
> above, so I put it here.
>
> This is a very interesting topic, this recently released information,
> and I haven't seen any analysis of it yet. Below I've copied some
> tidbits from it that demonstrate that there was advance knowledge that
> the twin towers and WTC Building 7 would collapse. With the twin
> towers, the newly released material provides further information
> concerning an unidentified guy from the Office of Emergency Management
> knowing that both towers would collapse before either of them did.
> With WTC7, you even had groups of firefighter and other personnel
> standing around (a sufficient distance away) WAITING for a couple of
> hours for it to collapse, as they were directed to do, so that they
> could help out afterwards.
>
> Since there's never been a credible scientific explanation of these 3
> building collapses that jives with the official story - as the fires
> and/or plane hits should not have been anything close to sufficient to
> bring these buildings down (see all the internet research indicating
> extent and estimated temperature of fires and the temperature needed
> to weaken steel, the free-fall speed of the collapses, etc., etc.),
> this is further evidence of their intentional demolition by explosion
> or similar means with some people in the know before it happened. And
> it is interesting to examine too how this material was dealt with by
> the Kean Commission's 9/11 report. How could anyone know in advance
> that these buildings would collapse when there was no scientific
> reason, no previous history of building collapses under similar
> circumstances, and when the buildings were so constructed to withstand
> collapsing under such circumstances - unless they had inside info
> about the PLANNED DEMOLITIONS? Answer: they couldn't.
>
> All of the recently released information is located here:
>
> link to graphics8.nytimes.com
>
> and includes oral histories from firefighters and other personnel
> interviewed by the Fire Department beginning a few weeks after the
> attacks through 2/02. Although the New York Times indicated in August
> on the day the new stuff was released that they were making it all
> public - some 500 firefighter and other personnel interview
> statements, that wasn't previously true. Previously, I counted only 80
> interview statements up on their website. They had a different link
> for it back on August 12th: ( link to www.nytimes.com ) which is still
> a working link -although it does NOT provide all the 503 statements
> even when you refresh the page, so don't be fooled like I was. Use the
> new link that I just discovered tonight which does contain some 500
> odd statements. The link is above, the one with the word "full"
> contained in its url towards the end. The Kean Commission report also
> mentioned 500 fire department interview transcripts, and they also
> indicated in footnote 163 of Chapter 9 that the Kean Commission
> interviewed 100 such personnel themselves, although any transcripts of
> same have not been released by the Commission.
>
> Note that although the Times' webpage which provides transcripts of
> these oral histories misleadingly indicates that the
>
> "[t]he oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed
> verbatim. They have not been edited to omit coarse language"
>
> the oral histories have, in fact, been edited to delete "portions that
> can be shown likely to cause serious pain or embarrassment to an
> interviewee". That phrase is from the New York Court of Appeal's
> decision which ruled in March on what should and
> should not be released out of all the info the New York Times was
> seeking in its lawsuit which it brought after the City and Fire Dept.
> refused disclosure under the Freedom of Information law. The New York
> Times admitted as much when it reported on the histories' release on
> 8/12/05 by indicating that "The Court of Appeals allowed the oral
> histories to be edited under a limited set of circumstances" although
> the Times didn't mention therein what those limited set of
> circumstances were.
> link to www.nytimes.com
> 5eca4cdc744faf&ei=5094&partner=homepage
> Pursuant to the Court's decision (here: link to www.nycourts.gov )
> those "limited set of circumstances" refers to the 'embarrassing'
> stuff, as quoted above.
>
> Also to be noted, so you can see the extent of the farce that is the
> information the public is denied access to with respect to 9/11 is
> that the New York Court of Appeals will permit only the release of one
> side of the telephone calls made to 911 on 9/11: the 911 operators'
> side, not the side of the people who called 911 (except for calls to
> 911 involving 8 victims whose family members were party to the
> lawsuit.) So, we don't get to hear what people reported to the 911
> operators, only the operators' responses. This is a special privacy
> rule the Court came up with just for Sept. 11th, as traditionally
> there is no expectation of privacy under the law when one calls 911.
>
> And with respect to "interagency communications or dispatch calls"
> made on 9/11, the Court will only permit "facts" from same to be
> revealed, not "opinions". In other words, to give just a quick &
> sloppy example, if in a dispatch call or recorded interagency
> communication, one firefighter chief said to another that "My name is
> John Smith and the time now is X. I heard what sounded like explosions
> in the basement and I think it was bombs that took down that tower",
> the only portion of such communication that is not opinion, "My name
> is John Smith and the time is X" would be released, not the rest which
> would be considered an opinion. There are audio dispatch tapes on the
> Times' website above. Haven't listened to hardly any of them. And on
> 8/12/05, the New York Times reported that "[o]ther records, including
> tapes of 911 operators, are being assembled and are not yet ready for
> release, city officials said" (link above).
