Here is Gage's motivation for becoming the latest conspiracy star... it ain't a pretty sight. Here are the money requests from their "action alert" circulated by email. Intellectually honest, or dishonest?
"Dear AE911Truth Supporter:
We thank you wholeheartedly for your tremendous continuing support for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the critical activist work that we are performing. We literally couldn't do it without you!
You are receiving this Action Alert because you Signed the Petition on our website, or purchased the 9/11: Blueprint for Truth DVD or Evidence Cards, or made a donation to our Take an Architect or Engineer to Lunch program. (And a special thank you to those who have multi-contributed!)
... we alert you today to request your additional help and support by becoming a recurring monthly Sustaining Member. We have proclaimed January as Pledge Drive Month ...
Your support is of utmost importance in order to continue this important work. Without this funding, this and our many other projects will take longer and become fewer and farther between... Our mission really is a race — and it is key to the 9/11 Truth Movement. We have no time to lose.
...This is a full time effort for a dozen staff. And we can't keep it going without you. We have already earned your respect and your trust. Now we are in serious need of your on-going financial support to take AE911Truth to the next level...
...to support local AE911Truth street actions with our DVD's, CD's, evidence cards and banners; to re-vamp and launch the new AE911Truth DVD with the latest scientific evidence; to put the PowerPoint into the trained hands of 3 dozen A/E's & others; and to bust into Mainstream Media in 2008!
This is where you come in. The plain truth of the matter is that non-profit organizations like AE911Truth exist, function and grow almost solely through the generous donations of their supporters. People like you, who pledge a small portion of their hard-earned dollars ... Therefore one of our staff will be calling you within the next few weeks.
Your generous gift is the life-blood of AE911Truth. It may be as little as $10/month, $25/month, or more! There is a perfect pledge level for everyone! The key is that everyone, especially our Petition Signers, place your vote of confidence in AE911Truth with dollars. If you are unable at this time to pledge a recurring monthly donation, then a single substantial donation is another alternative! It is the sum total of all of our donations which allows us to create the greater whole that will kick start our second year into high gear!
...Thank you again and best wishes to you and your loved ones this New Year. Our hearts are overcome with gratitude for you.
Richard Gage, AIA
and The AE911Truth Team
-------------
Really quite disgusting. Makes the TV preachers look honest.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The death rattle of the 9/11 “Truth” movement
The death rattle of the 9/11 “Truth” movement is now heard by all except its most devout adherents. It’s sad they feel they have no other outlet for expressing fears about Bush/Cheney and American hegemony, than by repeating repeating repeating thoroughly debunked conspiracy claims. But “daylight is the best antiseptic” and the 9/11 “truth” fad is a victim of its own internet success. Practically everyone on the planet has heard conspiracist rants on U-tube, in blogs, forums, books, and videos, and found such claims to lack veracity. Thus hot air is rapidly seeping out of the “truth” balloon. One reason is because of the oxymoron that there are so many claims on the truth. No planes “theories,” artificial voice recordings from air phones, laser beams, flight 93 passengers killed in Cleveland - you name it, and it’s a “theory.”
But an ever increasing number of former truthers are cautiously starting to make their voices heard as well. I’d like to welcome casual truthers back to reality, and suggest meaningful ways they might get beyond the “truth” obsession, to work on more productive issues. Obviously the hard core conspiracists exist on blind faith, and will never leave their comfort zone. But for casual “truth” supporters who are beginning to turn away from the dark side - here are some simple ideas:
1) Deprogram yourself. Or at least be inquisitive beyond the echo chamber. If you want to know what happened to building 7 (for example) gather information broadly, not just from the 9/11 “truth” sources. Also ask about WTC buildings 3,4,5, and 6 - they didn’t get hit by planes either, but were destroyed as well. Just do your own internet research - but again, beyond the echo chamber. There’s also a great History Channel video: 9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction to be found on The History Channel Store. Hey, if i can watch Loose Change, you can watch 9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction. And if you really want to be brave check out actual debunking sites, such as the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Better still. read Alexander Cockburn, Matthew Rothschild, Matt Taibbi, and the articles on PublicEye.org - especially Chip Berlet’s review of Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor, and Griffin’s intellectually weak response.
2) Register people to vote. I’ve done it as an elected Justice of the Peace, but in Vermont any notary public can as well. See what it takes in your area. Empower those who feel disenfranchised (including yourself) and get involved in the political system. Jumping up and down with a Ron Paul sign isn’t a meaningful act, but driving people to the polls is.
3) Go a step further -wave petitions instead of banners. Calling for a new investigation in blogs will never get you anywhere - try to take the question to the polls. Here in Burlington, Vermont a group did put a ballot item before voters last spring asking the Vermont congressional delegation to call for a new investigation - and I publicly supported the measure, because I feel we need to get past 9/11 Truth and move on to reality based issues. That initiative was a productive exercise even though it received only about 35% of the vote. Vox populi vox dei. So take what you learn from your “truth” campaign and put it toward local issues next.
Pay attention to what your local school board is doing - that’s going to have a more direct impact on your kids than whether of not Wirt Walker III is George Bush’s cousin or not. (By the way - he’s not. The Bush family genealogy is easily found online - fact checking is a wonderful thing).
4) Think about what the hateful responses to non-conspiracist articles (such as this one will surely elicit) indicate about the critical thinking skills of the hard core fringe. Ask that about the motives of the the stars of conspiracism as well. All are raking in high speaking fees now, all are selling stacks of books and videos. Are they intellectually honest, or dishonest? Noam Chomsy has pointed out how the “who benefitted” rational is a fallacy, because so many have used 9/11 for their own purposes that on the macro level, that the question illustrates nothing.
Also look at Morgan Reynolds’ ties to Lyndon LaRouche, Alex Jones’ to white supremacists, Jim Fetzer’s pre 9/11 JFK conspiracism, Steven Jones’ messianic Mormonism, David Griffin’s ties to holocaust deniers. What do they tell you about 9/11 “truth?”
So those are just a few ideas for removing the scales from your eyes. I once thought I didn’t like haiku, so I started reading Basho, Issa, Buson, and I wrote 1000 verses, and finally I decided my dislike was from ignorance. Casual truthers who ask themselves tough questions about the meaning of truth, refresh themselves on the rigors of the scientific method, and learn the basic attributes of logical fallacies may have a similar epiphany.
Arguing over the minutiae of conspiracist group think is about as productive as counting angels on the head of a pin, so forgive me if I choose not to debate you on Hani Hanjour’s piloting skills, or squibs, or the buzz word “free fall.” Just write me off as left gatekeeper, and a stooge in the pay of the CIA. That’’s fine. I’m not asking you to try to convince me of anything. I’m asking you to question how truthful you’ve been to yourself.
But an ever increasing number of former truthers are cautiously starting to make their voices heard as well. I’d like to welcome casual truthers back to reality, and suggest meaningful ways they might get beyond the “truth” obsession, to work on more productive issues. Obviously the hard core conspiracists exist on blind faith, and will never leave their comfort zone. But for casual “truth” supporters who are beginning to turn away from the dark side - here are some simple ideas:
1) Deprogram yourself. Or at least be inquisitive beyond the echo chamber. If you want to know what happened to building 7 (for example) gather information broadly, not just from the 9/11 “truth” sources. Also ask about WTC buildings 3,4,5, and 6 - they didn’t get hit by planes either, but were destroyed as well. Just do your own internet research - but again, beyond the echo chamber. There’s also a great History Channel video: 9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction to be found on The History Channel Store. Hey, if i can watch Loose Change, you can watch 9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction. And if you really want to be brave check out actual debunking sites, such as the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Better still. read Alexander Cockburn, Matthew Rothschild, Matt Taibbi, and the articles on PublicEye.org - especially Chip Berlet’s review of Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor, and Griffin’s intellectually weak response.
2) Register people to vote. I’ve done it as an elected Justice of the Peace, but in Vermont any notary public can as well. See what it takes in your area. Empower those who feel disenfranchised (including yourself) and get involved in the political system. Jumping up and down with a Ron Paul sign isn’t a meaningful act, but driving people to the polls is.
3) Go a step further -wave petitions instead of banners. Calling for a new investigation in blogs will never get you anywhere - try to take the question to the polls. Here in Burlington, Vermont a group did put a ballot item before voters last spring asking the Vermont congressional delegation to call for a new investigation - and I publicly supported the measure, because I feel we need to get past 9/11 Truth and move on to reality based issues. That initiative was a productive exercise even though it received only about 35% of the vote. Vox populi vox dei. So take what you learn from your “truth” campaign and put it toward local issues next.
Pay attention to what your local school board is doing - that’s going to have a more direct impact on your kids than whether of not Wirt Walker III is George Bush’s cousin or not. (By the way - he’s not. The Bush family genealogy is easily found online - fact checking is a wonderful thing).
4) Think about what the hateful responses to non-conspiracist articles (such as this one will surely elicit) indicate about the critical thinking skills of the hard core fringe. Ask that about the motives of the the stars of conspiracism as well. All are raking in high speaking fees now, all are selling stacks of books and videos. Are they intellectually honest, or dishonest? Noam Chomsy has pointed out how the “who benefitted” rational is a fallacy, because so many have used 9/11 for their own purposes that on the macro level, that the question illustrates nothing.
Also look at Morgan Reynolds’ ties to Lyndon LaRouche, Alex Jones’ to white supremacists, Jim Fetzer’s pre 9/11 JFK conspiracism, Steven Jones’ messianic Mormonism, David Griffin’s ties to holocaust deniers. What do they tell you about 9/11 “truth?”
So those are just a few ideas for removing the scales from your eyes. I once thought I didn’t like haiku, so I started reading Basho, Issa, Buson, and I wrote 1000 verses, and finally I decided my dislike was from ignorance. Casual truthers who ask themselves tough questions about the meaning of truth, refresh themselves on the rigors of the scientific method, and learn the basic attributes of logical fallacies may have a similar epiphany.
