From 2001 through most of 2007, I didn't think much about this subject. I had casually wondered if the fires could actually be responsible for bringing the towers down, thinking about the heat and thermodynamics necessary to weaken the steel columns. I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry, and find thermodynamics very interesting. The idea that fires fueled by office materials and jet fuel (enhanced kerosene) could weaken steel beams, resulting in total failure of the entire structure seemed vaguely unlikely. After all, there have been other large steel-structured office building fires that had not resulted in complete, catastrophic collapse, but I didn’t dwell on my vague doubts.
I have since learned there have been no complete, catastrophic collapses of steel-framed buildings due to fire recorded, ever, like these. There have been partial collapses, involving a few floors, and considerable damage due to fire, but no complete collapses ever of steel-framed buildings. On 9/11, we are given to believe there were three.
In September of last year I read an article on "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, and I learned of the website I wrote about this past October, www.patriotsquestion911.com. This site is nothing more than a compilation of names of people who have publicly questioned the official account, and their statements. It is not an organization, or membership association; the people on the list are not necessarily associated with one another in any way, except for having doubts about 9/11 and having made public statements to that effect. Names on the list include Louis Freeh, former FBI director, Wesley Clark, Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Sec. Of the Treasury, Curt Weldon, Mary Shiavo, former Inspector General US Dept of Transportation, Col. Robert Bowman, Dennis Kucinich, Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist in the Bush Labor Department, with about one thousand other people who have doubts about the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. A quick look at this list will give you a sense of the caliber and qualifications of those who have spoken out in one way or another about these events.
Two other names on this list are men I have read extensively in the past four months: Dr. David Ray Griffin, and Dr. Steven E. Jones. Dr. Griffin is a PhD professor emeritus of religion and philosophy at Claremont College in Calif. Dr. Steven Jones is a PhD physicist formerly with Brigham Young. Both have long established academic careers, have published numerous books or articles, and are respected intellectuals in their fields.
Dr. Jones has well established academic and research credentials for his work with metal-catalyzed fusion. His work has been reproduced and confirmed by independent labs in a couple of countries. Overcoming initial controversy to his findings, his fusion results are now considered the basis for further work. Examining evidence taken from the World Trade Center site he employs the accepted forensic techniques of analysis arson investigators use. He has confirmed a “eutectic” of sulfur in once-molten steel, which a FEMA analysis also found but did not explain, and confirmed the presence of once-molten iron spheres the USGS discovered in dust samples. These samples contain evidence suggestive of explosives: sulfur, aluminum, barium, manganese, with other compounds, in unusually high concentrations.
Dr. Griffin has exhaustively examined the 9/11 Commission report. Comparing known reports gathered from the news media, from authors, academics, government documents, Dr. Griffin has written extensively on the evidence the Commission focused on in great detail, and the evidence it inexplicably omits. And the devil really is in those details. Many people hold the Commission report in high regard as the most complete investigation of the events of 9/11. Dr. Griffin’s books convincingly show that the evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory received special treatment, while witnesses who brought contrary testimony, along with those who came forward but were ignored, are inexcusably rejected or marginalized, their evidence unreported.
Scant mention is made in the Commission report of the documented meetings of the chief of Pakistani intelligence at the time, General Mahmoud Ahmad, with CIA director Tenet, officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and National Security Agency from Sept 4 through Sept. 13, 2001. The report completely denies what the Times of India discovered, and which the Wall Street Journal editorialized, “…US authorities sought [Ahmad’s] removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud…” Instead the Commission report states, “…we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding.”
The back-stories of halted FBI investigations, credible whistleblowers silenced by federal gag orders, FBI field agents’ reports of suspicious behavior ignored, or requests for warrants altered or denied, all make compelling arguments for foreknowledge and complicity by some in the administration. But all these are difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a court of law.
The science, though, is compelling. Pools of flowing molten iron were found under the rubble of the three World Trade Center buildings. They persisted for 100 days. Office material fires simply cannot produce heat to melt steel or iron. Both the National Institute of Standards and Technology and FEMA studies clearly state that fact in their reports, and neither study so much as attempted to answer the question of what caused those pools of molten metal. And then there is Building 7. Not hit by a plane, not substantially damaged by the other collapses, Building 7 fell straight down in the exact same manner as if by controlled demolition. To this day, no official explanation has been issued explaining how this happened.
I no longer have vague doubts. I have important questions. Nearly 3000 people were murdered on September 11, 2001, and even the accused perpetrators have not been brought to justice. I am one of many calling for a new, independent investigation into 9/11. The elaborate cover up we have now is an utter disgrace to this country, and the basis for what many scholars consider near tyranny.
Freelance photographer and writer living in Maine.
I think it deserves a better title to attract more hits because you're making a really good point and your title offers an oppinion, but your article delivers way way more! Thank you.
by
Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 11:51:41 PM
How did it happen? I am a retired military and know that no hijack could take place without being challenged by the Air Force within a short time. Why wasn't it? Sounds like someone had to prevent a normal respoce. If so that means someone high up in the administration committed treason.
