TOO MANY SUSPICIOUS ANOMALIES ABOUT 9/11 (FOURTH REVISION, 12/12/10)
Sunday, December 12, 2010
TOO MANY SUSPICIOUS ANOMALIES ABOUT 9/11 (FOURTH REVISION, 12/12/10)
By Robert Halfhill
There are many unanswered questions about the official conspiracy theory that an Islamic terrorist organization, headquartered in Afghanistan, sent 19 men with box cutters to infiltrate the United states to hijack four planes and wreak appalling destruction by crashing them into buildings. The first question about the official story is that since the World Trade Center had already been attacked by terrorists once before in 1993, and it remained the one place where a successful terrorist act would make the greatest impression, why was there no attempt to guard the WTC or prepare defenses? I remember thinking in 1993 that the
terrorists had to only be successful once while we had to be successful every time.
Second, the U.S. government received at least eleven warnings from foreign intelligence services about Al Qaida's plan for a big attack on the United States before they struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Again, why were no counter measures prepared?
Third, the Minneapolis FBI tried to obtain approval from the FISA Court to look at Zacarias Moussaoui's computer after he was arrested for being in the country illegally. But as Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley testified to a Senate hearing, the National FBI Office even rewrote the Minneapolis Office's request to FISA so it failed to be approved. The Minneapolis-St. Paul STAR TRIBUNE later wrote about how it became a running joke in the Minneapolis FBI Office about the National Office being on the side of the terrorists. And still later, the STAR TRIBUNE reported that plans for the attack on the World Trade Center were found on Moussaoui's computer.
Fourth, the Phoenix FBI Office had noticed the large number of Middle Eastern men enrolling for flight training. Someone from the Phoenix Office pointed out to the National Office that a plane could be used as a weapon.
Fifth, there is the mind boggling incompetence of both the civilian air traffic control systems and the military North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). The civilian air traffic control system's radar can detect a plane going off course immediately, as soon as it deviates from its flight plan, and the protocol calls for it to notify NORAD within ten minutes. Boston Air Traffic Control detected American Airlines Flight 11 going off course as soon as it deviated from its flight plan at 8:14 A.M. on September 11, 2001. But it did not notify several other air traffic control centers until 8:25 A.M., eleven minutes later. And it did not notify NORAD until 8:40 A.M. The two F-15 Eagles that were eventually scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, which was 153 miles northwest of the World Trade Center and which had a top speed of over 1875 miles per hour, could have reached the WTC in seven minutes with more than enough time to intercept AA 11 if the F-15's had been in the air soon after 8:14 A.M or even 8:25 A.M. However, AA 11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 A.M.
If NORAD had been informed and had the F-15's in the air soon after AA 11 was detected going off course at 8:14 A.M., there would have been far more than enough time to intercept it. At 8:41:32 A.M., there was a suspicious radio transmission from United Airlines Flight 175 which sounded something like "everyone stay in your seats." Boston Air Traffic Control informed NORAD that UA 175 had been hijacked at 8:43 and there would have been more than enough time for the two F-15"s, which were air borne by 8:52 A.M. to intercept UA 175 before it hit the South Tower at 9:02:54 A.M. That is there would have been more than enough time if the two F-15's had not been flying at only 23.9% of their top speed!
AA 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 A.M. At their top speed, the two F-15's could have intercepted AA 77 twenty-four minutes before it hit the Pentagon.At 9:55 A.M., United Airlines Flight 93 went of course near Cleveland and began a 135 degree turn over Ohio and Northern Kentucky. It crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:06:05 A.M.
If a police officer pursuing fleeing criminals drove her or his squad car at only 23.9 percent of the car's top speed, the most probable conclusion would be that the officer intended to let the criminals escape. Human stupidity can account for a lot and even mount to civil or even criminal negligence. But when there is a series of one incredible, mind boggling stupidity after another, there has to be a malign intent to bring about the
opposite of what officials are supposedly trying to achieve, in this case to ensure that the hijackers succeed. But there's more!
Six, why did the government officials ship most of the steel from the World Trade Center out of the country, even though it is a felony to remove evidence from a crime scene. In the October 6, 2005 issue of NEW CIVIL ENGINEER, Dave Parker writes in "WTC Investigators Resist Call For Collapse Visualization" that nearly all the WTC steel was shipped out to Asia and melted down for recycling.
Seven, Why did the Bush Administration fight against having public hearings on 9/11 for nearly 18 months although public hearings on Pearl Harbor were held within weeks after the event? 9/11 hearings were not held until the relatives of those killed at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon exerted enough lobbying pressure to force the hearings to be held, and even then, only one-tenth of the questions they submitted were
answered.
And eight, why did the government not even allow the visitors to the site of the World Trade Center to take photographs of the ruins and why did the government confiscate photos and videos of the attack on the Pentagon? Could both seven and eight be part of an attempt to hide evidence of government complicity?
In his editorial, "Selling out the Investigation," in the January, 2002 FIRE ENGINEERING, William Manning wrote that "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) ... is a half baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure." Manning also criticized the investigation in another editorial, "The Twisted Brush of 9/11 Politics" in the September, 2004 FIRE ENGINEERING.
Robert Berhinig, P.E. states in "Protecting the Foundation of Fire-Safety," in the July/August, 2002 IAEI (International Association of Electrical Inspectors, the definitive magazine for electrical inspectors) that "the FEMA report states further that until the attack on the WTC, no protected steel framed buildings had been known to collapse as a result of a fire." Yet on 9/11, after steel framed buildings had been around for over a hundred years, since the late 1800's, three protected steel framed buildings, WTC 1, 2, and 7, had collapsed, supposedly because of fire.