Arguing over the minutiae of conspiracist group think is about as productive as counting angels on the head of a pin, so forgive me if I choose not to debate you on Hani Hanjour’s piloting skills, or squibs, or the buzz word “free fall.” Just write me off as left gatekeeper, and a stooge in the pay of the CIA. That’’s fine. I’m not asking you to try to convince me of anything. I’m asking you to question how truthful you’ve been to yourself.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
4/29 san francisco bridge collapse THE PARTY'S OVER TRUTHERS
In case you didn't notice the 4/29 san francisco bridge collapse is a perfect small scale model of what happened at the WTC. "truthers" are already rushing around to control the damage - not of the bridge, but damage to their faltering credibility. i just happened to join the "9/11 scholars for truth and justice" to see what's happening inside of the echo chamber, and it's been reported that sure enough - fetzer and jones were on the phone THAT VERY DAY to figure out what to say... i'll keep doing my false flag operation. i figure they'd realize i'm a non conspiracist and boot me out of the club by now - but i guess they haven't "researched" me yet.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
debunking and beyond
or
-----------------
9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory
Submitted by Noam Chomsky on Fri, 2006-10-06 14:09.
Categories: Middle East | United States | US Foreign Policy
ballot question 2, asking voters to urge the Vermont congressional delegation to reopen an examination into the tragic events of 9/11, will be supported by many for the wrong reasons. You don’t have to believe in dark conspiracies, or government cover ups to vote “yes” on question 2. I’m voting “yes” not because the truth needs to be reexamined - but because the proven facts need to be restated. A new 9/11 Commission could end the fad of wild speculation that’s become an obsession with the American left.
We already know the truth, and it’s sad that so many seem to have forgotten it. My father is one of the dozen architects who designed the World Trade Center in the 1960’s with Minoru Yamasaki, and I’ve learned from him that while the effect of impacts from the crashes of the largest jets then available were calculated during the design, in his words: "we didn't consider that amount of jet fuel." And as any architect or engineer will tell you "at 1200 degrees steel starts to buckle." The cruel physics of hot steel simply can’t be denied.
So I hope you’ll vote Yes on question 2. We have nothing to fear by a reaffirmation of the truth. Perhaps we'll have unity of purpose, in the name of peace, to gain.
-------------
have you heard tornado survivors say “it sounded like a freight train” that doesn't mean they heard actual trains.
by the same token when people say “it sounded like explosions” that doesn’t mean the witnesses are saying there WERE explosions. if those firemen knew how you’re parsing their meanings it would probably disgust them.
--------------
--------------
from nineeleven.co.uk----
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:46 pm Post subject: Sophia, 9/11 Mysteries Fabrications and Disinfo
Sofia Shafquat along with Brad Waddell
by Rick Siegel
9/11 Mysteries Fabrications and Disinfo
Submitted by rick on Sat, 2007-01-27 18:06.
Since I had first seen this DVD I found it disturbing for its’ cover showing a WTC building (not WTC1 2 or 7) completely engulfed in flames, supporting the official story that the hot fires caused the collapse of the towers. The building shown did not collapse and was not "demolished" but the title “Demolition” is featured over this background.
When viewing it at minute 3:22 a man in a Harley hat and t-shirt is portrayed as an eyewitness and featured describing, at the scene for reporters, what would later become the official shoreline. "I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense." Here was an obvious planted disinfo witness used to reinforce the official story. Not identified as such and Sophia glides over it into the film.
But that, at least for me, is not the real problem. The real problem is in what this AKA Monica Smallstorm, AKA Sophia; whose real name is Sofia Shafquat along with Brad Waddell, have done to my 911 Eyewitness footage. The woman has seriously altered and mutilated my original footage and she inappropriately placed parts, edited and mutilated within her disinfo piece without asking permission, paying a royalty or using her normal paperwork she used for rights with other creators. I had no control and she took advantage creating this travesty.
I have not gone through the whole film, as it was not my intention of debunking her work. For that you may go to Screw 9/11 Mysteries
My intention was to see what she had used of my original footage without permission and how it was used. What I found was a nightmare. Following is a list of time codes to find these errors, omissions, distortions, and video with altered and overdubbed audio, which twisted the story being told. Instead of telling the truth and let science do the work Sophia has taken my works and twisted them to present a totally different image than what was originally there.
33:50
Shows the first of Rick Siegel’s footage of the North tower
"This video was shot from New Jersey. Smoke rises from the base of the building as an explosion is heard” (Basically this is OK and with original sound from DVD)
34:08
Second time around the same footage but the sound is replaced! Just after the dark filter effect we see the north tower collapse but the sound has been replaced with something completely different. A siren can be heard to distinguish that this is not the original sound. MAJOR DISINFO #1
35:07
Hoboken postage stamp effect "Across the Hudson River Richard Siegel was filming an astonishing day"
35:30
"Here is the south tower record" (shows South tower)
35:33 "Then the building came down" (North tower shown!!!)
This misrepresents the North tower as if it was actually the South tower and the list of pre-collapse explosions caused the building to fall. This clip lists "WTC2 pre-collapse explosions". WTC2
has just previously fallen to the ground and now only WTC1 remains. It will not fall for another 30 minutes, however, the next picture and comment indicate that happened immediately following the pre-collapse explosions listed.
. MAJOR DISINFO #2
35:33 "Then the building came down" the narrator tells us. Meanwhile the North tower segment from a completely different timeframe in the original program, is incorrectly inserted here.
Disinfo:
1. This misrepresents the north tower WTC1, to be the south tower, WTC2.
2. This misrepresents the list of WTC2 pre-collapse explosions as directly responsible for the collapse of WTC1.
3. This misrepresents the time at which the WTC1 collapse occurred because WTC2 time-codes were visible on-screen only seconds earlier.
39:57
US geological survey web site Pyroclastic flow segment shows Sophia editing and removed the dissolve between the volcano and the north tower debris chimney, which was designed to emphasize the similarity. Sections were deleted that contained significant evidence.
Thermite section
45:34
"Watch this very bright substance pouring from the south tower" (This is right after the impact occurred not at the time of collapse)
45:39
Filter shot again of smoke between buildings' this time it's used in the thermite section.
"And white smoke appeared at the base of the building. (North tower moments before collapse) Would this be aluminum oxide, the byproduct of a thermite reaction?”
Two problems, she shows the south tower at the 80th floor right after impact and then the north tower right before collapse and edits them back to back with narration that sounds like they are the same building at the same point in time. MAJOR DISINFO #3
1. The south tower's 80th floor impact zone, at approximately 9:00 am, is followed directly by the north tower at approximately 10:30 a.m. showing smoke rising.
2. The narration "and" connects the two with a
continuous line of thought.
3. Continuity with the first time this clip is viewed at 33:50 is destroyed because the rising smoke is attributed to a large explosion in the original content.
4. This creates confusion in the mind of the viewer.
5. The combination of confusion and conflict will make understanding this event very difficult and could be categorized in psychological terms as "disinformation".
6. Usage without approval in a negative way is
unacceptable.
50:50
North tower sequence with multi-screen numbering the explosions
Problem, she cuts it out in the middle and doesn't let it run through.
51:30
Rick Siegel’s footage audio from the north collapse is used underneath various montage shots of different pictures but none from 911 Eyewitness.
This gives the validity to other video with the original sound explosions that would be superimposed in a haphazard manner over those other videos. Sophia proceeded with no knowledge of time code or effort at making a legitimate documentation of the explosions; it was done to make a Hollywood effect to further an agenda of more explosions than were.
All in all these 3 major errors with the additional omissions, edits and misrepresentations by Sophia and 911 Mysteries are misinformation at best and are most likely, considering the need for physical editing of the sound over the destruction sequences, on purpose and therefore disinformation. Worse is this is just what I see as I look at what Sophia has done to my original footage. What about the rest of the hour plus of other peoples footage she has done this too?
The reason I want control of my work is to keep such trash from happening. To be placed in this disinformation video in such a way twists the meaning of the original work and now it has been corrupted, changed, and mutilated where it is no longer representative of that day. I can’t imagine what this “fertile mind” in Sophia has done to other evidence as she edits, over dubs and twists the content to as she said on “The Edge AM” radio recently “911 Mysteries takes the myth by its tail and swings it around right next, to make it fit right next to the science". Whatever twists, swings or smashing it needs apparently.
Since October I have told Sophia to cease and desist and she continues to manufacture and sell these distortions of my work. I asked her to stop, pull my stuff and she has hired a lawyer to keep her stolen, mutilated disinfo piece in tact. Money means too much to her even after allegedly making almost half a million on this mutilation.
The story will continue as will the obvious need for a full debunking of this disinfo piece.
---------------------
the director and narrator of the film says at 1:50 in the radio interview, "My friend Brad billed himself as a conservative Republican and I was considered the liberal, just because people like to have opposites...."
--------------------
And why were the cockpit takeovers spread over 90 minutes, allowing Flight 175 to even be warned of cockpit intrusion before it happened?
"Truthers claim that the government conspiracy was so worried about the alleged ability of America's air defenses to intercept hijacked airliners that the conspiracy took the risk of arranging stand-down orders. Why did the conspiracy then use a suicide flight crew so incompetent that two of them repeatedly used the air-traffic radio to broadcast warnings they were trying to give to their passengers over the cabin intercom, thus giving the earliest possible notice that hijackings were under way? Why did they broadcast "planes" plural? Why did they only turn off the transponders on Flights 77 and 93 only after deviating from their course? Why did they never turn off the transponder on Flight 175 at all? Just how stupid were these evil government geniuses who took over these planes?"