>
> Anyway, back to the advance knowledge of the collapse of the towers
> and WTC #7. I read only a very few of the oral histories (from the
> Times' original link, which was to only about 80 of them) and happened
> to come across the following excerpts which reveal this advance
> knowledge. Links to same are also included & a few times I inserted my
> own comment in parenthesis, identified as such with my name - Angie.
>
> After the excerpts, I'll just mention how the Kean Commission report
> dealt with this material, of advance knowledge of the 3 building
> collapses and leave others to speculate on what it means.
>
> Excerpts from the recently released oral histories:
>
> "because I was getting hungry. We were eating oatmeal cookies and
> watered-down Gatorade from the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. They
> were great. They had plenty of food. But we were getting hungry.
> We walked back. We didn't do any
> further because building number seven was coming down. That was
> another problem, to wait for building seven to come down, because that
> was unsecure. It was about 5:30 that building came down."
>
> link to graphics8.nytimes.com
> PDF
>
> -----------------------------------------
> FIREFIGHTER SCOTT HOLOWACH
> link to graphics8.nytimes.com
> > PDF
>
> A. Yes, Stuyvesant High School, until they figured out, I guess, there
> was no gas leak or no secondary bomb. Or no bomb. I guess they put the
> PD in there to search it. They moved us back south. We ended up back
> up on Vesey Street and West Street and just hanging out until tower 7
> came down.
> After tower 7 came down, we went right to work over at tower 7 to put
> the fires out. That's where we stayed until we were relieved.
> Q. Did you see a lot of civilians coming out towards you away by the
> water on West Street?
> A. There wasn't much civilians at the water, no, no.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIEUTENANT WILLIAM RYAN
> link to graphics8.nytimes.com
> > PDF
>
> I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building
> over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he
> said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a
> ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over
> there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "Fuck
> 'em all. Let 'em burn."
> He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys.
> Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've
> got to get them out."
>
> . . .
>
> Then we found out, I guess around 3:00
> o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse.
> So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main
> concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and
> a half, two hours to get everybody out of there.
> Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?
> A. Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.
> Q. You were getting radio transmissions?
> A. There were people talking. The guys I've talked to that were with
> us heard voices and were shouting to people. We had heard pass alarms,
> but then we didn't hear voices, no more pass alarms. The heat . . .
> So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and
> that's when 7 collapsed. Then, basically, after 7 collapsed, I went
> over and told the Chief that -- by then they had companies with
> handie-talkies, masks. You've got to remember, the first 200 guys went
> in there with no handie-talkies, no masks, some of them with bunker
> gear, some without. A lot of guys I recognized. I'm on the job 23
> years, so I know a lot of guys, and they were just coming up to me. It
> was good to see everybody was there trying to do something.
> Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while
> and it got a lot more organized, I would guess. By then there was some
> heavy equipment showing up and the Chiefs took over, and I basically
> kind of slipped away from the Chiefs because I didn't want to be doing
> what I was doing anymore. I kind of felt stuck there.
> . . .
> position over here. I went in there to take a leak and I just looked
> around. I guess when we fell back for 7 to collapse I called her. I
> found a phone that worked, a landline, and I got through to her. I
> didn't know the Pentagon got hit. I didn't know. She started telling
> me all that shit.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > ------------------------
> FIREFIGHTER FRANK SWEENEY
>
> link to graphics8.nytimes.com
> > PDF
>
> Now the Fire Department is trying to gather the people and make some
> kind of organization out of it and getting companies together at that
> time.
> Once they got us back together and
> organized somewhat, they sent us back down to Vesey, where we stood
> and waited for Seven World Trade Center to come down.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> A different oral history:
>
> "Again, times are a little fuzzy initially for
> me. A few minutes later, John (not further identified except most
> likely from OEM - Angie)
> came to me and said you need to go find Chief Ganci and relay the
> following message: that the buildings have been compromised, we
> need to evacuate, they're going to collapse. I said
> okay. I went down Vesey Street towards West.
>
> Q. You were by yourself?
>
> A. I was by myself, me and my helmet and my
> radio. I got to the corner of Vesey and West. I found
> some EMS vehicles. I think I saw Chief Gombo there.