Three of the experts who testified before the House Committee On Science May 1, 2002 Hearing On the Collapse of the World Trade Center said the there had NEVER BEFORE been a collapse of a protected, steel framed building because of fire. Dr. W. Gene Corley, American Society of Civil Engineers and Chair of the Building Performance Assesment Team reviewing the WTC disaster said on page 76 of the hearing record that "prior to these events, no protected steel frame structure, the most common form of large
commercial construction in the United States, has ever experienced a fire-induced collapse." Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology said on page 103, "The Twin Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse where fire played a significant role." So we have here an admission by a spokesperson for NIST that allegedly accounted for the collapses that fire had never before brought about such a collapse of a protected, steel framed building. And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Safety Studies at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute said on page 133, "Up until 9/11, we never had a collapse of a protected steel building." On page 163 he said, "This was the
first time we had the collapse of a protected steel structure." Dr. Bement said on page 169, "... there have been instances where buildings have had major fires that have burned to completion without the buildings collapsing." And on page 172, Dr. Barnett said of the partial collapse of WTC 5, "But building 5 was a normal building and it had a fire and it had a major collapse. This has never happened before."
The August 25, 2007 issue of SCIENCE NEWS had an article about the collapse of the World Trade Center on pages 122 - 24 entitled FIRE INSIDE: STRUCTURAL DESIGN WITH FIRE SAFETY IN MIND by Carolyn Berry. The paragraph in the first column on page 124 is particularly significant in evaluating the NIST computer simulation of the collapse of WTC 7:"The NIST simulation, like all models of building failures to date, couldn't follow the 9/11 collapses through to the end. No computer is yet powerful
enough to follow the chaotic sequence of events that ensues when components break apart and a building falls, but this is where research is headed."In other words, the much vaunted NIST simulation which purported to dispose of the arguments of we conspiracy theorists didn't actually demonstrate how fire caused the buildings to collapse; they just waved their hands when the computing power currently
available had took them as far as it could and said: "This is far enough; the
buildings collapsed somewhere about here." Of course we all know we have accounted for how the buildings probably collapsed once we have gone this far. It HAS to be the probable explanation because the only alternative explanation is those NUTTY, WACKO CONSPIRACY THEORIES! We know a priori that that CAN'T be true!
I might as well add the statement in the same SCIENCE NEWS article of Allen Hay, chief fire safety officer of the New York City Fire Department, about WTC 7. "We just expected it to burn out -- we didn't expect it to fall down." "It's the only building I know in New York City to ever collapse (strictly) from fire."
The enclosed article from the COLUMBIA ENCYLOPEDIA makes it clear that the only way to demolish buildings so that they collapse onto their footprint, or the area they were standing on, is by controlled demolition, or imploding buuildings with explosives.
COLUMBIA ENCYLOPEDIA
Next Page How Building Implosions Work
by Tom Harris
Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks article:
You can demolish a stone wall with a sledgehammer, and it's fairly easy to level a five-story building using excavators and wrecking balls. But when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a 20-story skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.In other words, planting explosives within a building at carefully preselected locations is the ONLY way to bring down a building on to its footprint. Conversely, if a building falls on to its footprint, we can be certain that explosives were planted within it.
But terrorist from Afghanistan would not be able to sneak past building security and preplant explosives at carefully preselected locations. Even a domestic terrorist group would not be able to do this. Only the U.S. government or rogue elements within it would be able to pull this off, a task made especially easy since the FBI and CIA both had their offices in Building 7 of the World Trade Center. The similarity of the destruction of World Trade Center 7 to controlled demolition was pointed out by Dan Rather when he said on the September 11, 2001 CBS News: "it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."
Many of the firefighters, whose testimony is recorded in the oral histories that were made available to the public after an Appeals Court order reported on hearing and seeing the explosions that would occur in controlled demolitions. Assistant New York Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: "I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before Number Two came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he
questioned me and asked if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him ... I saw a flash-flash-flash, and then it looked like the building came down. ... No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."
Chemist Kevin Ryan said in "Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials," in the March, 2009 The Environmentalist: "The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel.
Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, and chemical suppressants." The necessity of preserving the evidence of thermites is emphasized in the 2001 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. "Thermite mixtures also produce esceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable. ... As a result, the entire fire scene should be considered physical evidence and should be protected and preserved." But, as we have seen, the majority of the remains of the World Trade Center were shipped out to be melted down in Asia as soon as possible.
But I want to return to the repeated Congressional testimony that a protected, steel framed building has NEVER BEFORE collapsed because of fire. And never afterwards either. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we have a purported fact about the behavior of protected, steel framed buildings in fire that dare not be true again!
There are many other suspicious anomalies about 9/11. Only a few are, nine, all three World Trade Center buildings collapsed at nearly free fall speed,i.e. almost as fast as it would take an object dropped from one of the WTC building's roof to reach the ground. The resistance of the massive steel columns and concrete would have slowed the fall considerably if it had been a matter of the floors pancaking and falling on the floors below.
And ten, fire would have unlikely to have been equally intense at every point in the buildings so that every point failed simultaneously and they fell onto the surface area they stood on, i.e. on to their footprint.
Eleventh, fire has never caused the girders in protected steel framed buildings to become ductile or loose sufficient strength to result in a building collapse. The 17th edition, published in 1992, of the National Fire Protection Association's Fire Protection Handbook says that structural steel does not even begin to soften until it reaches a temperature of 425 degrees centigrade, or 837 degrees fahrenheit and doesn't loose half its strength until 650 degrees centigrade, or 1202 degrees fahrenheit. W. I. Edgar and C. Musse in their 2001 article "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, (53/12:8-11) state that even with its strength halved, the steel in the World Trade Center could still support two or three times the stresses imposed by a 650 degrees centigrade or 1202 degrees fahrenheit fire.