"Demolitions? Nobody trapped above the impact floors in the WTC was going to be saved from the fire, and 200 of them had already jumped to their deaths. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 only contributed 400-600 of the 3000 fatalities on 9/11, and the collapse of WTC 7 contributed zero. Why would the conspiracy risk setting up and then performing in broad daylight a controlled demolition of buildings that it knew would be under massive videographic surveillance, just to kill 400 rescue workers? Bonus questions: What if one of those swarming radio-equipped rescue workers had found an explosive charge while breaking through walls to seek trapped victims or clear exits? And with the towers twice as tall as anything around them, why not quintuple the death toll by hitting the 110-story towers just above the 57-story highest neighbor, instead of at the 96th and 81st floors? And why wait an agonizing 102 minutes to push the detonator for the first tower struck, since it is allegedly known that jet fuel cannot bring down a steel skyscraper now matter how big a fire it ignites and no matter how long it burns? Also, consider that at least 25% of the jets controlled by the conspiracy failed to hit their target. What was the government conspiracy's contingency plan if one of the WTC jets missed its assigned tower, and the building was then found to be wired from top to bottom with demolition charges? "
----------------------
When a mixture of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder is ignited, it burns to iron and aluminum oxide, Al + Fe2O3 + ignition -> Al2O3 + Fe. This is thermite. The reaction produces a temperature that can melt steel (above 1500 C, 2800 F). The rate of burning is governed by the pace of heat diffusion from the hot reaction zone into the unheated powder mixture. Granules must absorb sufficient heat to arrive at the ignition temperature of the process. The ignition temperature of a quiescent powder of aluminum is 585 C. The ignition temperatures of a variety of dusts were found to be between 315 C and 900 C, by scientists developing solid rocket motors.
by 9/11 Truthers would have taken hundreds of conspirators to plan and execute:
• demolition experts to plant the explosives days in advance;
• insiders to allow planting of the explosives in the WTC -- whose chief of security John O'Neill was killed on 9/11 and as FBI Special Agent in Charge for National Security in the New York Field Office from 1997 to 2001 had led the bin Laden investigation;
• a team (presumably near the WTC) to stick around all day and trigger 3 controlled demolitions over a 7-hour span;
• people in the air defense chain of command to issue traceable and documented orders for exercises and a stand-down on 9/11;
• an Air Force pilot to fire a missile at Flight 93;
• military personnel to execute the missile/drone strike on the Pentagon;
• Pentagon insiders to allegedly suppress its air defenses;
• operatives to fabricate and plant fake Pentagon surveillance camera images;
• American Airlines and United Airlines insiders to allow access to the WTC jets;
• either suicidal pilots, or a team of aeronautical/avionics/jamming experts to secretly modify and remotely control the WTC jets and prevent the actual crew from using any radio or cell phone to call out;
• operatives to divert Flight 77 and make it and its passengers and crew vanish without any trace or making any onboard calls;
• operatives to plant physical evidence at each crash scene right in front of first responders;
• radio technicians remotely engineering the transmissions from the planes (or a far larger team to alter and fake the transmission records after the fact; see below);
• actors pretending to be doomed passengers talking on cell phones to loved ones and operators;
• agents to create false identities and histories and financial records for the hijackers;
• actors to pose as the hijackers on airport and ATM surveillance cameras;
• etc.
How is it plausible that the bumbling administration of George W. Bush could plan and execute such an intricate operation, without anyone among these hundreds of people blowing the whistle when first approached, or anonymously/accidentally leaking the truth anytime since?
Attempting a cover-up the 9/11 conspiracy miracle would require thousands of more conspirators:
• operatives with sufficient influence over al Qaeda to prevent any of its leaders from disavowing al Qaeda's multiple admissions of 9/11 responsibility over the last four years;
• the nearby pilots who say they heard the cockpit transmissions from the hijacked jets,
• experts to fake the recordings of the 9/11 transmissions, cockpit recordings, black box data, and radar tracking data;
• the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and its staff of 100;
• FBI, including the teams who searched for traces of explosives at the crash sites;
• bitter Bush critic Richard Clarke, the NSC counter terrorism aide who managed the Situation Room video conference on 9/11;
• Secret Service;
• Justice Department;
• CIA;
• NSA;
• FAA, including air traffic control centers in Cleveland, Indianapolis, Boston, and New York;
• DOT;
• NORAD in Colorado,
• NEADS in New York;
• CONR in Florida;
• NMCC in the Pentagon;
• Andrews AFB in Maryland;
• Langley AFB in Virginia;
• Otis AFB in Massachusetts;
• Air National Guard;
• INS;
• Customs Service;
• State Department;
• NTSB;
• NIST;
• FEMA;
• NYPD;
• FDNY;
• NY City Office of Emergency Management;
• Port Authority Police Department;
• four flight training schools in Florida and Oklahoma;
• the government of Pakistan;
• the government of Italy;
• the government of Britain;
• the government of France;
• the government of Spain;
• operatives working against or among the 185 photographers to suppress or plant evidence in the nearly 7000 photographs taken at the WTC on 9/11;
How is it plausible that the bumbling administration of George W. Bush could orchestrate such a massive cover-up, without anyone among these thousands of people blowing the whistle or anonymously leaking the truth anytime since?
If the scientific and technical evidence for the impossibility of the mainstream explanation is so overwhelming, then when will that evidence be believed by a fraction of the scientific community that is larger than the fraction who believe in creationism? The mainstream explanation is based on or corroborated by expert investigations by:
• Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers;
• Society of Fire Protection Engineers;
• National Fire Protection Association;
• American Institute of Steel Construction;
• American Iron and Steel Institute;
• Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat;
• Structural Engineers Association of New York;
• Underwriters Laboratories;
• NY City Dept. of Design and Construction;
• American Society of Civil Engineers;
• Controlled Demolition, Inc.; and
• researchers from Purdue, Northwestern, Columbia, Carnegie Mellon and UCSD.
-------------
1. What brought down Building 7 - and particularly
in the face of so many important and credible
people on the spot who witnessed first hand;
firemen, police, newsmen who were all alerted as
to exactly when it would come down?
>>>A) 9/11 truth sources routinely publish a few quotes out of context. there are in contrast hundreds of longer quotes from firemen also available- this is from fireman Richard Banaciski: "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
the building had suffered severe damage in the collapse of tower 1 - the north tower, and it was obviously about to fall. crews were assessing the building, searching for victims all afternoon, till it became too dangerous to work in the vicinity around 3:30 pm. I CAN EMAIL YOU A PIC OF THE BUILDING WITH SEVERE DAMAGE IF YOU’D LIKE.
2. Why was the demise of building 7 not addressed in the 911 Report?
>>>A) no one was killed in building 7, and the facts are actually so obvious that no objective observers are concerned. even the 9/11 truth movement wasn’t concerned until several years after the events - and their other issues started to get debunked.
3. Why did Silverstien say [and later attempt to
retract or justify his remark] "we decided to
pull it" - ??
>>>A)OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTE that comes from an interview on nova. and he was referring to pulling the NYFD crews. the term pull is rarely used in demolition and then only in the context of using cables to literally pull down dilapidated buildings. the much smaller building 6 was actually razed by a pull. THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION pulled or exploded OF BUILDING 7 and plenty to demonstrate it was severely damaged in the debris field.
4. Where were the defense fighter jets charged with
protecting the skies and borders? Yes, I know
what we were told about where they were; but even
if they WERE on some war-games-mission, are we
to believe it was unfortunately coincidental
they were ALL gone and unavailable ?
I somehow can't reconcile why even within a half
hour, an hour or two or even several hours later
of the towers attack; why would ANYONE in charge
have presumed it was, at all any time thereafter
ok to NOT bring the forces [or even a few jets]
into the picture [skies] somewhere...?? After
the most egregious attack EVER...? This is
acceptable or reasoned out somewhere, somehow?!
Are you shitting me!!
>>>A) In June 2002 two Air National Guard F-16's failed to intercept a Cessna before it passed the White House. The timeline provided was as follows:
7:59 p.m. Cessna enters "restricted" air space
8:03 p.m. FAA notifies NORAD
8:04 p.m. Cessna enters "prohibited" air space
8:06 p.m. Two F-16s get orders to scramble
8:06 p.m. Cessna passes White House "within a few miles"
8:17 p.m. F-16s take off from Andrews AFB. Intercept occurs "a few minutes later."
Even with streamlined intercept procedures and tighter post 9-11 security, and the planes only 10 miles from Washington, the time from problem occurring to takeoff was still 18 minutes, and the intercept "a few minutes" after that.... i hadn’t heard about war game and did a little internet research (same as everyone is doing) to find out more. fromthewilderness.com is a “ 9/11 truth” web site that actually agrees with you on many points - particularly about marvin bush - but it also says in a review of the book Crossing the Rubican’ by mike ruppert: “Mike Ruppert starts off Chapter 19 of Crossing the Rubicon by explaining that the notion of there being a single “stand-down” order preventing fighters from being scrambled that morning is incorrect. Such simplistic analysis does not hold water. Planes were scrambled on 9/11, but only two sets of jets were available since the majority of air assets were diverted all across the world by numerous war game exercises.” so it’s a complex issue. questions i have that i haven’t found answers for are A) how common are war games? are there war games happening somewhere in north america all the time, thus happening on 9/11 isn’t unusual. and B) could the hijackers have planned their attacks to coincide with war games? and if NOT, then why not?
but either way it’s a complex problem fallacy in which without evidence two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition.
5. How is it one of the most mentionable heroes of
the event; William Rodriguez and his point of
view and his visceral first hand experience has
been relegated completely from the dialogue??
>>>A) rodreguiz originally said: "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," only later did he start mentioning explosions - making him a celebrity of the 9/11 truth movement. his description of "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." describes burn victims, not blast victims. his explosion claim also has a strange timeframe - his explosions were heard long before the collapse, at the same a plane hit. and as i’ve noted secondary explosions were common.
6. The opinions and views of others; John Skilling,
Les Robertson [WTC Structural Engineer}
>>>A) yes they were the engineering firm involved - their interviews on 9/11 mysteries are correct. what’s the question? are you talking about the fact they didn’t consider that amount of jet fuel? guess who confirms that - my dad.
7. The NYC firemen who reported "pockets of
isolated fire - "will take only two units to
knock it down." Yet we're told burning flames
melted the steel frames... In 1975 3 floors
burned in the North Tower; albeit an intense
fire spreading from floor to floor. Yet no signs
of weakened frames [or collapse] then...
>>>A) OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTE by Orio Palmer Deputy Chief Battalion 7 from the 78th floor stairway. worst fires were actually at the 84th floor.
"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower." palmer was killed in the collapse a few minutes later.
REGARDING THE 1975 FIRE- NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL - no jet impact to wreck fireproofing (rated to stand up to a raging fire for 4 hours) and sprinklers. “On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower, with fire spreading through the core from the 9th to 14th floors where electrical wiring was damaged. The fire ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, with the fire fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment. “ no sea of jet fuel either. ALSO "Yet we're told burning flames melted the steel frames..." is disinformation. unevenly heated trusses became deformed and weakened -NOT MELTED. at 1100 degrees steel loses 50% of it strenth. it sagged, bent and snapped connections to the core, initiating the pancaking. MELTED STEEL isn't even contemplated in official reports. just as the truth squads say - fires caused by the crashes didn't get hot enough to melt steel!
8. What about the obvious roils of heavy black
smoke and no signs of flames long before the collapse?
>>>A) the claim of the 9/11 mysteries that black smoke indicates oxygen starved fire is silly. ever seen burning tires? how about the oil wells of kuwait at the end of gulf war I? petrolium based products, such as the plastics and other synthetic materials office buildings are full of - from carpeting to computers - give off black smoke. jet fuel too, and paint, paneling etc. etc. etc.... there are actually numerous pictures of flames prior to the collapse - do some fact checking!
