So the question arises:Why these oral histories kept from the public for four years?
Also: How can they be reconciled with the “official conspiracy theory” put forward by the Bush administration?
And why do the mainstream mass media continues to marginalize the testimony of these eyewitnesses?
In conclusion and summary, the trick of this Administration and the corporate media in general, appears to have been to swing public opinion as fast and furiously as possible through a blitz of emotion -- until a majority opinion had been reached, thereby allowing human reason and reflection no time to evaluate findings like these:
* Steel supports were "partly vaporized," which would require a temperature near 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit to accomplish — and neither office materials nor jet fuel can generate temperatures anywhere near that hot -- all of them burn at temps below 1600 degrees F. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location.(Indeed, at one point firemen reported that fires were nearly out.)
* Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may well have been the result of the high-temperature reactions of a commonly used incendiary such as thermite (which burns at 4500 degrees Fahrenheit).
* Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers who were in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck.So what caused these extremely powerful explosions (if not planted explosives)?
Finally, why won't BushCo release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny?Why won't they release, for independent analysis, a small sample of the once-molten metal found at Ground Zero? (Could it be that chemical traces of an incendiary compound like thermite would be found in any such sample?)
Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writing about that which interests me most.
Plase note that an acetylene torch will not cut columns that thick, which if I can recall, were four or six inches thick at the base. There isn't a cutting tip big enough to generate that much heat and have a powerful enough oxygen stream for final oxidation. You would have to use a gouging tip and literally gouge out the steel, melting away sections a bit at a time, which would take a very long time, and it would be much messier than the neat 45 degree cuts seen in photos.
by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 62 quicklinks, 144 diaries, 980 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 8:44:24 AM
Thanks for that info, Mac. So how do you suppose the beams in the wreckage were cut up? Specifically, what kind of cutting device do you think was used? What name does it go by?
And how to explain the neat 45-degree cuts on the column sections in the wreckage?
by
Richard Clark (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 1:16:49 PM
Thesethreepictures already prove that the Towers did not "collapse", but were pulverized. Does the mechanism of how those select beams were cut really matter?
Fact is that the WTC was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons. This is shown by the actual evidence.
Dr Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, with the help of her Attorney, Jerry Leaphart, is suing the private contractors hired by NIST claiming they defrauded the government. See here for the lawsuit.
The US District Court, Southern New York, unsealed the case and Jerry Leaphart is notifying the Defendants.
In an interview with Kevin Barrett, trial attorney Jerry Leaphart has said:
"What I can tell you and the listeners, Kevin, is this. There is more admissible evidence associated with the theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons han there is admissible evidence for any single other theory out there that has been promulgated."
Dr Wood has discovered the NIST contracted with manufacturers of directed energy weapons for their report. See here for the details
Mr Clark, aren't you aware that the molten metal is a hoax? This has already been proven by this analysis compilation. Not only do the lack of steam explosions at Ground Zero prove no molten metal, but Steven Jones' evidence has been shown to be fabricated. (Jones even worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched, and now he's covering them up!)
Turns out the molten metal hoax was a cover to distract people from molecular dissociation. Exactly why were they trucking dirt in to Ground Zero?
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 403 comments)
on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 3:21:19 AM
The mainstream media are also implicated because ...
... the videos of those planes hitting the buildings, broadcast around the world, were fake. Planes are made mainly of aluminium, and those WTC-building walls were made of heavy-gauge steel. Those planes couldn't have gone through the walls and embedded themselves into the buildings the way shown, or, even more absurdly, gone right through the building - through the massive steel core - and come out the other side. On hitting the walls, the planes would have smashed to smithereens, and the debris (aluminium, steel, glass, concrete, plastic, human parts) would have fallen down on the ground, on this side of the building, mid and tail section of the plane possibly intact and tumbling. Only the engines, made of titanium and steel, could perhaps have crashed through the walls. What do we see instead? The second plane embeds inself into the building making a neat hole the size and shape of itself, the building even closing up again ("healing up") over parts of the plane. Nose and wings go through the wall without smashing, and the wings, at an angle across several steel and concrete floors, slice through these floors as though through playdough, without snapping off, and without the plane slowing down or losing momentum. Also, a real plane would have exploded on impact, and not after first having gone into the building. The first video broadcast of the second plane showed the plane going right through the building, coming out on the other side, a mistake resulting in very quick and clumsy corrective action. The video of the first plane, shot by the Naudet brothers, was, I understand, confiscated and then released, and also looks tampered with. Nor does the argument hold that the planes travelled at high speed and that therefore these considerations do not apply. Firstly, that speed would have been impossible at so low an altitude. Secondly, plane and wall travel relative to each other; the crash would have been the same if the wall had been suspended on a giant crane and swung into a stationary plane. The media were in on the deception.