But even though fire cannot melt steel, pools of molten steel remained at the bottom of the wreckage for 100 days. Although molten metal at ground zero was a constant feature of media accounts in the days following 9/11, there have since been widespread denials of the presence of molten metal in the ruins of the
World Trade Center. Or if the presence of molten metal is admitted, it is claimed that the metal was molten aluminium from the planes, although the press accounts at the time specifically said it was molten steel and pictures of the WTC ruins show the metal as bright red, characteristic of molten steel, whereas molten
aluminium has a silvery color. Some have even proclaimed that the TV pictures of ground zero were taken in different wave lengths of light to explain away why the molten aluminium looked like molten steel. However since the television pictures we normally see all show objects as being the same color we normally see them, i.e trees are shown as green and people did not have purple complexions, it is difficult to understand why the
video photos of the World Trade Center alone were photographed at a different wave length than the wave length normally used by TV cameras. This seems particularly difficult since all the other objects we see in photos of ground zero have the same colors we normally see such objects as having. The extent to which ad hoc hypotheses are resorted to to explain away pictures of molten steel is mind boggling! And when what was widely reported in the press and accepted as true is denied a few months later by seemingly intelligent people as well as by self professed experts, it reminds us of George Orwell's 1984 in which once the official news accounts changed, people would forget the previous news accounts!
So it is instructive to consider an official report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which has otherwise consistently claimed there was no evidence for molten metal at ground zero, in which they cite numerous first hand reports of molten steel in the ruins of the World Trade Center while resorting to irrelevancy after irrelevancy and ad hominem after ad hominem in an attempt to discredit these first hand reports. The NIST report is in ordinary type while my interpolated comments are in capital letters for ease of distinguishing fron the text of the NIST report.
Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc.(CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack. Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective
reporters of evidence.
RH - WHEN THE FEMA REPORT SAYS STEVE TULLY AND MARK LOIZEAUX WERE INVOLVED "IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE," IT IGNORES THE FACT THAT IT SAID IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SENTENCE THAT TULLY WAS HIRED BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE. (TULLY HIRED LOIZEAUX AS A SUBCONTRACTOR.) ALTHOUGH NEW YORK HIRING THEM TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE CASTS SUSPICION ON THE NEW YORK CITY GOVERNMENT, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ALLOWING NEW YORK TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE, HOW COULD THIS BE USED TO DISCREDIT TULLY AND LOIZEAUX WHEN THE VERY GOVERNMENT OF WHICH FEMA IS A PART ALLOWED A SUBORDINATE GOVERNMENT, THAT OF NEW YORK CITY, TO HIRE THEM TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE?
SECONDLY, WE HAVE AN ADMISSION BY FEMA THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS DISPOSED OF AND THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG IN DISPOSING THE EVIDENCE.
THIRD, THE ONLY WAY THEY HAVE OF DISCREDITING TULLY AND LOIZEAUX'S FIRST HAND REPORT IS NOT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THEIR REPORT WAS MISTAKEN BUT TO RESORT TO AN AD HOMINEM. EVEN IF THEY HAD DISPOSED OF THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT BEING HIRED BY NEW YORK, THAT IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THEY WERE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH IN THEIR FIRST HAND REPORT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER PREVIOUS WRONG BEHAVIOR INFLUENCES THE TRUTH OF
FACTUAL TESTIMONY, OR WHETHER ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE, FALSIFIED THEIR FACTUAL TESTIMONY AND THUS INVALIDATED THEIR ARGUMENTS, WHY NOT JUST CUT TO THE CHASE AND CONCENTRATE ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE FACTUAL TESTIMONY OR THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENTS?
Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. 1
R.H. - WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF LOIZEAUX'S COMPANY, CDI, BEING HIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE RUBBLE OF THE MURRAH BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY TO WHETHER HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS TRUTHFUL? POINTING OUT LOIZEAUX'S STANDING TRIAL ON CHARGES OF ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IS ANOTHER AD HOMINEM. THE FEMA REPORT DOESN'T EVEN SAY WHETHER HE WAS CONVICTED, BUT EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN, IT WOULD NOT PROVE HE WAS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL IN HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT MOLTEN STEEL AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. FEMA'S STOOPING TO THESE SHODDY AD HOMINEM TACTICS, A FALLACY THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE ELEMENTARY LOGIC COURSE I TOOK AS A COLLEGE SOPHOMORE, RAISES ADDITIONAL SUSPICIONS ABOUT FEMA'S REPORT. WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE IF THEY HAVE TO RESORT TO SUCH DESPICABLE AD HOMINEMS?
A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements.
R.H. - YOU DO NOT ASSUME THE THEORY IS WRONG, I.E.. "DUBIOUS," AND THEN ARGUE
THAT THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE THEREFORE FALSE. YOU FIRST HAVE TO PRODUCE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THAT THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE FALSE. THE TRUTH OF A THEORY IS DETERMINED BY THE TRUTH OF THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS CITED AS EVIDENCE FOR IT; YOU CAN'T USE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE THEORY IS TRUE OR FALSE TO DEDUCE THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE STATEMENTS OF FACT CITED AS PART OF THE EVIDENCE FOR IT.
Corroborating Reports
There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. *
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving
"everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2
A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3
A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4
A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site.
The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite awhile before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.
A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6
A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that
disaster. 7
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson(structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8
A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9
The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: ... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10
A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." 11
This construction photograph shows the foundation of South Tower in the foreground, with the foundation of the North Tower in the left background. The foundations were seven stories deep.
R.H. - HERE WE HAVE 11 INDEPENDENT REPORTS CITED BY FEMA OF MOLTEN STEEL IN THE RUINS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, EVEN IF THE AD HOMINEMS FEMA RESORTED TO IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT TULLY AND LOIZEAUX'S TESTIMONY WERE VALID ARGUMENTS, THIS WOULD DO NOTHING TO DISCREDIT THESE ELEVEN INDEPENDENT TESTIMONIES ABOUT MOLTEN STEEL AT GROUND ZERO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other researchers, including Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before; David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts such as this on georgewashington.blogspot.com.
