- Martin Luther King Jr.
The events of September 11, 2001 are now being treated as an historical event, covered by the History Channel as an occurrence of yesteryear. The Channel ¹s February 19 2006 airing of programming that attempted to detail the science involved with the collapse of the WTC towers looked back and pronounced the conclusions of the 9/11 commission as self-evident. However, the specific science quoted by the commission, the key part of its official explanation, is now being widely refuted by physics and engineering professors at our nation ¹s best universities. Employing the same empirical approach for the pursuit of truth as with any big picture, societal question, the world of academia has stepped up and examined the findings of 9/11 Commission and its "Pancake Theory." In today ¹s world it ¹s the cutting edge of real leadership.
A variety of different scientific disciplines have now scrutinized the physics that comprise the official explanation of the collapse of the three buildings of the World Trade Center. For the rest of us, the process begins with an examination of the graphics that are offered by the commission to represent the "Pancake Theory." Claiming that the burning jet fuel melted key sections of the 287 steel beams and caused the floors to collapse one upon the other, it illustrates this scientific claim with a simple picture of one floor dropping onto another.
The illustration is a blatant distortion of the construction design of the Twin Towers. It ¹s a smoking gun, not a simple oversight, that the graphic used by the commission to illustrate their "idea" represents exactly one fourth of the building ¹s construct. It purposefully ignores the 47 vertical steel columns that ran up the center of each building as if to not offend whoever decided to go with that particular bit of science to explain things. A thorough examination of the whole of the commission ¹s report, such as the 337 page meticulously documented book, The 9/11Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions by Claremont college professor David Ray Griffin, shows the commission misleading the public for very specific purposes. While the commission purports to achieve its mission "to provide the fullest account of the events surrounding 9/11," Griffin ¹s book, with its exacting scientific standards, demonstrates that the incredible quantity of omissions are intentional. What the report leaves out, and a thorough examination of why it omitted such a wide variety of circumstances and facts, is a damning indictment of not just the investigation itself, but the length the Bush administration has gone to pursue its agenda.
In addition to Griffin ¹s extraordinarily sequel to his first book, The New Pearl Harbor, there exists a series of detailed books, magazine and Internet articles, and DVD ¹s that raise more questions about the truth of 9/11 than one can ask at one sitting. These resources provide volumes of evidence that supports the premise of a controlled demolition of three buildings at The World Trade Center that day, as well as an extensive cover up that indicates official complicity by the upper echelon of Defense department, FBI, CIA, Pakistani intelligence, and Bush administration. They provide a plethora of smoking guns, all documented in meticulous, scholarly fashion.
According to what the President says in public, the operational premise of the War on Terror policies are based entirely on the presumptions of this report. The pursuit of this agenda, practically without discussion or appropriate checks and balances, is at best counter to our Founding Fathers intent. At worst it points to a level of corruption that is reaping obscene profits for anyone well connected enough to acquire a federal contract. The former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis Morgan Reynolds was quoted as saying that "Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings." Reynolds, a former chief economist in the Treasury Department during the Bush administration ¹s first term, is now a professor emeritus at Texas A & M University.
He is referring to the seven characteristics of a controlled demolition, all evident in all three of the buildings that collapsed. It ¹s likely that Reynolds has seen the footage that clearly shows small explosions that flash out in a variety of locations, up and down the length of the north tower immediately before it falls. It ¹s also likely he has seen footage of firefighters talking about the timing of the explosions they heard. He, and anyone with access to the Internet, can show you more evidence than you can digest at one sitting; extensive scientific, anecdotal, and video evidence that at least three controlled demolitions took place on that day.
The most incriminating piece of evidence in support of a controlled demolition is an assertion by World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein that a controlled demolition did in fact take place on that day at 5:20 PM on a 47-story building 350 feet away from the towers. Silverstein, who had previously held the lease on World Trade Center Building 7, additionally took over the lease of the towers just months before. He makes this astounding claim on the television show America Rebuilds in September 2002 in response to a question about the circumstances surrounding the seven-second collapse of WTC Building 7:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure that they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know, we ¹ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."
What Silverstein asks us to believe is that "they made that decision," and then the fire department dashed into a building with two small fires burning in lower floors and spontaneously set up a textbook "pulling" for reasons that are both unclear and not supported by evidence. What he omits is that it takes, as any demolition engineer can tell you, a minimum of two weeks to set that specific kind of demolition into place. And the fire department doesn ¹t do demolitions.
That WTC 7 was dropped by a controlled demolition has been conceded by the principal beneficiary of the insurance policies on all the WTC properties raises a series of question that lead in a series of directions. Immediately one wonders why Silverstein is not explaining his statement in a deposition concerning the multi-billion dollar settlement from a recently purchased insurance policy specifically covering terrorist attacks. The astounding thing is that this is not front page news, and that nobody has asked him or anyone else about that 2 week lead time that it takes to set up what was admitted.
The footage of its "pulling," the industry term for controlled demolition, can be viewed by anyone at the web site www.wtc7.net. It is impressive; it comes straight down, starting with an appendage at the top that collapses neatly onto the roof, and then the whole building arches slightly in the middle, as if the innards have given way. Then it drops perfectly into its own footprint: a perfect pull.
That World Trade Center Building Seven contained offices for the CIA, the SEC, the Secret Service, the IRS, the Defense Department, and a "command center" built explicitly for the use of Mayor Rudolph Guiliani in response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was not considered relevant to the
Another red flag that insurance investigators appear to be ignoring is the statement by Mayor Guiliani concerning his abrupt decision to abandon the control room from which he was monitoring the burning buildings. Guiliani claims that
"We were operating out of there (the Emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of WTC-7) when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."
Neither the insurance company paying off Silverstein nor the 9/11 commission had anything to ask the Mayor, the leaseholder, nor the fire department commander about who said exactly what to whom and when. There was no reason for Guiliani or anyone to suspect the buildings would collapse; a skyscraper has never before or since collapsed as a result of fire. But suddenly, and with an admitted warning to a key government official, three buildings collapse precisely when "someone" says they will.
This is but one of many failures of the commission to examine anything that contradicts the official story. Besides not taking any interest in Guiliani ¹s or Silverstein ¹s incriminating statements, the report never even mentions the collapse of WTC Seven. With an appropriation of 15 million dollars the claim could be made that it was a cost cutting measure due to the limited focus that 15 million buys from a government investigative body. In the context of the scores of millions the powers to be were willing to spend ascertaining just how Clinton was inappropriate, under-funded looks purposefully underhanded.
It ¹s the science itself that ¹s the real smoking gun, and the unprovable "Pancake Theory" is the modern day magic bullet. In the tobacco science world that far right corporate interests use to justify bottom line business practices we get leaders willing to go along with the operative ideology to get ahead. It ¹s the way of rising to the top in this political scrambling act that has become a dysfunctional Republic of Deceit. The freedom to lie is actually put forward as a defense for corporate malfeasance. It is that element of our country, the seamy representatives of corporate greed, that is apparently hooked up enough with the inward workings of the defense departments, NSA, CIA, FBI and, especially, the White House, particularly the Vice President ¹s office, that they can make things happen with enough millions available. Remember that the Kennedy assassination took place with Secret Service complicity and the Military-Industrial complex immediately got their War. If you watch for repeating themes it will bring up that de'jÃ vu feeling that a different version of the same mistakes are being made.