Robert Hoogenboom Sydney, Australia
by
Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 165 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 11:04:54 AM
Did planes really hit the WTC? Of course they did.
Tens of thousands of people saw these airliners flying overhead, very low to the ground, heading for the WTC. Hundreds and perhaps thousands saw the first one hit one of the towers, and many thousands saw the second plane come in and hit the second tower. To question this, with this many witnesses, is nothing short of lunacy, and gives all conspiracy theorists a bad name.
by
Richard Clark (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 1:22:52 PM
I have no idea whether planes hit the buildings ,,,
... All I know is that those videos are fake. Planes crashing into buildings don't behave that way. It's like a "bad special effects movie", as someone said.
Did "hundreds of thousands of people see those planes"? Look into it and you will find that the whole thing could have been contrived quite simply.
As for the bad name, yes, the truth can give people a very bad name. I personally want the truth. And I trust my common sense.
Robert Hoogenboom Sydney, Australia
by
Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 165 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 4:45:23 PM
Show the witness list of the hundreds/thousands of people who saw planes. You cannot simply make assumptions. Please provide the evidence. After all, only a wacky conspiracy theorist would make assumptions without evidence, right? Show the evidence.
Turns out most of the First Responders did not see/hear airplanes, as proven by this study of the WTC Task Force Interviews.
The videos of the "plane impact" violate Newton's Laws of Motion.
Funny how no scientists have proven otherwise!
Aluminum airplanes with plastic nosecones don't glide into steel and concrete building, they crash against them. This is proven by high-school level physics. And since every video shows the same thing, that means they are all fake.
Even Peter Jennings knew it was fake! Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays the cartoon plane in slow motion in this video clip.
Mr Clark, have you heard of Dr Morgan Reynolds and Attorney Jerry Leaphart? Dr Reynolds is the former Chief Economist of the US Dept of Labor and is represented by Mr Leaphart.
Reynolds has filed an actual lawsuit against the private contractors hired by NIST claiming they provided bogus analysis of an aluminum airplane gliding into a steel/concrete building.
The US District Court, Southern New York, unsealed the case and Jerry Leaphart is notifying the Defendants.
Mr Clark, why are you claiming that planes hit the towers when the videos violate laws of physics?
Please become familiar with the lawsuit as well as the Laws of Physics instead of making assumptions not based on evidence.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 403 comments)
on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 2:47:22 AM
People alleging "video fakery" and such nonsense are govt. shills sent to destroy the 9/11 truth movement, or dupes of such persons. Please disregard them, as 99% of 911 truth people do.
by
Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 1:34:34 PM
I am neither a government shill nor duped. Nor original, I might add - other people are saying it too, that those videos don't make any sense at all. One analyst, Ace Baker, matched the fly path in one of the videos with the shaking of the helicopter that shot that video and, supposedly, the plane. He made the background still, by adjusting each frame to perfectly coincide (buildings, clouds and sky, etc.) He found that made the plane's fly path irregular, which means that the plane's straight and regular trajectory had been superimposed on a shaky helicopter recording.
I trust my common sense. In the same way that five Arab academics could not possibly have kept a normal busy morning's plane load of passengers, and say four cabin crew, at bay with box cutters for 45 minutes while they leisurely precision-fly a jumbo jet into a WTC building.
Robert Hoogneboom Sydney, Australia
by
Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 165 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 5:16:51 PM
In the 1967 McCormick Place fire in Chicago, a lakefront convention center that could not burn because it was constructed entirely of steel and glass, was entirely destroyed. The building couldn't burn, but the contents sure could. No jet fuel involved, yet the 486,000 sf building became an inferno within 15 minutes of a small exhibit fire breaking out and was a complete loss--nothing left but twisted wreckage.