R.H. - AGAIN IT IS AN AD HOMINEM TO ASSUME THAT SINCE THESE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE CITED BY PEOPLE THAT THE FEMA REPORT CLAIMS TO BE DISCREDIBLE, IT PROVES THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE NOT CREDIBLE, EVEN IF FEMA HAD PROVED THAT THE CITERS ARE DISCREDIBLE, WHICH IT HAS NOT. I HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED WHY YOU CANNOT ASSUME A THEORY IS FALSE AND USE THAT ASSUMED FALSITY TO ASSUME THE FACTUAL REPORTS CITED AS PART OF THE THEORY'S EVIDENCE ARE FALSE AND THAT THE ARGUMENTS CITED TO SUPPORT THE THEORY ARE INVALID.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00
2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached]
3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached]
4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02 [cached]
5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com, [cached]
6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, [cached]
7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org, [cached]
8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3
9. Ground Zero, 12/01 [cached]
10. American Ground, , page 32
11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04
page last modified: 2006-12-28
END OF NIST REPORT
And twelve, although an ordinary building collapse would produce chunks of broken concrete, the steel, concrete and asbestos in the three World Trade Center buildings was mostly converted to a fine dust which flowed out from the WTC through the streets of Manhattan in the manner of the pyroclastic flows produced from volcanoes.
And thirteen, although the buildings were not even observed to move at all when the planes crashed into them, nearby geological observatories detected seismic tremblors as if there had been massive explosions at ground level when the buildings collapsed. And while WTC 7 had not
even been struck by a plane, all the phenomena previously mentioned accompanied its collapse also.
And fourteen, while the Environmental Protection Agency said that the air around the World Trade Center was safe to breathe after 9/11, we now know that our government lied yet again because of all the deaths from asbestosis and other respiratory diseases among both the humans and dogs who were involved in the WTC cleanup.
And fifteen, while it is standard procedure for the secret service to hustle the President away from the scene immediately whenever there is a hint of danger, George Bush remained in the Florida elementary school reading "The Pet Goat" for nearly half an hour, even though there was supposedly no assurance that there would not be an attempt to crash a plane into the school.
And although the Bush Administration attempted to ship all the steel from the World Trade Center to China and Korea, even though it is a felony to remove the evidence from a crime scene until the criminal investigation has been completed, some of the steel girders were saved by 9/11 investigators. And the massive amounts of metal in the dust which surged out from the WTC collapse provided additional metal for investigators to study. Brigham Young University Professor of Physics, Steven E. Jones obtained some of the metal containing dust after he had published his first paper about 9/11 online in November, 2005. Janette Mackinlay had returned to her apartment on the fourth floor of 113 Cedar Street, which was about 100 meters, or 328 feet, away from the South Tower, about a week after her apartment had been flooded with dust, to clean up. She had saved some of the dust in a plastic bag and mailed some of it to Jones after he published his first paper online. Later, he traveled to MacKinlay's new residence in California and obtained a second sample of WTC dust in the presence of other scientists. (Latest reports are that MacKinlay is now gravely ill because of even this brief exposure to ground zero dust, although the government had claimed that the air was safe to breathe by the workers working on the site of 9/11 who had far more exposure to the toxic dust than Mackinlay had had in her brief clean ups of her apartment.) [I learned that Janette Mackinlay has died after I finished this article.]
In his subsequent online paper, "Revisiting 9/11, 2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method," Professor Jones reported that the dust contained clear traces of thermate. Thermate is an incendiary used to melt and cut steel in controlled building demolitions. It is a well mixed powder of iron, aluminum and sulfur. The sulfur lowers the melting point of iron, or steel, and cuts right through it. Sometimes other metallic powders are mixed in to fine tune the characteristics of the incendiary. Doctor Jones found all of these substances in the dust.
And recently, Jones and others reported in their artcle "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" in the January, 2009 issue of The Open Chemical Physics Journal that they have found nanoscopic particles of unignited thermate in the World Trade Center dust. Ordinary thermate is only an incendiary which burns at a temparature hot enough to burn through steel girders. Nano is a prefix meaning billionths of a meter and the smaller size of the nano particles of iron oxide (rust), aluminum, and sulfur enable nanothermate to burn so much faster that it is an explosive as well as an incendiary. Grain millers are familiar with an analogous process when grain, which will burn when exposed to fire, becomes an explosive when it is ground into a fine dust. Even a random spark can set off a catastrophic explosion when enough of it builds up in the air inside a grain mill.
David Heller, who has degrees in physics and engineering, makes many of the same points Dr. Jones made in Heller's article, "TAKING A CLOSE LOOK; HARD SCIENCE AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER," in the June 18, 2007 GARLIC AND GRASS. After he states that the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings was a controlled demolition brought about by pre-planted thermate explosives, he states that it would seem impossible for Al Qaida to preplant the explosives, especially since WTC 7 housed the offices of the FBI, CIA, and OEM(Office of Emergency Management). But he says that recently he learned that President George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that provided security for not only the World Trade Center buildings but also both United and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were hijacked on 9/11. He also pointed out that the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement after 9/11 and was suing for an additional $3.55 billion on the grounds that the airplane crashes into the Twin Towers constituted two separate incidents.
However, regardless of Silverstein's motives, it is unlikely that he could have played a major role in planting the explosives in the building containing the offices of the FBI, CIA and OEM. Only the United States government could have carried that off and Silverstein, at most, could have played no more than a subsidiary role.
The final step in a criminal investigation is asking who had the motive to do the crime. Whose poll numbers shot up into the stratosphere after 9/11 and who gained the popular support to enable him to the invade Afghanistan and Iraq, abolish habaeus corpus and, at least, seize the de jure power to lock anyone up for life without a trial or even telling them why they were being imprisoned? Only the neo cons and the Bush
Administration, although Bush may be only a front man and Dick Cheney the real power behind the throne. It was the neo con Project for a New American Century who proposed that the U.S. seize the lands where the world's dwindling supply of oil is located and who were quoted in NEWSWEEK as saying that the American people may need a new Pearl Harbor to wake them up.