> I'm not really sure. I mentioned to the EMS people
> there, again, not knowing who they were, I said you
> need to get away from here, the building might
> collapse, we need to leave this spot.
>
> As I was walking towards the Fire command
> post, I found Steve Mosiello. I said, Steve, where's
> the boss? I have to give him a message. He said,
> well, what's the message? I said the buildings are
> going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With
> a very confused look he said who told you that? I said
> I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings
> are going to collapse; we need to get out.
> He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said,
> hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are
> going to collapse. His reply was who the fuck told you
> that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci,
> Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was
> initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM.
> The message I was given was that the buildings are
> going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At
> that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down
> and that's when the building came down, the first tower
> came down.
>
> . . .
>
> very fine but heavy dust that was in the air.
> Once I got out of the building, maybe ten
> minutes from there, that unforgettable rolling started.
> Q. The same sound you heard earlier?
> A. The same sound I heard earlier.
> Q. Where were you at this point?
> A. I was on West and Vesey, probably in the
> middle of the intersection, trying to find people that
> I knew. At this point I didn't know where John was,
> where Abdo was. I don't know what happened to No. 7.
> I knew the building was coming down. I watched it come
> down on us, but I don't know where anybody else is.
> As that roar was happening on the second time
> around, I was running down Vesey Street towards the
> water with a few thoughts in my head.
> A. There was a building right there on the
> corner. Maybe 15, 20 feet off the corner, there was an
> entrance into a building, and that's where -- it was
> mostly glass windows and we were concerned that the
> glass was going to implode.
> Q. Did that face the river?
> A. It faced the river and that was protection in
> my view.
> Q. About a three-block distance?
> A. It's actually one city block, but still that . . ."
>
> link to graphics8.nytimes.com
> PDF
> -----------------------------------------
> link to graphics8.nytimes.com
> PDF
>
> John Perrugia interview:
>
> Q. What is your rank and title?
> A. EMS Division Chief, in charge
> the Chief of Department's office.
>
> (This is the "John" that sent Zarrillo with the message about the
> inpending collapses. But first he mentions in his interview why WTC7
> was evacuated, not because of any fear for the buildings' structural
> integrity due to fires or 2 airplane attacks but because of a report
> of a 3rd hijacked plane: - Angie)
>
>
> "I reached 7 World Trade Center. We walked
> into the lobby and we were going up the escalators to
> the main level. I checked in at the security desk. As
> we reached the top of the escalators, there were lots
> of people running down the escalator on the promenade.
> I spoke to one of the Deputy Directors and as I was
> speaking with him, I believe it was Deputy Director
> Rotanz (not on list of those statementized - Angie), who is a Fire
> Department Captain on detail over there, Captain Nahmod and EMT
> Zarrillo approached as well. They had indicated that the building was
> being evacuated.
> I questioned as to what the nature of the
> evacuation was. I was told that it was not because of
> what was occurring across the street. No one feared
> that the building was in any danger as a result of two
> airplane attacks and subsequent fires, but that there
> were reports of a third plane that had been hijacked.
> It was unidentified, the location, and they thought it
> may be coming in for an additional strike. Therefore,
> they were evacuating the building.
> We proceeded down to the lobby where the
> various agency representatives were present. We
> collectively started to set up in the lobby and try to
> think of strategies to where we could move the
> inter-agency cooperation effort."
>
> And now to advance notice that towers would collapse:
>
> "point I went back into the building. I was in a
> discussion with Mr. Rotanz [again, not on the list of people
> statementized - Angie] and I believe it was a
> representative from the Department of Buildings, but
> I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several
> of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was
> brought to my attention, it was believed that the
> structural damage that was suffered to the towers was
> quite significant and they were very confident that the
> building's stability was compromised and they felt that
> the north tower was in danger of a near imminent
> collapse.
>
> I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that
> information. I told him he was to proceed immediately
> to the command post where Chief Ganci was located.
> Told him where it was across the street from number 1
> World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci
> and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information
> that the building integrity is severely compromised and
> they believe the building is in danger of imminent
> collapse." So, he left off in that direction.
> Q. They felt that just the one building or both
> of them?
> A. The information we got at that time was that
> they felt both buildings were significantly damaged,
> but they felt that the north tower, which was the first
> one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of
> collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you
> could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was
> significant structural damage to the exterior of the
> building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this
> is not a scene where the thought of both buildings
> collapsing ever entered into my mind.
> I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the
> bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the
> building and with all the post-incident critiques and
> debriefings with various agencies. We were always told
> by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could
> withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way
> they were designed. They went through all of this
> architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my
> knowledge.