Yep we need a new and honest examination of what happened.
by
Robert N Smith (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 103 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 1:38:50 PM
The Plan: From deep in the bowels of the White House East Wing, the Presidential Emergency Operations center situation room, Cheney was heard to bark “the order still stands” as a supposed high-jacked aircraft penetrated the most restricted airspace in the world. After standing down the North American Air Defense System and orchestrating the events on 9/11, this administration set in motion their “Project for a New American Century”, developed a decade before. Using their “New Pearl Harbor” they whipped the congress and the public into a war fever. Cheney embraced “the dark side” with preemptive war, indefinite detention, enhanced interrogation, and extraordinary rendition. A variety of military, CIA, and contracted mercenary assets are nefariously employed. Based on a remarkably simple fact of human psychology that emotion trumps reason, fear mongering can be channeled by demagogues into anger and revenge against an imaginary foe. “He who can lead you to believe an absurdity, can lead you to commit an atrocity”, Voltaire. They laid waste to the lands and people between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers because what they lust for is not on the surface, but subterranean black gold, aka light crude.
Check out "The Shell Game" The Deception of a Nation by Steve Alten, NY Times best-selling author.
by
Ramon Puga (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 2:47:38 PM
True, and I also am trying to write this in such a way that I am not simply preaching to the choir and could maybe tip the balance for someone who is teetering on the question of what is the truth about 9/11. Converts are needed.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 181 comments)
on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 8:31:17 AM
I worked on jets too long as a Naval Aviation Electrician to believe the official line of crud. First of all, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to vaporize steel beams, otherwise the hot section of the engines would melt. How does an asymmetrical force cause buildings to collapse symmetrically and not just once but twice? The third tower which didn't incur any external forces just collapsed on its own, perhaps as a sympathetic response (yeah right!). Nor do I believe that a twin engine transport hit the Pentagon, as there was insufficient debris on the lawn to indicate such an event. One thing to note was among the debris found was a compressor stage from an engine that matched a BQM-34 Firebee target drone, but not much else. That little bit of debris could have been planted for all anybody knows. The video that would show anything flying low towards the pentagon has never been released and by now it may have been destroyed. Whatever actually took place was permitted to happen to make it appear it was just done by a group of terrorists. One problem with the official story was the guy who was supposed to have flown the 757 into the pentagon couldn't even fly a Cessna 150. What about those Mossad agents on the other side of the river in NJ who were laughing and dancing? Legally the Mossad is not supposed to be operating in this country, but I suspect they may have been the ones to set the charges in the buildings or just passed bogus information, but than their motto is "by way of deception, thou shalt do war". Whatever it was they actually did, you can bet it was to get the US to attack Iraq for them. Read anything by Viktor Ostrovsky, who had been a Mossad case worker for 2 years.
by
Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 128 comments)
on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 1:34:50 AM
After studying the Oklahoma City bombing and its cover-up (especially well documented in Jayna Davis' book The Third Terrorist), and the Waco Branch Davidian massacre, I was fully convinced that the government was acting in a criminal capacity and inflicting domestic terrorism on citizens. However, perhaps because I was tired of being the "nut" in my family and social circle, I didn't want to exacerbate things by even looking at this 911 truth stuff.
But, as you know, the evidence speaks for itself, and anyone who takes the time to study what happened must conclude there was a cover-up (at the very least, just a cover-up) and that the people who staged this cover-up can't be presumed innocent of collusion with (or perhaps even funding and direction of) terrorists. Or whatever you want to call these murderers.
This government has a lot of explaining to do. Thanks for your lucid presentation.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM
Not hit by a plane, not substantially damaged by the other collapses,
is a bald faced, out and out lie. Are you calling the FDNY firefighters who were thier that day and witnessed the destruction and damage first hand liars? well are you?
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 351 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 2:07:50 PM
The idea that fires fueled by office materials and jet fuel (enhanced kerosene) could weaken steel beams, resulting in total failure of the entire structure seemed vaguely unlikely.
So, obviously to you, the fireproofing industry is just a big mulit-million dollar a year scam, is that right?
Get a clue please.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 351 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 2:12:19 PM
3 of 24 core columns were damaged by the North Tower collapse, as well as 9 of 57 perimeter columns, all on the south side of the building. Any weakening of the columns by fires in all probability would have precipitated an asymmetrical collapse in the direction of the damage that the building did sustain. That did not happen. It fell straight down in a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, in the exact manner a controlled demolition would do. Commentators who witnessed the collapse live commented on this very appearance. The firemen... according to Graeme McQueen examining the FDNY oral histories:
(1) In the FDNY oral histories, there are about 60 FDNY members who report hearing warnings of Seven’s collapse.
(2) Of these 60 cases, only two have an unknown degree of certainty. Thirty-one cases qualify as “definite” (Seven is thought definitely to be coming down), while 27 qualify as “indefinite” (Seven might come down).
(3) In 27 cases time could not be determined. Of the remaining cases, 17 warnings were received less than two hours before collapse, while ten were received two or more hours before collapse and six appear to have been received four or more hours before collapse.