But if enough people realize in time just how bad our government is, we can counter them
before it is too late.
http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com/ (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.comaolaccessibility@aol.com, or call
1-888-212-5537.
http://redlavenderinsurgent.blogspot.com/
TOO MANY SUSPICIOUS ANOMALIES ABOUT 9/11 (FOURTH REVISION, 12/12/10)
By Robert Halfhill
There are many unanswered questions about the official conspiracy theory that an Islamic terrorist organization, headquartered in Afghanistan, sent 19 men with box cutters to infiltrate the United states to hijack four planes and wreak appalling destruction by crashing them into buildings. The first question about the official story is that since the World Trade Center had already been attacked by terrorists once before in 1993, and it remained the one place where a successful terrorist act would make the greatest impression, why was there no attempt to guard the WTC or prepare defenses? I remember thinking in 1993 that the
terrorists had to only be successful once while we had to be successful every time.
Second, the U.S. government received at least eleven warnings from foreign intelligence services about Al Qaida's plan for a big attack on the United States before they struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Again, why were no counter measures prepared?
Third, the Minneapolis FBI tried to obtain approval from the FISA Court to look at Zacarias Moussaoui's computer after he was arrested for being in the country illegally. But as Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley testified to a Senate hearing, the National FBI Office even rewrote the Minneapolis Office's request to FISA so it failed to be approved. The Minneapolis-St. Paul STAR TRIBUNE later wrote about how it became a running joke in the Minneapolis FBI Office about the National Office being on the side of the terrorists. And still later, the STAR TRIBUNE reported that plans for the attack on the World Trade Center were found on Moussaoui's computer.
Fourth, the Phoenix FBI Office had noticed the large number of Middle Eastern men enrolling for flight training. Someone from the Phoenix Office pointed out to the National Office that a plane could be used as a weapon.
Fifth, there is the mind boggling incompetence of both the civilian air traffic control systems and the military North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). The civilian air traffic control system's radar can detect a plane going off course immediately, as soon as it deviates from its flight plan, and the protocol calls for it to notify NORAD within ten minutes. Boston Air Traffic Control detected American Airlines Flight 11 going off course as soon as it deviated from its flight plan at 8:14 A.M. on September 11, 2001. But it did not notify several other air traffic control centers until 8:25 A.M., eleven minutes later. And it did not notify NORAD until 8:40 A.M. The two F-15 Eagles that were eventually scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, which was 153 miles northwest of the World Trade Center and which had a top speed of over 1875 miles per hour, could have reached the WTC in seven minutes with more than enough time to intercept AA 11 if the F-15's had been in the air soon after 8:14 A.M or even 8:25 A.M. However, AA 11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 A.M.
If NORAD had been informed and had the F-15's in the air soon after AA 11 was detected going off course at 8:14 A.M., there would have been far more than enough time to intercept it. At 8:41:32 A.M., there was a suspicious radio transmission from United Airlines Flight 175 which sounded something like "everyone stay in your seats." Boston Air Traffic Control informed NORAD that UA 175 had been hijacked at 8:43 and there would have been more than enough time for the two F-15"s, which were air borne by 8:52 A.M. to intercept UA 175 before it hit the South Tower at 9:02:54 A.M. That is there would have been more than enough time if the two F-15's had not been flying at only 23.9% of their top speed!
AA 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 A.M. At their top speed, the two F-15's could have intercepted AA 77 twenty-four minutes before it hit the Pentagon.At 9:55 A.M., United Airlines Flight 93 went of course near Cleveland and began a 135 degree turn over Ohio and Northern Kentucky. It crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:06:05 A.M.
If a police officer pursuing fleeing criminals drove her or his squad car at only 23.9 percent of the car's top speed, the most probable conclusion would be that the officer intended to let the criminals escape. Human stupidity can account for a lot and even mount to civil or even criminal negligence. But when there is a series of one incredible, mind boggling stupidity after another, there has to be a malign intent to bring about the
opposite of what officials are supposedly trying to achieve, in this case to ensure that the hijackers succeed. But there's more!
Six, why did the government officials ship most of the steel from the World Trade Center out of the country, even though it is a felony to remove evidence from a crime scene. In the October 6, 2005 issue of NEW CIVIL ENGINEER, Dave Parker writes in "WTC Investigators Resist Call For Collapse Visualization" that nearly all the WTC steel was shipped out to Asia and melted down for recycling.
Seven, Why did the Bush Administration fight against having public hearings on 9/11 for nearly 18 months although public hearings on Pearl Harbor were held within weeks after the event? 9/11 hearings were not held until the relatives of those killed at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon exerted enough lobbying pressure to force the hearings to be held, and even then, only one-tenth of the questions they submitted were
answered.
And eight, why did the government not even allow the visitors to the site of the World Trade Center to take photographs of the ruins and why did the government confiscate photos and videos of the attack on the Pentagon? Could both seven and eight be part of an attempt to hide evidence of government complicity?
In his editorial, "Selling out the Investigation," in the January, 2002 FIRE ENGINEERING, William Manning wrote that "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) ... is a half baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure." Manning also criticized the investigation in another editorial, "The Twisted Brush of 9/11 Politics" in the September, 2004 FIRE ENGINEERING.
Robert Berhinig, P.E. states in "Protecting the Foundation of Fire-Safety," in the July/August, 2002 IAEI (International Association of Electrical Inspectors, the definitive magazine for electrical inspectors) that "the FEMA report states further that until the attack on the WTC, no protected steel framed buildings had been known to collapse as a result of a fire." Yet on 9/11, after steel framed buildings had been around for over a hundred years, since the late 1800's, three protected steel framed buildings, WTC 1, 2, and 7, had collapsed, supposedly because of fire.