9. The angle of the cuts to vital frame structures
that are NOT [nor have they to do with anything
related to what's been described as the cuts that
were made by construction workers while cleanup
was in session.] It still doesn't equate.
Cutting at THAT stage would have suggested efficient
cuts across the metal frames at the shortest
distance NOT [repeatedly] at 45 degree
angles...!
>>>A) 9/11 truth squads refer to very few samples - this is a fallacy relying to too small a sample. are you suggesting the cuts were from thermite? thermite doesn’t make clean cuts. and about 4000 TONS would be needed to cause the kind of collapse truth squads envision.
10. So many witnesses on the spot [not directed
or prep'd or rehearsed] stating how they all
witnessed so many explosions, before the
collapse...?]
>>>A) explosions don’t mean demolition. here’s some gruesome fireman testimony that proves that point: “I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions. “
“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As
I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its
arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me.”
11. How historical evidence severely examines
other steel building skyscrapers in VERY intense
fires and yet how none before this event ever
caused the collapse of steel structured buildings
as a result...? This collapse made history for
its [questionable fires] bringing it
completely down...!
>>>A) the column free truss supported floor design made history. the tube within a tube structure made history. in retrospect perhaps those elements were flaws - but the towers were unique. the impact of the fires was unique.
12. So many people [UNscripted]; newsmen/newswomen
and even CBS reporters - so many other
witnesses, suggesting on
their own, that it all looked like a demolition
of buildings...
>>>A) looked like doesn’t mean it was. in fact they didn’t actually look like controlled demolitions either. check out imlosionworld, and investigate for your self. http://www.implosionworld.com/ also in 9/11 mysteries shows some implosions but never the footprint after a controlled demolition- in the WTC there was a huge debris field (16 acres+), in controlled demolitions there isn’t.
13. That the "Executive Summary Report' was TOO
an insufficient report>..?
>>>A) have you read the executive summery report of the 9/11 commission? here’s a link if you haven’t http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/terrorism%20&%20security/z_archive/2004/july/cover_execsummary.pdf
it’s a 35 page documents that i haven’t read - but it sure looks thorough to me, and it’s a SUMMERY - not the entire report.
14. Phillip Marcell who was in the north tower
subbasement stated repeatedly of people
and others maimed and killed before his eyes
while he was running from tower to tower; and the
official reports never addressing or acknowledging
his views OR others like his...?
Are you shitting me!?
>>>A) there have been hundreds of eyewitness stories in the press and in various investigations. i’m not familier with this ONE witness. look- it was caos- and nearly all of the eyewitness accounts should be taken with a grain of salt. “maimed and killed before his eyes while he was running from tower to tower” is pretty understandable - but sorry, i don’t know what his story is.
15. Why so many large chunks of frame found over
400 yards away, stuck into the sides of other buildings surrounding the towers...?
A) this point actually blows up the controlled demolition theory, or are you suggesting there were huge blasts that caused the destruction - that just ain’t how demolitions work, gravity does the job not massive explosions... but the energy released by the pancake collapse was indeed tremendous. the large chunks thrown actually explains how building 7 got so severely damaged, and it confirms that the collapse of the towers definitly was not an implosion as some suggest. one of the controlled demolition theories suggests a small atomic bomb! ... that would certianly be easier to plant than 4000 pounds of thermite on hundreds of I-beams and connections. and speaking of beams- one of the founders of "9/11 scholars for truth" Dr. Jim Fetzer, now considers laser beams from space to be a possible explination! visit http://stj911.org/faq.html to learn more about the group's implosion... the only of these explinations that can be scientifically tested is the energy released by the pressure of pancaking idea. just squeeze a wet bar of soap
16. One can even see 'after' the floors have
collapsed pretty much all the way; one sees the
core for the most part still standing for while
until they TOO 'then' fall and collapse. Is that
suppose to be the result of intense fire...?
>>>A) no. it’s a result of the core losing support after the pancaking of the trusses. connections broke under trenendous unsupported weight.
17. The rapidity of each building collapsing
within
seconds - BOTH nearly identical to one and the
other... Whereas ALL evidence of ANY free fall
collapse historically means that the free fall of
floors upon one another would suggest at least a
longer delay - maybe by a minute or so more....
>>>A) this is not true. south tower collapsed at 10:05, north tower at 10:28. also the towers were 95% air, and the weight of the pancaking floors was tremendous. another point truthers fail to notice (or just fail to mention) is that the towers had load bearing walls which became pulverized as floors fell into each other. here what the NIST says: “ NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”
but if they DID fall at ALMOST free fall- why? controlled demolitions don’t push building downward they sever supports and gravity does the rest. the same process was at work in the buckling and snapping of of trusses DUE TO HEAT DEFORMATION.
18. Engine 7 fighter > Joe Carigili remarks...
>>>A) sorry i’m not familiar with his remarks and can’t find it through google. BUT NOT A SINGLE FIREMAN SUPPORTS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THEORIES!!! many of their statements were taken grossly out of context.
19. The Certified Steel UL Kevin Ryan and his
reports "steel tested at 2500 degrees
Fahrenheit
Then fired for reporting the facts the way
he called it. Who should be threatened by him
and his report enough to fire him...?
>>>A) Ryan was in the water testing division, and not involved with steel at all - in fact UL ISN’t INVOLVED IN TESTING STEEL. here is an excerpt of the story from the south bent tribune- local paper of UL and ryan: “Ryan declined to comment about his letter Thursday when reached at his South Bend home. But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.
Seeking to head off controversy just months before its report is released, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its own statement Thursday.
Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires.
The institute believes impact from the jets dislodged fireproofing surrounding some of the steel, and the higher temperatures led to the buckling of the towers' core columns.”:
20. The Twin Towers were notoriously White
Elephants to the city & port authority for a host
of reasons for several years prior 'to'... Yet
Silverstien comes along and buys the property
and immediately takes out an outrageous multi
billion dollar insurance policy on what is
already notoriously loosing money...!?
>>>A) this is incorrect- the towers were 98% occupied. the insurance issued was typical of what skyscrapers get insured for. and actually silverstien LOST about 3 billion, due to the court cases lodged against his claims by some of the insurance companies, over technical issues. and insurance was paid to rebuild - just like when your car gets hit you are supposed to fix it with the money- seems like a pretty high profile case to try insurance fraud with.
21. Ramon Gilsons [demolition expert] examines &
tells of classic crimp & implosions in building 7
..."Ramon Gilsons" "Ramon Gilson" "Raymond Gilson" i don’t find any demolition experts by that name on google... there was a dutch expert named Danny Jowenko who’s been touted as saying building 7 was controlled- problem is, when he was shown the footage he didn’t know it was building 7 - he has since strenuously objected that his assessment was out of context.
22. Marvin Bush's office and WD Walker 11
both direct relatives to senior Bush and yet
neither is mentioned in the Report! Is this
mysterious, at least worth mentioning as
stunning or not?
>>>A) M.bush was on the board of directors of SURECOM the firm dealing with electronic security systems. but he was in that position from 1993-2000. he has gone from surecom even before George II got appointed by the supreme court! and board members have nothing to do with operations on a day to day basis. the other fellow you note is Wirt D. Walker III apparently research into the bush family tree shows this guy IS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSH FAMILY AT ALL. check it out for your self... http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/georgeb/
23. Scott Forbes speaking of the power to
security systems being literally shut down; and
security dogs removed only weeks before hand for
a notable period - for over a week...!? While
men roamed about with cables and installing
what was purportedly [though since then not
exactly confirmed what or why] a new cable
system...
>>>A) out of the 20,000 people who worked in the trade center every day forbes is THE ONLY ONE who says this happened. do you really think that if security were shut down for over a week noone would complain? there was an upgrade of the internet infrastructure, but it didn’t require shutting down everything, and was a perfectly normal thing in 2001. there was simply no total shut down - it’s a hoax. forbes is probably lying to become a 9/11 truth celebrity. the actual head of WTC security was actually killed in the attack, so there’s no testimony from him... -
24. How is it Julianni knew ahead of the collapse
it was going to happen....?
>>>A) do you mean building 7? the building was severely damages and it was obvious that it was about to collapse. one whole corner of it was knocked off. anyway - on what basis do you think julian knew in advance what was going to happen - evidence? does your evidence have more than one possible explination?
25. Buildings 3 4 5 6 were still standing after
Towers 1/2 collapse yet 7 collapsed 'cleanly'
as in any classic demolition; reported on
radio and yet no plane hit it.. and so many saying
there wasn't even a fire in it...
>>>A) the supposition of “cleanly” is wrong - and there were intense fires, but most of the damage was from the debris field of tower 2. buildings 3,4,5,6 were all so damaged also that they had to be demolished. Richard Banaciski fireman stated: “They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski fireman
26. Mike Picarro Lou Cajasiin [fireman] reported
pre-collapse explosions...
>>>A) OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES there are NO FIREMAN who have endorsed the “controlled demolition” theory. describing things as sounding like explosions is perfectly reasonable - but that doesn’t mean the ONLY EXPLANATION FOR THEM IS planted bombs going off! how many time have you heard tornado victims on TV saying “i heard a freight train...” in describing a tornado? no doubt -there were things that sounded like explosions in the death throes of the buildings - elevator cables snapping, trusses warping, etc. etc. etc.
27. George Tammaro << ? ... Slurry engineer
reported 8 weeks after collapse, as did
Stephen Jones [physics professor/engineer
from Brigham Young Univ on MSN interview
on thermite and relation to molten metal
- evidence of sulfite Are you saying this
Jones guy is not a credible person to speak
out on the matter...?
>>> A) Tamaro is very credible, and was involved in stabilizing the slurry walls. “In the late 1960s and 1970s, Tamaro helped build the WTC while working for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He oversaw construction of the perimeter wall, which extended eight city blocks below the ground. The wall, nicknamed "the bathtub," was constructed from slurry walls, which Tamaro describes as "special walls built from the top down" that prevent water from entering the site. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Tamaro was asked to help stabilize the underground structure. He assembled construction companies to clear the debris and build support for the bathtub. Then he designed a process to move large equipment into the small area.”