The WTC was 'pancake' construction--an exterior steel frame and poured concrete floors. Doesn't take much heat to twist (and therefore destroy the supporting capability) of a steel beam. One floor breaking loose and falling on the next doubled the load and, because of the exterior framing, the whole thing built momentum as floor after floor added its mass to the collapsing deck of cards.
Absolutely as an engineer would expect.
Oh and by the way--what happened to those passengers on the 'planes that were not planes?' All spirited away by conspirators? No one in this government planned demolition leaked a word?
C'mon, guys--get off the conspiracy web sites.
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 41 quicklinks, 191 diaries, 363 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 12:49:17 PM
How often are steel frame buildings taken down by fire?
There are many many steel frame buildings that have burned for many hours without coming down. The one you refer to was a fluke. Perhaps its design was very unusual. However, that's not the main issue here. The main issue is that the WTC buildings came down primarily due to the explosives and beam-cutting compounds that were evidently employed. If your claim is that no explosives were used, then please explain how sections of beams could be transported laterally by a distance of 400 ft. Also explain the many hundreds of witnesses (many of them firemen and the like) who heard, saw and felt secondary explosions. Some of these witnesses also saw the tremendous damage done by these explosions, especially in the basement of the twin towers. Also, please explain the molten metal that was seen and filmed gushing out of the side of one of the twin towers. Burning office furniture etc. cannot turn steel into a liquid. Also please explain the presence of the extremely tiny iron spherules that can be found in most of the dust from the twin towers, keeping in mind that it takes a temperature of at least 4000 degrees F. to form such spherules, as iron or steel vaporizes. As I pointed out in the article, jet fuel, office furniture and electronic equipment burn at far lower temperatures. What does burn at a temperature well in excess of 4000 degrees? Answer: The steel cutting compounds thermate and thermite. And before you reply, please watch the evidentiary videos at www.ae911truth.org.
by
Richard Clark (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 1:49:33 PM
Former high-level officials challenge the conventional expl
Jim, While referring to the WTC towers, you state, "The WTC was 'pancake' construction--an exterior steel frame and poured concrete floors." In stating this you failed to mention the Core of the towers. You over simplified by not mentioning the dense grid of 47 four-inch-thick (at the base) and two-inch thick steel (at mid level) box columns in the center of those high-rise buildings. Additionally, the Pre-fabricated floor assemblies (16 GA steel deck over 29" deep steel web joists) were topped with 4" steel reinforced concrete...all of which was completely pulverized on 9/11...not stacked up like the pancake collapse that you described.
I recommend that you go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org) and do your homework before you post your comments out there for all to see. The towers were designed to #1 withstand being hit by a large airplane and #2 to withstand hurricane force winds. It is my understanding that the towers were overbuilt by at least a factor of 7.
And let us not forget that there has been countless eye-witness testimony (which unfortunately was excluded in the official 9/11 report) that describe how everything was completely pulverized. This comment from a NY fire fighter, Joe Casaliggi (Engine 7, NYFD) who states that during the clean up, in the aftermath of the collapse, "...you don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, you don't find a computer...the biggest piece of telephone I found was one half of a keypad..." (watch video interview): click here
You have to ask yourself how everything that wasn't a large steel beam just turned to into dust.
You also should ask yourself how (let's use Building 7 as an example) a 47 story steel structure can completely collapse at near freefall speed (6.5 seconds approx) into its own footprint (path of greatest resistance) into a relatively short compact pile of rubble. And please... research and inform the public about the building you mentioned, the McCormick Place fire...I couldn't find much info such as how long it burned, how long it took to collapse, what kind of steel construction it had etc. Try to not be vague when offering information such as this about steel buildings that "twisted" etc. If you are comparing apples and oranges, that isn't helpful. Good luck in your quest for the truth.
by
stayreal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 6:24:25 PM
TO THOSE'DISAPPEARED' PASSENGERS AND CREW OF PLANES THAT WERE NOT PLANES?