Three of the experts who testified before the House Committee On Science May 1, 2002 Hearing On the Collapse of the World Trade Center said the there had NEVER BEFORE been a collapse of a protected, steel framed building because of fire. Dr. W. Gene Corley, American Society of Civil Engineers and Chair of the Building Performance Assesment Team reviewing the WTC disaster said on page 76 of the hearing record that "prior to these events, no protected steel frame structure, the most common form of large
commercial construction in the United States, has ever experienced a fire-induced collapse." Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology said on page 103, "The Twin Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse where fire played a significant role." So we have here an admission by a spokesperson for NIST that allegedly accounted for the collapses that fire had never before brought about such a collapse of a protected, steel framed building. And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Safety Studies at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute said on page 133, "Up until 9/11, we never had a collapse of a protected steel building." On page 163 he said, "This was the
first time we had the collapse of a protected steel structure." Dr. Bement said on page 169, "... there have been instances where buildings have had major fires that have burned to completion without the buildings collapsing." And on page 172, Dr. Barnett said of the partial collapse of WTC 5, "But building 5 was a normal building and it had a fire and it had a major collapse. This has never happened before."
The August 25, 2007 issue of SCIENCE NEWS had an article about the collapse of the World Trade Center on pages 122 - 24 entitled FIRE INSIDE: STRUCTURAL DESIGN WITH FIRE SAFETY IN MIND by Carolyn Berry. The paragraph in the first column on page 124 is particularly significant in evaluating the NIST computer simulation of the collapse of WTC 7:"The NIST simulation, like all models of building failures to date, couldn't follow the 9/11 collapses through to the end. No computer is yet powerful
enough to follow the chaotic sequence of events that ensues when components break apart and a building falls, but this is where research is headed."In other words, the much vaunted NIST simulation which purported to dispose of the arguments of we conspiracy theorists didn't actually demonstrate how fire caused the buildings to collapse; they just waved their hands when the computing power currently
available had took them as far as it could and said: "This is far enough; the
buildings collapsed somewhere about here." Of course we all know we have accounted for how the buildings probably collapsed once we have gone this far. It HAS to be the probable explanation because the only alternative explanation is those NUTTY, WACKO CONSPIRACY THEORIES! We know a priori that that CAN'T be true!
I might as well add the statement in the same SCIENCE NEWS article of Allen Hay, chief fire safety officer of the New York City Fire Department, about WTC 7. "We just expected it to burn out -- we didn't expect it to fall down." "It's the only building I know in New York City to ever collapse (strictly) from fire."
The enclosed article from the COLUMBIA ENCYLOPEDIA makes it clear that the only way to demolish buildings so that they collapse onto their footprint, or the area they were standing on, is by controlled demolition, or imploding buuildings with explosives.
COLUMBIA ENCYLOPEDIA
Next Page How Building Implosions Work
by Tom Harris
Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks article:
You can demolish a stone wall with a sledgehammer, and it's fairly easy to level a five-story building using excavators and wrecking balls. But when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a 20-story skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.In other words, planting explosives within a building at carefully preselected locations is the ONLY way to bring down a building on to its footprint. Conversely, if a building falls on to its footprint, we can be certain that explosives were planted within it.
But terrorist from Afghanistan would not be able to sneak past building security and preplant explosives at carefully preselected locations. Even a domestic terrorist group would not be able to do this. Only the U.S. government or rogue elements within it would be able to pull this off, a task made especially easy since the FBI and CIA both had their offices in Building 7 of the World Trade Center. The similarity of the destruction of World Trade Center 7 to controlled demolition was pointed out by Dan Rather when he said on the September 11, 2001 CBS News: "it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."
Many of the firefighters, whose testimony is recorded in the oral histories that were made available to the public after an Appeals Court order reported on hearing and seeing the explosions that would occur in controlled demolitions. Assistant New York Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: "I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before Number Two came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he
questioned me and asked if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him ... I saw a flash-flash-flash, and then it looked like the building came down. ... No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."
Chemist Kevin Ryan said in "Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials," in the March, 2009 The Environmentalist: "The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel.
Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, and chemical suppressants." The necessity of preserving the evidence of thermites is emphasized in the 2001 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. "Thermite mixtures also produce esceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable. ... As a result, the entire fire scene should be considered physical evidence and should be protected and preserved." But, as we have seen, the majority of the remains of the World Trade Center were shipped out to be melted down in Asia as soon as possible.
But I want to return to the repeated Congressional testimony that a protected, steel framed building has NEVER BEFORE collapsed because of fire. And never afterwards either. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we have a purported fact about the behavior of protected, steel framed buildings in fire that dare not be true again!
There are many other suspicious anomalies about 9/11. Only a few are, nine, all three World Trade Center buildings collapsed at nearly free fall speed,i.e. almost as fast as it would take an object dropped from one of the WTC building's roof to reach the ground. The resistance of the massive steel columns and concrete would have slowed the fall considerably if it had been a matter of the floors pancaking and falling on the floors below.
And ten, fire would have unlikely to have been equally intense at every point in the buildings so that every point failed simultaneously and they fell onto the surface area they stood on, i.e. on to their footprint.
Eleventh, fire has never caused the girders in protected steel framed buildings to become ductile or loose sufficient strength to result in a building collapse. The 17th edition, published in 1992, of the National Fire Protection Association's Fire Protection Handbook says that structural steel does not even begin to soften until it reaches a temperature of 425 degrees centigrade, or 837 degrees fahrenheit and doesn't loose half its strength until 650 degrees centigrade, or 1202 degrees fahrenheit. W. I. Edgar and C. Musse in their 2001 article "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, (53/12:8-11) state that even with its strength halved, the steel in the World Trade Center could still support two or three times the stresses imposed by a 650 degrees centigrade or 1202 degrees fahrenheit fire.