28. why did it become [after such a massive and
horrifying landmark event become] such an
hurried matter particularly when close
examinations and thorough investigations
would've been paramount...? Even every jet
plane accident automatically earns closer
scrutiny - professional efforts to understand and
put the vital pieces together. These are events
that don't have ANY political/terrorist
suggestions attached as a rule, yet
they want to know 'the whats and whys' -
example: >> flight 111
Swiss Air took over two years to examine and
to know better the details of what really
happened.
Yet the worst event in US history! & they rush
thru and even haul away molten metal, still
smoldering WITHOUT at least close attention and
chemical analysis etc. etc.>>???!! and then bury
it all in NJ.... IS THIS UTTERLY
UNPROFESSIONAL and highly negligent OR
[even suspect] or not ??
>>>A) there was 1.2 million metric tons of debris, removed at the rate of 10-15,000 tons a day. so only about 1% a day was removed - doesn’t seem like rushing it to me. and it was a jumbled mess of everything - human remains, the buildings, the planes - it’s pretty unrealistic to think a swiss air type investigation (which included large chunks of the recovered plane) was feasible at all. there were over 16 acres of debris piled as high as 20 stories in some areas - getting NYC up and running was an essential priority. and thousands of samples of air, substances, and indeed metal were actually tested. “We are measuring how each of the various types of steel used in the WTC buildings’ structural components deforms under high-impact conditions, akin to those caused by the aircraft that struck the towers,” explains NIST metallurgist Richard Fields. see http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/gallery/kolsky.htm for full article.
AND LAST :
29. about molten metal pools; I've even
worked around metal and particularly aluminum.
Ask any welder about what happens to aluminum;
when hot enough charges or fire attacks it...
It would not melt into a pool like the one
described and even then what wouldn't burn up
completely would cool off much quicker than
weeks later. Its too light and soft...It would
mostly burn up first, especially in such a
fire as the one they've suggested
brought down the steel in
these these buildings - It'd mostly burn up in
such an intense fire - where as steel would
fester for long periods of time; especially if
its thick & heavy enough - but even then for it
to smolder in
a pool of molten it would not be from a
Fahrenheit fire; it would have to be some heat
that was exceptional and not from engine
fuel...
>>>A) i’m saying the fires WERE NOT hot enough to melt steel - they were hot enough to melt aluminum. you can’t have it both ways - 9/11 truth squads say “the fire wasn’t hot enough to melt steel” and i agree. you seem to be saying in an “intense fire” aluminum burns up - but the melting point of aluminum is 1220 degrees F. even 9/11 truth people admit those temps were reached... THE BOILING POINT of aluminum (the temp at which it would become gaseous and “burn up” is over 2600 degrees F. the NIST report does say "Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. " not unlike a ceramic kiln i'd say - and at any rate the key phrase is AFTER THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED.
---------------------
William L. Awodey worked for the architectural office Minoru Yamasaki and Associates during the 1960's. “Yama” and eleven of his architects, including Dad, designed the World Trade Center. He is now semiretired in Florida. Below is an e-mail I sent him and his reply. As noted, I was writing to let him think about some questions for an article about 9/11. After reading and rereading our correspondence, I decided the story was written.
----- Original Message -----
To: William Awodey
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:00 PM
Subject: stairs versus fire...
*
Dear Dad-
I am writing to let you know about an article I have been invited to submit to the paper I write art reviews for. Especially here in the northeast, everyone knows someone who was directly affected by Tuesday. One friend of mine lost three people he knew- two in one of the planes from Boston, and one on the ground. When people ask if I and my family are ok I say- "we were affected in a unique way- my Dad is one of the architects who designed the World Trade Center. I remember seeing the models as a kid. I sort of grew up with the Trade Center."
Everyone who worked on the World Trade Center is probably having the same feelings right now- the pipe fitters, electricians, suppliers, engineers, and architects. Many thousands participated in the great achievement that was the World Trade Center. You were in an elite group, and though you must have been one of the junior architects (what age were you then- 35?) I am sure your professional investment was as great as any other.
On Tuesday you saw the buildings fail. I cannot imagine how that could have been for you. No one at Yama's office could have conceived of the inconceivable. But the failure happened. Survivors have said that the impacts of each jet were felt but the buildings just gently swayed. Even then failure seemed impossible. But as you said when I called on Tuesday night "at 1200 degrees steel starts to buckle", and "we didn't consider that amount of jet fuel." You also made an interesting comment that I world like to know more about- "thank god the stairs worked."
On the CBC, a Canadian survivor described how amazed he was that he could descend from an extreme upper floor, down the stairs beyond the burning floors because he was shielded in the stairwell. Horribly, he was the only one in his office to go down instead of up. Also on tv, a fireman sitting in rubble, hot and dirty said "the architects who designed this building should be very proud. There is allot of void space in the plan. If any one could have survived we will find them." That was on Thursday.
So to write this article, I am going to interview you. I will call tonight, but maybe you can send me a few thoughts in advance. Tell me what went right with the buildings. What was the team like that designed the Trade Center? I'll also want to ask- why not the jet fuel? Was it hubris? The same question can be asked of all America. In 1969 we put two men on the moon. We had eradicated smallpox, completed the interstate highway system. We had earned the monumentality of the Trade Center. Has any building complex before or since used that much steel? How long did the architects think these towers would last?
Those are some of the questions I would like to ask.
much love
Marc
*
Dear Marc,
Watching the North Tower in flames, followed by what seemed to be the two towers being pierced by a very large airplane- I clutched, I grabbed my face, I choked, I became very emotional. I was speechless in disbelief. I was embarrassed. I left the room.
I had been watching a large TV in the east conference room of our office with my colleagues. As if anyone was listening, I was quite vocally mumbling things like "they've hit it in the third zone above the 78th floor", "it was designed for the impact of a large passenger plane", "it will not fall..." Although the room was filled with engineers and architects, nobody really heard me. No one really cared or understood what I was talking about.
Watching the explosion of the South Tower due to its floors collapsing was like getting a stake in my heart. Not since we lost your brother Scot in '92, did I have this feeling. The gasp in the room was very loud. I choked. I left. I called Pene and told her to come get me- I cannot stay here. I'll just walk home (we live about two miles from the office). She counseled me to calm down, stay there. I went back into the conference room. Left the room again, came back, and did the same for much of the day.
That day, that morning, a reflection, a memory image occurred that flashed me back to 1963 in what we at MYA called "the New York Room". Your mother had called to say Kennedy has been shot. I told Yama. Yama came into the room saying "the President has been shot, get a TV in here". Colleagues and I watched the aftermath of a horrible, history-altering event. We were in the presence of a 10' tall architectural model of the World Trade Center complex. It was in the process of being studied, as the tallest buildings in the world.
As designers we were very interested in how it would work, how it would macroscopically enhance NY and its skyline. How it would enhance life at work, at shopping, at relaxing, at play. We weren't terribly impressed with the fact that it would also be the largest construction project in history. We just wanted it to work, to work right, to last forever, and for it to be beautiful.
The "NY Team" including Yama, Aaron Schrier, Kip Serota, Dick Knight, Frank Arens, Jerry Karns, Violetta Dumlao, Gunnar Gruzdins, Sewa Barmi, and myself watched Dallas in horror. Among others watching were Bill Ku, Yama's chief designer. He had hired me as a designer in September 1963. We were all somewhere under 40. I was 29 then. Mike Pudist and Henry Guthard were there as well, and still at MYA. I hope at least 6 to 8 of us are still around.
When we were designing the Project we were quite aware of the B-25 that had cracked into the Empire State Building during WWII. Of consequence, the towers were designed to accommodate the impact of a large jet passenger plane (this was pre-747, 67, etc.) however we had no knowledge of the types of fuels and planes that would be used in this day and age.
In those early days the towers were considered to be the tallest at 1350'. The clients wanted them to be 100' taller than Empire State building. Ultimately the Trade Center towers finished out at 1368' and 1362'. The difference was due to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the clients) executive offices. Those were located around the 89th and 90th floors of the South Tower, and had to have 10' ceiling heights as opposed to the 8'8" ceiling height in the balance of the towers.
Seattle based structural engineers Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson designed the structural system of the Trade Center towers. Yama wanted the towers to be as tall, as slender, and as graceful as possible. His very close friend structural engineer John Skilling came up with a system that made the request possible.
Each tower was a tube within a tube. The outer "tube" was a square of 208' on each side. The inner "tube" was the tower's core. It contained elevators, exit stairs, toilets, and the building's mechanical and electrical services. These services were all shafts running through the building core, rated to what we call a "4 hr fire rating". They were intended to withstand a raging fire for up to four hours. Apparently the shattering and exploding airplanes damaged cladding and fireproofing to the point where Tower 1 stood for one hour, and Tower 2 for 1 3/4 hours before failing. Fortunately and thankfully the fireproofed shafts, and the core located stairs (none were located within the open office areas), allowed many to exit past the flaming and failing office levels.
The core was a rectangle of approximately 90' by 150'. The truss supported floors spanned column free from the inner core to the exterior wall. The exterior wall was a bearing wall, with columns occurring every 3' 4" on center; approximately shoulder width. This allowed room for viewer hand support, to give a feeling of ease and security while looking at the world from hundreds of feet and many stories above the street.
The Tower's exterior 3'4" spaced columns become 10' between the seventh and ninth levels. This allowed for large glass areas through which the gleaming 90' high ceilinged lobby could be viewed from both plaza (larger than St. Peter's) and Concourse (shopping) levels. The lobbies were entered through neatly fitted, bright mirror finished stainless steel revolving doors.
At ground level each tower had approximately the same foot print dimension as the Sears Tower in Chicago. The Sears Tower was 100' taller when it was completed, and it contains 102 floors...8 less than the Trade Center.
We didn't realize we were at the tip of a very large iceberg. Since 1963, thousands of persons went on to build the World Trade Center. Ten's of thousands worked there daily. Millions have visited.
When Pene called that morning to say that the top of one of the Trade Center Towers was in flames I was struck dumbfounded.
love,
Dad.
(Edited by Marc Awodey. First appeared in SEVEN DAYS, 9/01 Burlington, VT")
--------------
how to shoot fish in a barrel
by Marc Awodey
Since the internet is awash in 9/11 conspiracy theories forwarded by self-serving “experts,” and google researchers whose agenda is to sell books and become conspiracy stars - i’m adding to this mess in opposition to the 9/11 truth squads. i’m no more of an expert than those i oppose - the main thing i’m doing here is posting items, pictures, and links useful for DEBUNKING and CHALLENGING the new 9/11 orthodoxy's party line, paranoia, and subtle racism.