ANYONE GONNA ANSWER TO THE ARCHITECT OF THE BUILDING, MINORU YAMASAKI, WHO AGREES THEY NO LONGER DESIGN HIGH BUILDINGS THAT WAY, BECAUSE THEY CAN 'PANCAKE' WHEN STRUCTURALLY IMPAIRED?
ANYONE GONNA READ THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REPORTS INSTEAD OF WILD-EYED INDIVIDUALS?
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 41 quicklinks, 191 diaries, 363 comments)
on Sunday, November 4, 2007 at 6:36:35 AM
There are lots of opinions out there. Go do your own research and discover for yourself what you believe to be true. What any person "believes" doesn't make it true or credible, which is why all these "crazy?" questions are flying around.
Only the perpetrators of 9/11 know what "really" happened. Bundling all the people who are asking legitimate questions into a "no planes" conspiracy theory group isn't productive.
When YOU can contribute some irrefutable evidence...then come to the table and present it. You are transparent in your attempt to Mock the 9/11 Truth Movement. We don't claim to have the answers...but THERE IS an abundance of absolute proof that our Government is covering up the truth about the events that surround 9/11 and the Citizens of this Country need to get to the bottom of it and reclaim our Constitutional Civil Liberties.
Government and Corporate lies are in our face every day and we won't stop asking questions until legitimate answers are forthcoming and those who had prior knowledge that we would be attacked and either "let it" (or "made it") happen on purpose are held accountable for their actions. America is waking up. More people are asking questions each day. The "Global Community" is exchanging information via the information highway...This is something that was not accounted for by whomever planned this assault on our country. The Truth will eventually come out and with much more certainty than JFK's assination.
by
stayreal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Sunday, November 4, 2007 at 10:58:51 AM
Lets see, the CIA or someone in the evil Bush administration, say Karl Rove with George's help and leadership, contacted and trained a bunch of willing intelligent but misguided Saudis to commit suicide on a particular day in two different localities in the US after explosive had been planted undetected in a major office building while it was being suspiciously worked on. The evil CIA or Rove would have had to have literally an army of trustworthy people involved in this operation. None of them survived or have stepped forward yet to tell a story? Hmmmm, these guys are good. And this super effective and efficient group is led by the same dude that some call a stupid chimp? Boy, does someone owe him an apology!
There will be an army of people getting rich off of this far fetched conspiracy story for years and years. The same thing happened in the Kennedy assassination. Look at all the people who got rich off the conspiracy industry created by that event.
Sorry, I am a just tad skeptical.
by
Mad Jayhawk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 1:33:36 PM
<<< the CIA or someone in the evil Bush administration, say Karl Rove with George's help and leadership, contacted and trained a bunch of willing intelligent but misguided Saudis to commit suicide on a particular day in two different localities in the US >>>
No such claim is being made in my article. You are creating a straw man, which is pointless.
<<< The evil CIA or Rove would have had to have literally an army of trustworthy people involved in this operation. >>>
Fifty to one hundred people who knew what they were doing could have planted what needed to be planted in the time alotted to them.
<<< None of them survived or have stepped forward yet to tell a story? >>>
They know they would certainly be killed if they did.
<<< this super effective and efficient group is led by the same dude that some call a stupid chimp? Boy, does someone owe him an apology! >>>
He didn't lead shit. He merely approved the plan since he knew it would give him and his administration the power to intimidate and cow a terrified herd of Americans to the point that they would be willing to sanction the invasion of Iraq and the shredding of their Constitution.
by
Richard Clark (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 2:21:53 PM
I know of no one on this side of the fence (in the 9/11 Truth Movement) who is profiting from seeking the truth and taking their time to Educate others. This is a cause, not a business and everyone I know (who is involved) is paying for their own time to investigate, spending their free time to write to their Congressional Representatives (who by the way are doing close to nothing to make change) and spending their own cash to create signs to March and Rally for the Truth.
You said, "There will be an army of people getting rich off of this far fetched conspiracy story for years and years. The same thing happened in the Kennedy assassination. Look at all the people who got rich off the conspiracy industry created by that event."
Who exactly are you speaking of? People who wrote books questioning the event? No "Army" is getting Rich off the Bush Administration other than Blackwater and other Mercenary Corporate Soldiers who have insulted our enlisted men with all their high Salaries and Corporate Perks. The American people were initially lied to regarding those 4 soldiers hanging from the bridge in Falluja...until someone leaked the truth to the public...and still the Main Stream Media didn't pounce on that news, they squelched it good.