But even though fire cannot melt steel, pools of molten steel remained at the bottom of the wreckage for 100 days. Although molten metal at ground zero was a constant feature of media accounts in the days following 9/11, there have since been widespread denials of the presence of molten metal in the ruins of the
World Trade Center. Or if the presence of molten metal is admitted, it is claimed that the metal was molten aluminium from the planes, although the press accounts at the time specifically said it was molten steel and pictures of the WTC ruins show the metal as bright red, characteristic of molten steel, whereas molten
aluminium has a silvery color. Some have even proclaimed that the TV pictures of ground zero were taken in different wave lengths of light to explain away why the molten aluminium looked like molten steel. However since the television pictures we normally see all show objects as being the same color we normally see them, i.e trees are shown as green and people did not have purple complexions, it is difficult to understand why the
video photos of the World Trade Center alone were photographed at a different wave length than the wave length normally used by TV cameras. This seems particularly difficult since all the other objects we see in photos of ground zero have the same colors we normally see such objects as having. The extent to which ad hoc hypotheses are resorted to to explain away pictures of molten steel is mind boggling! And when what was widely reported in the press and accepted as true is denied a few months later by seemingly intelligent people as well as by self professed experts, it reminds us of George Orwell's 1984 in which once the official news accounts changed, people would forget the previous news accounts!
So it is instructive to consider an official report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which has otherwise consistently claimed there was no evidence for molten metal at ground zero, in which they cite numerous first hand reports of molten steel in the ruins of the World Trade Center while resorting to irrelevancy after irrelevancy and ad hominem after ad hominem in an attempt to discredit these first hand reports. The NIST report is in ordinary type while my interpolated comments are in capital letters for ease of distinguishing fron the text of the NIST report.
Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc.(CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack. Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective
reporters of evidence.
RH - WHEN THE FEMA REPORT SAYS STEVE TULLY AND MARK LOIZEAUX WERE INVOLVED "IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE," IT IGNORES THE FACT THAT IT SAID IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SENTENCE THAT TULLY WAS HIRED BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE. (TULLY HIRED LOIZEAUX AS A SUBCONTRACTOR.) ALTHOUGH NEW YORK HIRING THEM TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE CASTS SUSPICION ON THE NEW YORK CITY GOVERNMENT, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ALLOWING NEW YORK TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE, HOW COULD THIS BE USED TO DISCREDIT TULLY AND LOIZEAUX WHEN THE VERY GOVERNMENT OF WHICH FEMA IS A PART ALLOWED A SUBORDINATE GOVERNMENT, THAT OF NEW YORK CITY, TO HIRE THEM TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE?
SECONDLY, WE HAVE AN ADMISSION BY FEMA THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS DISPOSED OF AND THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG IN DISPOSING THE EVIDENCE.
THIRD, THE ONLY WAY THEY HAVE OF DISCREDITING TULLY AND LOIZEAUX'S FIRST HAND REPORT IS NOT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THEIR REPORT WAS MISTAKEN BUT TO RESORT TO AN AD HOMINEM. EVEN IF THEY HAD DISPOSED OF THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT BEING HIRED BY NEW YORK, THAT IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THEY WERE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH IN THEIR FIRST HAND REPORT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER PREVIOUS WRONG BEHAVIOR INFLUENCES THE TRUTH OF
FACTUAL TESTIMONY, OR WHETHER ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE, FALSIFIED THEIR FACTUAL TESTIMONY AND THUS INVALIDATED THEIR ARGUMENTS, WHY NOT JUST CUT TO THE CHASE AND CONCENTRATE ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE FACTUAL TESTIMONY OR THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENTS?
Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. 1
R.H. - WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF LOIZEAUX'S COMPANY, CDI, BEING HIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE RUBBLE OF THE MURRAH BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY TO WHETHER HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS TRUTHFUL? POINTING OUT LOIZEAUX'S STANDING TRIAL ON CHARGES OF ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IS ANOTHER AD HOMINEM. THE FEMA REPORT DOESN'T EVEN SAY WHETHER HE WAS CONVICTED, BUT EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN, IT WOULD NOT PROVE HE WAS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL IN HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT MOLTEN STEEL AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. FEMA'S STOOPING TO THESE SHODDY AD HOMINEM TACTICS, A FALLACY THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE ELEMENTARY LOGIC COURSE I TOOK AS A COLLEGE SOPHOMORE, RAISES ADDITIONAL SUSPICIONS ABOUT FEMA'S REPORT. WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE IF THEY HAVE TO RESORT TO SUCH DESPICABLE AD HOMINEMS?
A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements.
R.H. - YOU DO NOT ASSUME THE THEORY IS WRONG, I.E.. "DUBIOUS," AND THEN ARGUE
THAT THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE THEREFORE FALSE. YOU FIRST HAVE TO PRODUCE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THAT THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE FALSE. THE TRUTH OF A THEORY IS DETERMINED BY THE TRUTH OF THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS CITED AS EVIDENCE FOR IT; YOU CAN'T USE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE THEORY IS TRUE OR FALSE TO DEDUCE THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE STATEMENTS OF FACT CITED AS PART OF THE EVIDENCE FOR IT.
Corroborating Reports
There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. *
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving
"everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2
A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3
A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4
A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site.
The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite awhile before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.
A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6
A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that
disaster. 7
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson(structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8
A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9
The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: ... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10
A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." 11
This construction photograph shows the foundation of South Tower in the foreground, with the foundation of the North Tower in the left background. The foundations were seven stories deep.
R.H. - HERE WE HAVE 11 INDEPENDENT REPORTS CITED BY FEMA OF MOLTEN STEEL IN THE RUINS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, EVEN IF THE AD HOMINEMS FEMA RESORTED TO IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT TULLY AND LOIZEAUX'S TESTIMONY WERE VALID ARGUMENTS, THIS WOULD DO NOTHING TO DISCREDIT THESE ELEVEN INDEPENDENT TESTIMONIES ABOUT MOLTEN STEEL AT GROUND ZERO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other researchers, including Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before; David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts such as this on georgewashington.blogspot.com.