You see - i am of the far left, and i am appalled by the truth squads' syncophatic zeal, abandonment of logic, and apparent desire to discredit all anti bush/cheney/imperialism/war/fascism critics by falling on their swords over speculative presuppositions. Their “theories” are no more rooted in empirical reality than notions of intelligent design - despite the claims of their favorite Phds. Below is a Noam Chomsky interview that precisely describes my own position on conspiracism's subversion of the left. Please give it serious thought.
Also please note: i am not scrupulous about footnoting or attributing the writings from others. However along the edge of this electronic GAZETTEER i am providing links to many of the web sites i’ve pulled info from - and more.
---------------
greetings D.
i'm going to be at VCAM about 2:30 sunday to do a show - if you happen to be around there this weekend perhaps you could drop of the WTC plans there, or i could stop by your house to pick them up.
i'm not too sure what i'll be doing for VCAM show(s), but i've definitely decided to start responding to the questions raised by the 9/11 truth programming that has been so prevalent on ch.15. maybe our points of view are too far apart to discuss much with each other on air, but it seems like you do have certain theories regarding the questions raised at the end of your video, and i too have my own answers - basically the same as the NIST, which i think the public should be made more aware of. i'm also compelled to point out ommissions, out of context quotes, and selective use of data that seems to be standard procedure for much of the 9/11 truth movement. and so i too will raise questions - such as why won't dr. jones submit his findings to an IMPARTIAL peer reviewed journal (such as "chemical & engineering news" for example - not a 9/11 scholars for truth publication) -as his BYU colleagues had called for? why did bush/cheney massacre americans in "the new pearl harbor", yet couldn't invent evidence of FINDING the weapons of mass destruction once we got into iraq? whey did the same institutional investor responsible for 95% of the September 2001 "puts" on UAL stock, also buy 115.000 shares on september 10? i will say the art of asking leading questions runs in both directions - and perhaps my questions would be simply pointing that out. in the 9/11 truth debate there are hypotheses which are reasonable or not. if the observation is flawed, or invented, the hypothesis fails. so to me it seems that the real issues aren't unanswered questions - they are determinate questions about the validity of observations, upon which advocates are making hypotheses.
i do feel like people who disagree should be talking to each other rather than talking past each other - but maybe that's too idealistic, or naive. i was able tape your VCAM show tonight and i will be specifically addressing your points somewhere along the line, perhaps in a few weeks. i did miss the first few minutes of the show till i found a VHS copy of HARD DAY'S NIGHT (ouch! but worth it) to tape over. if you'd like to give me a complete CD of the show, that would be great- otherwise i'll work with what i have.
meanwhile... below are more extensive fireman quotes and links to where they are from. i think these portray events around the collapse of building 7 more accurately than the impressions left in your video. you may be familiar with these statements and have discounted them- but if not, please do consider them. for example you note that firefighting operations ceased by 11:30; but you forget that search and rescue continued in and around 7 well into late afternoon. also there were "tremendous fires" and a 20 story gash in the corner of the building. in another matter - as your video clearly shows - 7 didn't neatly fall in it to own footprint although your narration says so. plus in marked contrast to the shot of building 7 after the dust settled, your video fails to show what controlled demolitions actually look like AFTER the dust settles - and those WOULD indeed be neatly cleanly settled in their footprint. and of course the towers, each one square acre, left a 16 acre debris field, cascading downward just like a stream of water from an upturned garden hose. it's also strange that no 9/11 truth info i've seen notes that tower exterior walls were load bearing - that fact accounts for several aspects of the failures, including the overall collapse: "NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers... Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon." so not all "official" sources ascribe everything to pancaking - perhaps your film should quote the NIST as having another "alternative" theory?
etc.etc.etc. such will be the thrust of some of my arguments.
thanks
marc
-----------fireman quotes on bld. 7----------
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt
"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."
"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
(This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".)
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.
http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html
---------
D.- i just wonder if you did critical research on both sides of the issue. i just get a feeling that all 9/11 truth regurgitates it's self without serious intellectual reflection... griffin is a lotus eater, i wish i could wake activists from their stupor.
marc
---------------------
"The sleep of reason produces monsters"
Goya-----------------
9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory
Submitted by Noam Chomsky on Fri, 2006-10-06 14:09.
Categories: Middle East | United States | US Foreign Policy
The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...
ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice’s James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission’s report in accuracy and lucidity see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html or www.cooperativeresearch.org
Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.
ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?
Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.
ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all – rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11 attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a “war without end,” and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now ‘the Americans are in the same fight.’ Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.
Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.
ZNet Sustainer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what’s to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn't resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism – which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.
Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.
ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?
Noam Chomsky: I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn't changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.
ZNet Sustainer: Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor – which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson’s seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).
Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.
ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world’s leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?
Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.
----------
Burlington (Vermont)
ballot question 2, asking voters to urge the Vermont congressional delegation to reopen an examination into the tragic events of 9/11, will be supported by many for the wrong reasons. You don’t have to believe in dark conspiracies, or government cover ups to vote “yes” on question 2. I’m voting “yes” not because the truth needs to be reexamined - but because the proven facts need to be restated. A new 9/11 Commission could end the fad of wild speculation that’s become an obsession with the American left.
We already know the truth, and it’s sad that so many seem to have forgotten it. My father is one of the dozen architects who designed the World Trade Center in the 1960’s with Minoru Yamasaki, and I’ve learned from him that while the effect of impacts from the crashes of the largest jets then available were calculated during the design, in his words: "we didn't consider that amount of jet fuel." And as any architect or engineer will tell you "at 1200 degrees steel starts to buckle." The cruel physics of hot steel simply can’t be denied.
So I hope you’ll vote Yes on question 2. We have nothing to fear by a reaffirmation of the truth. Perhaps we'll have unity of purpose, in the name of peace, to gain.
-------------
how many times
have you heard tornado survivors say “it sounded like a freight train” that doesn't mean they heard actual trains.
by the same token when people say “it sounded like explosions” that doesn’t mean the witnesses are saying there WERE explosions. if those firemen knew how you’re parsing their meanings it would probably disgust them.
--------------
"The hardest thing to see is what is in front of our eyes."
Goethe--------------
from nineeleven.co.uk----
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:46 pm Post subject: Sophia, 9/11 Mysteries Fabrications and Disinfo
Sofia Shafquat along with Brad Waddell
by Rick Siegel
Sophia,
9/11 Mysteries Fabrications and Disinfo
Submitted by rick on Sat, 2007-01-27 18:06.
Since I had first seen this DVD I found it disturbing for its’ cover showing a WTC building (not WTC1 2 or 7) completely engulfed in flames, supporting the official story that the hot fires caused the collapse of the towers. The building shown did not collapse and was not "demolished" but the title “Demolition” is featured over this background.
When viewing it at minute 3:22 a man in a Harley hat and t-shirt is portrayed as an eyewitness and featured describing, at the scene for reporters, what would later become the official shoreline. "I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense." Here was an obvious planted disinfo witness used to reinforce the official story. Not identified as such and Sophia glides over it into the film.
But that, at least for me, is not the real problem. The real problem is in what this AKA Monica Smallstorm, AKA Sophia; whose real name is Sofia Shafquat along with Brad Waddell, have done to my 911 Eyewitness footage. The woman has seriously altered and mutilated my original footage and she inappropriately placed parts, edited and mutilated within her disinfo piece without asking permission, paying a royalty or using her normal paperwork she used for rights with other creators. I had no control and she took advantage creating this travesty.
I have not gone through the whole film, as it was not my intention of debunking her work. For that you may go to Screw 9/11 Mysteries
My intention was to see what she had used of my original footage without permission and how it was used. What I found was a nightmare. Following is a list of time codes to find these errors, omissions, distortions, and video with altered and overdubbed audio, which twisted the story being told. Instead of telling the truth and let science do the work Sophia has taken my works and twisted them to present a totally different image than what was originally there.
33:50
Shows the first of Rick Siegel’s footage of the North tower
"This video was shot from New Jersey. Smoke rises from the base of the building as an explosion is heard” (Basically this is OK and with original sound from DVD)
34:08
Second time around the same footage but the sound is replaced! Just after the dark filter effect we see the north tower collapse but the sound has been replaced with something completely different. A siren can be heard to distinguish that this is not the original sound. MAJOR DISINFO #1
35:07
Hoboken postage stamp effect "Across the Hudson River Richard Siegel was filming an astonishing day"
35:30
"Here is the south tower record" (shows South tower)
35:33 "Then the building came down" (North tower shown!!!)
This misrepresents the North tower as if it was actually the South tower and the list of pre-collapse explosions caused the building to fall. This clip lists "WTC2 pre-collapse explosions". WTC2
has just previously fallen to the ground and now only WTC1 remains. It will not fall for another 30 minutes, however, the next picture and comment indicate that happened immediately following the pre-collapse explosions listed.
. MAJOR DISINFO #2
35:33 "Then the building came down" the narrator tells us. Meanwhile the North tower segment from a completely different timeframe in the original program, is incorrectly inserted here.
Disinfo:
1. This misrepresents the north tower WTC1, to be the south tower, WTC2.
2. This misrepresents the list of WTC2 pre-collapse explosions as directly responsible for the collapse of WTC1.
3. This misrepresents the time at which the WTC1 collapse occurred because WTC2 time-codes were visible on-screen only seconds earlier.
39:57
US geological survey web site Pyroclastic flow segment shows Sophia editing and removed the dissolve between the volcano and the north tower debris chimney, which was designed to emphasize the similarity. Sections were deleted that contained significant evidence.
Thermite section
45:34
"Watch this very bright substance pouring from the south tower" (This is right after the impact occurred not at the time of collapse)
45:39
Filter shot again of smoke between buildings' this time it's used in the thermite section.
"And white smoke appeared at the base of the building. (North tower moments before collapse) Would this be aluminum oxide, the byproduct of a thermite reaction?”
Two problems, she shows the south tower at the 80th floor right after impact and then the north tower right before collapse and edits them back to back with narration that sounds like they are the same building at the same point in time. MAJOR DISINFO #3
1. The south tower's 80th floor impact zone, at approximately 9:00 am, is followed directly by the north tower at approximately 10:30 a.m. showing smoke rising.
2. The narration "and" connects the two with a
continuous line of thought.