(4) In five cases it is unknown who ascertained that the building was headed for possible or certain collapse. Of the remaining cases, seven FDNY members personally ascertained or affirmed the possible or definite collapse, while in 50 cases this judgment was made by others, typically official superiors. (There are two cases where the judgment was made on the basis of both self and other—hence the failure of these numbers to add up to the correct total.)
(5) In 38 cases no cause of collapse is given. Of the remaining cases, no member gives other (non-fire) damage as sole cause of collapse; 15 members give fire alone as cause of collapse; and seven members give a combination of fire and other damage as cause of collapse.
In other words, the number of firemen who made a determination WTC 7 was coming down was actually a rather small number, and their statements, it appears, over the hours of the day, influenced the opinions of others.
It is also significant to note that there was at least one or more official type person, who a fireman described as “some engineer type person” was advising a group of firemen prior to ANY of the collapses that this person thought significant damage had been done to the buildings and “they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.” How did they know that?
Whoever this person or people were, they displayed foreknowledge of the collapses less than one hour into the event, as the first tower to collapse did so in less than one hour after being struck. Again, how did they know that? A fireman on the 78 floor reported TWO pockets of fire, that could, he said, be easily knocked down with two lines. The building collapsed on this fellow shortly after.
For a more complete look at McQueen’s excellent analysis:
In short, no, I don’t think the firemen were liars. Influenced by others, perhaps. I see no evidence there was strong consensus among a large group of firemen that WTC 7 was in danger of imminent collapse due to the damage.
A look at photos of WTC 4,5,6 show massive fires, with windows missing and engulfing flames on all floors, as well as significant damage to the structure. Those buildings did not collapse in any manner at all similar to WTC 7. In fact, they had to be brought down by controlled demolition several days after 9/11 during the clean up.
FIRE AND STEEL
A clue to the efficacy of the fireproofing comes from Kevin Ryan, UL supervisor who was well aware of the testing the steel for the towers had undergone prior to building. The size and duration of the fires were well within limits expected. MIT Prof Eagan said of the fires, “The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and Many scientists believe) that the steel melted. This is not true… The temperature of the fires at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.” The faulty computer simulations NIST did to try to model the initiation of collapse DID NOT get the result they expected, collapse of the buildings, when they input realistic data of the temperatures involved. They had to input unrealistic data in order to get a simulation that led to collapse.
Mr. Howard, you appear to place too much emphasis on the fireproofing. Yes, it is rightly mandated, but the fire in these towers were not hot enough to cause COMPLETE failure of the buildings. The steel was tested under higher stress loads for longer periods of time than the less than one hour it took for the first tower to fall.
Dr. Steven Jones is a PhD physicist with over 40 peer reviewed journal articles to his credit. No, he is not a structural engineer. Gordon Ross is however.
Dr. Griffin applies straight-forward comparisons of the public record to the fabrications in the 9/11 Commission report. If you have particular beefs with that analysis, by all means, lay it out, sir. Be glad to entertain your opinions. I can read a report in the Wall Street Journal just as well as the next bloke. Having a little problem with the messenger? Not liking the message?
Please answer this question for me, how many steel frame buildings have completely collapsed after being on fire less than one hour?
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 181 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 6:06:08 PM
3 of 24 core columns were damaged by the North Tower collapse, as well as 9 of 57 perimeter columns, all on the south side of the building.
The exact extent of the damage is not known for sure.But at least you are acknowledging that the building received severe structural damage fromthe collapse of WTC 1
Any weakening of the columns by fires in all probability would have precipitated an asymmetrical collapse in the direction of the damage that the building did sustain.
”In all probability?”Based on whose opinion?Yours?Forensic Structural engineers?
That did not happen. It fell straight down in a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, in the exact manner a controlled demolition would do.
So? Based on whose opinion that it should not have happened that way? It looked like a controlled demolition, because controlled demolitions look like collapses from other causes.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 351 comments)
on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 7:50:31 AM
In other words, the number of firemen who made a determination WTC 7 was coming down was actually a rather small number, and their statements, it appears, over the hours of the day, influenced the opinions of others.
That's called "Command Structure." That is what happens when the senior ranks with the training and experience to make these kind of assessments do so.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 351 comments)
on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 7:58:38 AM
A clue to the efficacy of the fireproofing comes from Kevin Ryan, UL supervisor who was well aware of the testing the steel for the towers had undergone prior to building. The size and duration of the fires were well within limits expected. MIT Prof Eagan said of the fires, “The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and Many scientists believe) that the steel melted. This is not true… The temperature of the fires at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.” The faulty computer simulations NIST did to try to model the initiation of collapse DID NOT get the result they expected, collapse of the buildings, when they input realistic data of the temperatures involved. They had to input unrealistic data in order to get a simulation that led to collapse.
Kevin Ryan was the manager of a water testing lab and has no formal training or experience in evaluating any data related to steel and fire.
Please look at this report click here on how fire would have affected the floor trusses of the building.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 351 comments)
on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 8:05:25 AM