R.H. - AGAIN IT IS AN AD HOMINEM TO ASSUME THAT SINCE THESE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE CITED BY PEOPLE THAT THE FEMA REPORT CLAIMS TO BE DISCREDIBLE, IT PROVES THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE NOT CREDIBLE, EVEN IF FEMA HAD PROVED THAT THE CITERS ARE DISCREDIBLE, WHICH IT HAS NOT. I HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED WHY YOU CANNOT ASSUME A THEORY IS FALSE AND USE THAT ASSUMED FALSITY TO ASSUME THE FACTUAL REPORTS CITED AS PART OF THE THEORY'S EVIDENCE ARE FALSE AND THAT THE ARGUMENTS CITED TO SUPPORT THE THEORY ARE INVALID.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00
2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached]
3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached]
4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02 [cached]
5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com, [cached]
6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, [cached]
7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org, [cached]
8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3
9. Ground Zero, 12/01 [cached]
10. American Ground, , page 32
11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04
page last modified: 2006-12-28
END OF NIST REPORT
And twelve, although an ordinary building collapse would produce chunks of broken concrete, the steel, concrete and asbestos in the three World Trade Center buildings was mostly converted to a fine dust which flowed out from the WTC through the streets of Manhattan in the manner of the pyroclastic flows produced from volcanoes.
And thirteen, although the buildings were not even observed to move at all when the planes crashed into them, nearby geological observatories detected seismic tremblors as if there had been massive explosions at ground level when the buildings collapsed. And while WTC 7 had not
even been struck by a plane, all the phenomena previously mentioned accompanied its collapse also.
And fourteen, while the Environmental Protection Agency said that the air around the World Trade Center was safe to breathe after 9/11, we now know that our government lied yet again because of all the deaths from asbestosis and other respiratory diseases among both the humans and dogs who were involved in the WTC cleanup.
And fifteen, while it is standard procedure for the secret service to hustle the President away from the scene immediately whenever there is a hint of danger, George Bush remained in the Florida elementary school reading "The Pet Goat" for nearly half an hour, even though there was supposedly no assurance that there would not be an attempt to crash a plane into the school.
And although the Bush Administration attempted to ship all the steel from the World Trade Center to China and Korea, even though it is a felony to remove the evidence from a crime scene until the criminal investigation has been completed, some of the steel girders were saved by 9/11 investigators. And the massive amounts of metal in the dust which surged out from the WTC collapse provided additional metal for investigators to study. Brigham Young University Professor of Physics, Steven E. Jones obtained some of the metal containing dust after he had published his first paper about 9/11 online in November, 2005. Janette Mackinlay had returned to her apartment on the fourth floor of 113 Cedar Street, which was about 100 meters, or 328 feet, away from the South Tower, about a week after her apartment had been flooded with dust, to clean up. She had saved some of the dust in a plastic bag and mailed some of it to Jones after he published his first paper online. Later, he traveled to MacKinlay's new residence in California and obtained a second sample of WTC dust in the presence of other scientists. (Latest reports are that MacKinlay is now gravely ill because of even this brief exposure to ground zero dust, although the government had claimed that the air was safe to breathe by the workers working on the site of 9/11 who had far more exposure to the toxic dust than Mackinlay had had in her brief clean ups of her apartment.) [I learned that Janette Mackinlay has died after I finished this article.]
In his subsequent online paper, "Revisiting 9/11, 2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method," Professor Jones reported that the dust contained clear traces of thermate. Thermate is an incendiary used to melt and cut steel in controlled building demolitions. It is a well mixed powder of iron, aluminum and sulfur. The sulfur lowers the melting point of iron, or steel, and cuts right through it. Sometimes other metallic powders are mixed in to fine tune the characteristics of the incendiary. Doctor Jones found all of these substances in the dust.
And recently, Jones and others reported in their artcle "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" in the January, 2009 issue of The Open Chemical Physics Journal that they have found nanoscopic particles of unignited thermate in the World Trade Center dust. Ordinary thermate is only an incendiary which burns at a temparature hot enough to burn through steel girders. Nano is a prefix meaning billionths of a meter and the smaller size of the nano particles of iron oxide (rust), aluminum, and sulfur enable nanothermate to burn so much faster that it is an explosive as well as an incendiary. Grain millers are familiar with an analogous process when grain, which will burn when exposed to fire, becomes an explosive when it is ground into a fine dust. Even a random spark can set off a catastrophic explosion when enough of it builds up in the air inside a grain mill.
David Heller, who has degrees in physics and engineering, makes many of the same points Dr. Jones made in Heller's article, "TAKING A CLOSE LOOK; HARD SCIENCE AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER," in the June 18, 2007 GARLIC AND GRASS. After he states that the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings was a controlled demolition brought about by pre-planted thermate explosives, he states that it would seem impossible for Al Qaida to preplant the explosives, especially since WTC 7 housed the offices of the FBI, CIA, and OEM(Office of Emergency Management). But he says that recently he learned that President George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that provided security for not only the World Trade Center buildings but also both United and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were hijacked on 9/11. He also pointed out that the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement after 9/11 and was suing for an additional $3.55 billion on the grounds that the airplane crashes into the Twin Towers constituted two separate incidents.
However, regardless of Silverstein's motives, it is unlikely that he could have played a major role in planting the explosives in the building containing the offices of the FBI, CIA and OEM. Only the United States government could have carried that off and Silverstein, at most, could have played no more than a subsidiary role.
The final step in a criminal investigation is asking who had the motive to do the crime. Whose poll numbers shot up into the stratosphere after 9/11 and who gained the popular support to enable him to the invade Afghanistan and Iraq, abolish habaeus corpus and, at least, seize the de jure power to lock anyone up for life without a trial or even telling them why they were being imprisoned? Only the neo cons and the Bush
Administration, although Bush may be only a front man and Dick Cheney the real power behind the throne. It was the neo con Project for a New American Century who proposed that the U.S. seize the lands where the world's dwindling supply of oil is located and who were quoted in NEWSWEEK as saying that the American people may need a new Pearl Harbor to wake them up.
But if enough people realize in time just how bad our government is, we can counter them
before it is too late.
http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com/ (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.comaolaccessibility@aol.com, or call
1-888-212-5537.
http://redlavenderinsurgent.blogspot.com/
posted by Robert Halfhill at 8:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home