> It was hit by an airplane. That's okay.
> It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think
> everyone may have believed that. We were all told
> years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.
> Some amount of time passed by, probably not
> long, again, I wasn't checking my watch. Actually we
> were just really disgusted, maybe we were going to move
> what we were going to do and how we were going to try
> to coordinate. Things were hectic. We didn't have the
> tools that we normally have to communicate with our
> agency, you know, cellular phones were not working
> properly, radio was very difficult to get through. I
> work for the Chief of the Department, I don't have a
> fire ground radio, so I had no direct communications
> with my boss at that time, which is one of the reasons
> I needed to send EMT Zarrillo with that message, which
> I felt was very significant, to the command post.
> Just moments before the south tower collapsed
> and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was
> the south tower. We thought it was the north tower.
> There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond
> hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were
> setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of
> the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably
> be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least
> it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue
> with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I
> looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I
> grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving
>
> . . . (omitting portion of statement until 2nd collapse - Angie)
>
> on Vesey and West. I looked up, I saw the north tower
> fully involved. I saw number 6 World Trade Center
> fully involved with fire. I started to make my way to
> the command post when I heard that horrible sound
> again, you know, that whining screeching jet engine.
> I looked up and at that point I knew the
> north tower was coming down. I made an immediate about
> face and I started to run as quick as I can."
> ----------------------------
>
> Now think about the ramifications of how and why the cagey Kean
> Commission dealt with this material as they did. They indicated they
> reviewed the 500 oral histories (footnote 163 on p. 550), and mention
> advance knowledge of the twin towers' collapse in this manner:
>
> "They also received advice from senior FDNY chiefs that while the
> building might eventually suffer a partial collapse on upper floors,
> such structural failure was not imminent. No one anticipated the
> possibility of a total collapse." Page 290 of Kean Commission Report,
> & something similar on p. 302.
>
> "At about 9:57, an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of
> Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just
> remarked that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a
> total collapse." P. 302
>
> "Prior to 9:59, no NYPD helicopter pilot predicted that either tower
> would collapse". P. 304
>
> "Though almost no one at 9:50 on September 11 was contemplating an
> imminent total collapse of the Twin Towers, many first responders and
> civilians were contemplating the possibility of imminent additional
> terrorist attacks . . . " p. 320
>
> "Contrary to a widely held misperception, no NYPD helicopter predicted
> the fall of either tower before the South Tower collapsed" p. 321
>
> About advance knowledge that WTC7 would collapse, the Kean Commission
> report is completely silent. In fact, it doesn't mention the collapse
> of WTC7 at all. And the FEMA report concedes it doesn't have a good
> theory as to what caused WTC7 to fall. Prepare for the possibility of
> the exposure of the intentional demolition of WTC7 without it being
> connected with the towers or any 9/11 inside job plot, perhaps the
> exploitation of the tragedy that day wrought by the terrorists (a
> property crime, insurance fraud scam), or explained away in some other
> non 9/11-inside job manner as the release of these oral histories
> demonstrate that they aren't hiding the fact that they knew WTC7 would
> come down well before it did.
>
> Angie
>
> 911 Truth Movement Musings (Watching the Watchers)
> http://www.Angieon911.com
>
> homepage: http://www.Angieon911.com
>
S.E.Jones: Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Accepted for publication:
Steven E. Jones, (2006). "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?," The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.
DRAFT
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
(The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author (not Brigham Young University).
Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
Let's start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet. I ask you to take a minute to look at the collapse of this building as a basis for discussion.
WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..
WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall
sky-scraper in the back-ground, right. Seen from WTC 1 area.
WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint
Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse of this building, so go to:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the three photos at the top of this web-site page in order to see the videos of the collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have sound.
Then consider a video close-up of the same building (SW corner) as its demise begins:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
What did you observe?
Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) – or did it topple over?
Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)
Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of observed puffs or "squibs." Note that reference to web pages is used in this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips, thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally. High-quality photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman, 2004), magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html.
My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the "official" fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:
1. As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous "pulling" of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the "official" theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.
Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to my arguments:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse ["official theory"] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)
That is precisely my point: further investigation and analyses are needed, including consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports). Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11.
2. A New York Times article entitled "Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated," provides relevant data.
Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
That's correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical collapses have indeed occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called "implosion" or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001.
Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... 'Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated', Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
The observed "partly evaporated" steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to "evaporate" steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the "official" 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
3. There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 ("Twin Towers") and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
'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; emphasis added.)
The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
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 a