You said, "Sorry, I am a just tad skeptical."
Sorry but, a good skeptic will be open minded enough to do their homework. This is not rocket science.
When there are more questions than answers and it takes our Government 414 days to open an investigation into the largest attack our country has known...one has to be skeptical of that. The Jersey Girls (4 women who lost loved ones on 9/11) are responsible for getting an investigation opened while our Administration wanted to focus on a war in the Mid-East. Iraq, by the way, wasn't associated with Al Qaeda...nor was this country harboring WMDs at the time we staged our invasion.
These women, The Jersey Girls (who were on the 9/11 Commission's steering Committee), had some 300 questions that they asked the Commission to investigate. Of those 300 questions, only 23 were answered. You tell me why that might be?
NIST (Nat'l Institute for Standards Technology), the Scientific Agency that the Commission hired to study and write up a report as to how the buildings could have possibly collapsed at near free-fall speed never had a conclusive explanation or answer as to Building 7's collapse, which is why everyone in the Truth Movement is asking, "What about building 7?" How can concerned citizens be faulted for asking a logical question?
You are correct in asking, "Who is getting rich?" If you want to know the answer, follow the money and INVESTIGATE the culprets who are all cowering behind Executive Privilege, and able to stonewall any inquiry because they are backed by our State Department and Department of Justice. The war machine is alive and well and it looks as though 9/11 was a false flag operation. Go look up Project for the New American Century wherin lies the following statement in Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force"
...and includes the following sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
An original copy of this PNAC document can be obtained from: www.newamericancentury.org It consists of 90 pages
I can guarantee that nobody on this side of the fence is getting rich off working so hard to get our Constitution back to where it stood pre-9/11. The only people who are getting rich are those tied to the Military Industrial Complex.
Might you be one of them?
by
stayreal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 9:24:35 PM
good article, but a couple of important factual errors
I was going to send out and post this article, but then realized it could contain a couple of poison pills that are inaccurate. I'm not saying the au thor is a disinfo agent, but one has to read things on 911 VERY carefully these days, because the 911 Truth Movement has been infiltrated, just as the govt. infiltrated the civil rights, native american, and anti-war movements in the 60s and 70s. They infiltrate to sow lies and divisions and bring disrepute upon the movement.
This is the first I’ve heard of “advanced galvanic corrosion” in the WTC towers, at “thousands of joints.” If this is misinformation, I believe. The WTC towers WERE white elephants that needed to have large quantities of asbestos removed, and so indeed would have had to be demolished or the owner spend millions of dollars on them. But the buildings were structurally sound. There is no reason fires would have destroyed them, with or without jet impacts, and when you add in the fact that the collapses occurred at free-fall speed, the official story becomes preposterous.
The article also claims that “Various explosions (some quite powerful) were seen, heard and felt by hundreds of people, including many firemen and policemen, prior to the collapse of the twin towers, but occurred well after the airliners collided with the buildings.”
But it is a fact that William Rodriguez heard and felt explosions at the sub-basement level BEFORE before any plane impacted the buildings. He witnessed enormous death and destruction in the lobby of the South Tower BEFORE any plane hit the building. Thus the damage down there could not have been as a result of jet fuel falling down the elevators, as the official story holds.
by
Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 2:11:52 PM
<<< one has to read things on 911 VERY carefully these days, because the 911 Truth Movement has been infiltrated, just as the govt. infiltrated the civil rights, native american, and anti-war movements in the 60s and 70s. They infiltrate to sow lies and divisions and bring disrepute upon the movement. >>>
Makes sense to me.
<<< This is the first I’ve heard of “advanced galvanic corrosion” in the WTC towers, at “thousands of joints.” If this is misinformation, I believe. >>>
I've read about it several times, from sources I trust. Can I be certain that it is true? No. Does it require investigation by an independent prosecutor, a grand jury, or, say, the Senate of the US? Yes.
<<< The WTC towers WERE white elephants that needed to have large quantities of asbestos removed, and so indeed would have had to be demolished or the owner spend millions of dollars on them. >>>