3. Continuity with the first time this clip is viewed at 33:50 is destroyed because the rising smoke is attributed to a large explosion in the original content.
4. This creates confusion in the mind of the viewer.
5. The combination of confusion and conflict will make understanding this event very difficult and could be categorized in psychological terms as "disinformation".
6. Usage without approval in a negative way is
unacceptable.
50:50
North tower sequence with multi-screen numbering the explosions
Problem, she cuts it out in the middle and doesn't let it run through.
51:30
Rick Siegel’s footage audio from the north collapse is used underneath various montage shots of different pictures but none from 911 Eyewitness.
This gives the validity to other video with the original sound explosions that would be superimposed in a haphazard manner over those other videos. Sophia proceeded with no knowledge of time code or effort at making a legitimate documentation of the explosions; it was done to make a Hollywood effect to further an agenda of more explosions than were.
All in all these 3 major errors with the additional omissions, edits and misrepresentations by Sophia and 911 Mysteries are misinformation at best and are most likely, considering the need for physical editing of the sound over the destruction sequences, on purpose and therefore disinformation. Worse is this is just what I see as I look at what Sophia has done to my original footage. What about the rest of the hour plus of other peoples footage she has done this too?
The reason I want control of my work is to keep such trash from happening. To be placed in this disinformation video in such a way twists the meaning of the original work and now it has been corrupted, changed, and mutilated where it is no longer representative of that day. I can’t imagine what this “fertile mind” in Sophia has done to other evidence as she edits, over dubs and twists the content to as she said on “The Edge AM” radio recently “911 Mysteries takes the myth by its tail and swings it around right next, to make it fit right next to the science". Whatever twists, swings or smashing it needs apparently.
Since October I have told Sophia to cease and desist and she continues to manufacture and sell these distortions of my work. I asked her to stop, pull my stuff and she has hired a lawyer to keep her stolen, mutilated disinfo piece in tact. Money means too much to her even after allegedly making almost half a million on this mutilation.
The story will continue as will the obvious need for a full debunking of this disinfo piece.
---------------------
Sophia
the director and narrator of the film says at 1:50 in the radio interview, "My friend Brad billed himself as a conservative Republican and I was considered the liberal, just because people like to have opposites...."
--------------------
missile/drone team
And why were the cockpit takeovers spread over 90 minutes, allowing Flight 175 to even be warned of cockpit intrusion before it happened?
"Truthers claim that the government conspiracy was so worried about the alleged ability of America's air defenses to intercept hijacked airliners that the conspiracy took the risk of arranging stand-down orders. Why did the conspiracy then use a suicide flight crew so incompetent that two of them repeatedly used the air-traffic radio to broadcast warnings they were trying to give to their passengers over the cabin intercom, thus giving the earliest possible notice that hijackings were under way? Why did they broadcast "planes" plural? Why did they only turn off the transponders on Flights 77 and 93 only after deviating from their course? Why did they never turn off the transponder on Flight 175 at all? Just how stupid were these evil government geniuses who took over these planes?"
"Demolitions? Nobody trapped above the impact floors in the WTC was going to be saved from the fire, and 200 of them had already jumped to their deaths. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 only contributed 400-600 of the 3000 fatalities on 9/11, and the collapse of WTC 7 contributed zero. Why would the conspiracy risk setting up and then performing in broad daylight a controlled demolition of buildings that it knew would be under massive videographic surveillance, just to kill 400 rescue workers? Bonus questions: What if one of those swarming radio-equipped rescue workers had found an explosive charge while breaking through walls to seek trapped victims or clear exits? And with the towers twice as tall as anything around them, why not quintuple the death toll by hitting the 110-story towers just above the 57-story highest neighbor, instead of at the 96th and 81st floors? And why wait an agonizing 102 minutes to push the detonator for the first tower struck, since it is allegedly known that jet fuel cannot bring down a steel skyscraper now matter how big a fire it ignites and no matter how long it burns? Also, consider that at least 25% of the jets controlled by the conspiracy failed to hit their target. What was the government conspiracy's contingency plan if one of the WTC jets missed its assigned tower, and the building was then found to be wired from top to bottom with demolition charges? "
----------------------
thermite anyone?
When a mixture of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder is ignited, it burns to iron and aluminum oxide, Al + Fe2O3 + ignition -> Al2O3 + Fe. This is thermite. The reaction produces a temperature that can melt steel (above 1500 C, 2800 F). The rate of burning is governed by the pace of heat diffusion from the hot reaction zone into the unheated powder mixture. Granules must absorb sufficient heat to arrive at the ignition temperature of the process. The ignition temperature of a quiescent powder of aluminum is 585 C. The ignition temperatures of a variety of dusts were found to be between 315 C and 900 C, by scientists developing solid rocket motors.
Burning thermite is not an accelerating chain reaction ("explosion"), it is a "sparkler."
Did patches of thermite form naturally, by chance, in the WTC Towers fires? Could there really have been small bits of melted steel in the debris as a result? Could there have been "thermite residues" on pieces of steel dug out of the debris months later? Maybe, but none of this leads to a conspiracy.
-------------------------
The story told
by 9/11 Truthers would have taken hundreds of conspirators to plan and execute:
• demolition experts to plant the explosives days in advance;
• insiders to allow planting of the explosives in the WTC -- whose chief of security John O'Neill was killed on 9/11 and as FBI Special Agent in Charge for National Security in the New York Field Office from 1997 to 2001 had led the bin Laden investigation;
• a team (presumably near the WTC) to stick around all day and trigger 3 controlled demolitions over a 7-hour span;
• people in the air defense chain of command to issue traceable and documented orders for exercises and a stand-down on 9/11;
• an Air Force pilot to fire a missile at Flight 93;
• military personnel to execute the missile/drone strike on the Pentagon;
• Pentagon insiders to allegedly suppress its air defenses;
• operatives to fabricate and plant fake Pentagon surveillance camera images;
• American Airlines and United Airlines insiders to allow access to the WTC jets;
• either suicidal pilots, or a team of aeronautical/avionics/jamming experts to secretly modify and remotely control the WTC jets and prevent the actual crew from using any radio or cell phone to call out;
• operatives to divert Flight 77 and make it and its passengers and crew vanish without any trace or making any onboard calls;
• operatives to plant physical evidence at each crash scene right in front of first responders;
• radio technicians remotely engineering the transmissions from the planes (or a far larger team to alter and fake the transmission records after the fact; see below);
• actors pretending to be doomed passengers talking on cell phones to loved ones and operators;
• agents to create false identities and histories and financial records for the hijackers;
• actors to pose as the hijackers on airport and ATM surveillance cameras;
• etc.
How is it plausible that the bumbling administration of George W. Bush could plan and execute such an intricate operation, without anyone among these hundreds of people blowing the whistle when first approached, or anonymously/accidentally leaking the truth anytime since?
Attempting a cover-up the 9/11 conspiracy miracle would require thousands of more conspirators:
• operatives with sufficient influence over al Qaeda to prevent any of its leaders from disavowing al Qaeda's multiple admissions of 9/11 responsibility over the last four years;
• the nearby pilots who say they heard the cockpit transmissions from the hijacked jets,
• experts to fake the recordings of the 9/11 transmissions, cockpit recordings, black box data, and radar tracking data;
• the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and its staff of 100;
• FBI, including the teams who searched for traces of explosives at the crash sites;
• bitter Bush critic Richard Clarke, the NSC counter terrorism aide who managed the Situation Room video conference on 9/11;
• Secret Service;
• Justice Department;
• CIA;
• NSA;
• FAA, including air traffic control centers in Cleveland, Indianapolis, Boston, and New York;
• DOT;
• NORAD in Colorado,
• NEADS in New York;
• CONR in Florida;
• NMCC in the Pentagon;
• Andrews AFB in Maryland;
• Langley AFB in Virginia;
• Otis AFB in Massachusetts;
• Air National Guard;
• INS;
• Customs Service;
• State Department;
• NTSB;
• NIST;
• FEMA;
• NYPD;
• FDNY;
• NY City Office of Emergency Management;
• Port Authority Police Department;
• four flight training schools in Florida and Oklahoma;
• the government of Pakistan;
• the government of Italy;
• the government of Britain;
• the government of France;
• the government of Spain;
• operatives working against or among the 185 photographers to suppress or plant evidence in the nearly 7000 photographs taken at the WTC on 9/11;
How is it plausible that the bumbling administration of George W. Bush could orchestrate such a massive cover-up, without anyone among these thousands of people blowing the whistle or anonymously leaking the truth anytime since?
If the scientific and technical evidence for the impossibility of the mainstream explanation is so overwhelming, then when will that evidence be believed by a fraction of the scientific community that is larger than the fraction who believe in creationism? The mainstream explanation is based on or corroborated by expert investigations by:
• Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers;
• Society of Fire Protection Engineers;
• National Fire Protection Association;
• American Institute of Steel Construction;
• American Iron and Steel Institute;
• Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat;
• Structural Engineers Association of New York;
• Underwriters Laboratories;
• NY City Dept. of Design and Construction;
• American Society of Civil Engineers;
• Controlled Demolition, Inc.; and
• researchers from Purdue, Northwestern, Columbia, Carnegie Mellon and UCSD.
-------------
Given a choice between two explanations, choose the simplest -- the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions is best
-William of Occam
--------------
pete’s questions
1. What brought down Building 7 - and particularly
in the face of so many important and credible
people on the spot who witnessed first hand;
firemen, police, newsmen who were all alerted as
to exactly when it would come down?
>>>A) 9/11 truth sources routinely publish a few quotes out of context. there are in contrast hundreds of longer quotes from firemen also available- this is from fireman Richard Banaciski: "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
the building had suffered severe damage in the collapse of tower 1 - the north tower, and it was obviously about to fall. crews were assessing the building, searching for victims all afternoon, till it became too dangerous to work in the vicinity around 3:30 pm. I CAN EMAIL YOU A PIC OF THE BUILDING WITH SEVERE DAMAGE IF YOU’D LIKE.
2. Why was the demise of building 7 not addressed in the 911 Report?
>>>A) no one was killed in building 7, and the facts are actually so obvious that no objective observers are concerned. even the 9/11 truth movement wasn’t concerned until several years after the events - and their other issues started to get debunked.
3. Why did Silverstien say [and later attempt to
retract or justify his remark] "we decided to
pull it" - ??
>>>A)OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTE that comes from an interview on nova. and he was referring to pulling the NYFD crews. the term pull is rarely used in demolition and then only in the context of using cables to literally pull down dilapidated buildings. the much smaller building 6 was actually razed by a pull. THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION pulled or exploded OF BUILDING 7 and plenty to demonstrate it was severely damaged in the debris field.
4. Where were the defense fighter jets charged with
protecting the skies and borders? Yes, I know
what we were told about where they were; but even
if they WERE on some war-games-mission, are we
to believe it was unfortunately coincidental
they were ALL gone and unavailable ?
I somehow can't reconcile why even within a half
hour, an hour or two or even several hours later
of the towers attack; why would ANYONE in charge
have presumed it was, at all any time thereafter
ok to NOT bring the forces [or even a few jets]
into the picture [skies] somewhere...?? After
the most egregious attack EVER...? This is
acceptable or reasoned out somewhere, somehow?!
Are you shitting me!!
>>>A) In June 2002 two Air National Guard F-16's failed to intercept a Cessna before it passed the White House. The timeline provided was as follows:
7:59 p.m. Cessna enters "restricted" air space
8:03 p.m. FAA notifies NORAD
8:04 p.m. Cessna enters "prohibited" air space
8:06 p.m. Two F-16s get orders to scramble
8:06 p.m. Cessna passes White House "within a few miles"
8:17 p.m. F-16s take off from Andrews AFB. Intercept occurs "a few minutes later."
Even with streamlined intercept procedures and tighter post 9-11 security, and the planes only 10 miles from Washington, the time from problem occurring to takeoff was still 18 minutes, and the intercept "a few minutes" after that.... i hadn’t heard about war game and did a little internet research (same as everyone is doing) to find out more. fromthewilderness.com is a “ 9/11 truth” web site that actually agrees with you on many points - particularly about marvin bush - but it also says in a review of the book Crossing the Rubican’ by mike ruppert: “Mike Ruppert starts off Chapter 19 of Crossing the Rubicon by explaining that the notion of there being a single “stand-down” order preventing fighters from being scrambled that morning is incorrect. Such simplistic analysis does not hold water. Planes were scrambled on 9/11, but only two sets of jets were available since the majority of air assets were diverted all across the world by numerous war game exercises.” so it’s a complex issue. questions i have that i haven’t found answers for are A) how common are war games? are there war games happening somewhere in north america all the time, thus happening on 9/11 isn’t unusual. and B) could the hijackers have planned their attacks to coincide with war games? and if NOT, then why not?
but either way it’s a complex problem fallacy in which without evidence two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition.
5. How is it one of the most mentionable heroes of
the event; William Rodriguez and his point of
view and his visceral first hand experience has
been relegated completely from the dialogue??
>>>A) rodreguiz originally said: "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," only later did he start mentioning explosions - making him a celebrity of the 9/11 truth movement. his description of "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." describes burn victims, not blast victims. his explosion claim also has a strange timeframe - his explosions were heard long before the collapse, at the same a plane hit. and as i’ve noted secondary explosions were common.
6. The opinions and views of others; John Skilling,
Les Robertson [WTC Structural Engineer}
>>>A) yes they were the engineering firm involved - their interviews on 9/11 mysteries are correct. what’s the question? are you talking about the fact they didn’t consider that amount of jet fuel? guess who confirms that - my dad.
7. The NYC firemen who reported "pockets of
isolated fire - "will take only two units to
knock it down." Yet we're told burning flames
melted the steel frames... In 1975 3 floors
burned in the North Tower; albeit an intense
fire spreading from floor to floor. Yet no signs
of weakened frames [or collapse] then...
>>>A) OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTE by Orio Palmer Deputy Chief Battalion 7 from the 78th floor stairway. worst fires were actually at the 84th floor.
"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower." palmer was killed in the collapse a few minutes later.
REGARDING THE 1975 FIRE- NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL - no jet impact to wreck fireproofing (rated to stand up to a raging fire for 4 hours) and sprinklers. “On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower, with fire spreading through the core from the 9th to 14th floors where electrical wiring was damaged. The fire ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, with the fire fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment. “ no sea of jet fuel either. ALSO "Yet we're told burning flames melted the steel frames..." is disinformation. unevenly heated trusses became deformed and weakened -NOT MELTED. at 1100 degrees steel loses 50% of it strenth. it sagged, bent and snapped connections to the core, initiating the pancaking. MELTED STEEL isn't even contemplated in official reports. just as the truth squads say - fires caused by the crashes didn't get hot enough to melt steel!
8. What about the obvious roils of heavy black
smoke and no signs of flames long before the collapse?
>>>A) the claim of the 9/11 mysteries that black smoke indicates oxygen starved fire is silly. ever seen burning tires? how about the oil wells of kuwait at the end of gulf war I? petrolium based products, such as the plastics and other synthetic materials office buildings are full of - from carpeting to computers - give off black smoke. jet fuel too, and paint, paneling etc. etc. etc.... there are actually numerous pictures of flames prior to the collapse - do some fact checking!
9. The angle of the cuts to vital frame structures
that are NOT [nor have they to do with anything
related to what's been described as the cuts that
were made by construction workers while cleanup
was in session.] It still doesn't equate.
Cutting at THAT stage would have suggested efficient
cuts across the metal frames at the shortest
distance NOT [repeatedly] at 45 degree
angles...!
>>>A) 9/11 truth squads refer to very few samples - this is a fallacy relying to too small a sample. are you suggesting the cuts were from thermite? thermite doesn’t make clean cuts. and about 4000 TONS would be needed to cause the kind of collapse truth squads envision.
10. So many witnesses on the spot [not directed
or prep'd or rehearsed] stating how they all
witnessed so many explosions, before the
collapse...?]
>>>A) explosions don’t mean demolition. here’s some gruesome fireman testimony that proves that point: “I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions. “
“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As
I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its
arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me.”
11. How historical evidence severely examines
other steel building skyscrapers in VERY intense
fires and yet how none before this event ever
caused the collapse of steel structured buildings
as a result...? This collapse made history for
its [questionable fires] bringing it
completely down...!
>>>A) the column free truss supported floor design made history. the tube within a tube structure made history. in retrospect perhaps those elements were flaws - but the towers were unique. the impact of the fires was unique.
12. So many people [UNscripted]; newsmen/newswomen
and even CBS reporters - so many other
witnesses, suggesting on
their own, that it all looked like a demolition
of buildings...
>>>A) looked like doesn’t mean it was. in fact they didn’t actually look like controlled demolitions either. check out imlosionworld, and investigate for your self. http://www.implosionworld.com/ also in 9/11 mysteries shows some implosions but never the footprint after a controlled demolition- in the WTC there was a huge debris field (16 acres+), in controlled demolitions there isn’t.
13. That the "Executive Summary Report' was TOO
an insufficient report>..?
>>>A) have you read the executive summery report of the 9/11 commission? here’s a link if you haven’t http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/terrorism%20&%20security/z_archive/2004/july/cover_execsummary.pdf
it’s a 35 page documents that i haven’t read - but it sure looks thorough to me, and it’s a SUMMERY - not the entire report.
14. Phillip Marcell who was in the north tower
subbasement stated repeatedly of people
and others maimed and killed before his eyes
while he was running from tower to tower; and the
official reports never addressing or acknowledging
his views OR others like his...?
Are you shitting me!?
>>>A) there have been hundreds of eyewitness stories in the press and in various investigations. i’m not familier with this ONE witness. look- it was caos- and nearly all of the eyewitness accounts should be taken with a grain of salt. “maimed and killed before his eyes while he was running from tower to tower” is pretty understandable - but sorry, i don’t know what his story is.
15. Why so many large chunks of frame found over
400 yards away, stuck into the sides of other buildings surrounding the towers...?
A) this point actually blows up the controlled demolition theory, or are you suggesting there were huge blasts that caused the destruction - that just ain’t how demolitions work, gravity does the job not massive explosions... but the energy released by the pancake collapse was indeed tremendous. the large chunks thrown actually explains how building 7 got so severely damaged, and it confirms that the collapse of the towers definitly was not an implosion as some suggest. one of the controlled demolition theories suggests a small atomic bomb! ... that would certianly be easier to plant than 4000 pounds of thermite on hundreds of I-beams and connections. and speaking of beams- one of the founders of "9/11 scholars for truth" Dr. Jim Fetzer, now considers laser beams from space to be a possible explination! visit http://stj911.org/faq.html to learn more about the group's implosion... the only of these explinations that can be scientifically tested is the energy released by the pressure of pancaking idea. just squeeze a wet bar of soap
16. One can even see 'after' the floors have
collapsed pretty much all the way; one sees the
core for the most part still standing for while
until they TOO 'then' fall and collapse. Is that
suppose to be the result of intense fire...?
>>>A) no. it’s a result of the core losing support after the pancaking of the trusses. connections broke under trenendous unsupported weight.
17. The rapidity of each building collapsing
within
seconds - BOTH nearly identical to one and the
other... Whereas ALL evidence of ANY free fall
collapse historically means that the free fall of
floors upon one another would suggest at least a
longer delay - maybe by a minute or so more....
>>>A) this is not true. south tower collapsed at 10:05, north tower at 10:28. also the towers were 95% air, and the weight of the pancaking floors was tremendous. another point truthers fail to notice (or just fail to mention) is that the towers had load bearing walls which became pulverized as floors fell into each other. here what the NIST says: “ NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”
but if they DID fall at ALMOST free fall- why? controlled demolitions don’t push building downward they sever supports and gravity does the rest. the same process was at work in the buckling and snapping of of trusses DUE TO HEAT DEFORMATION.
18. Engine 7 fighter > Joe Carigili remarks...
>>>A) sorry i’m not familiar with his remarks and can’t find it through google. BUT NOT A SINGLE FIREMAN SUPPORTS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THEORIES!!! many of their statements were taken grossly out of context.
19. The Certified Steel UL Kevin Ryan and his
reports "steel tested at 2500 degrees
Fahrenheit
Then fired for reporting the facts the way
he called it. Who should be threatened by him
and his report enough to fire him...?
>>>A) Ryan was in the water testing division, and not involved with steel at all - in fact UL ISN’t INVOLVED IN TESTING STEEL. here is an excerpt of the story from the south bent tribune- local paper of UL and ryan: “Ryan declined to comment about his letter Thursday when reached at his South Bend home. But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.
Seeking to head off controversy just months before its report is released, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its own statement Thursday.
Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires.
The institute believes impact from the jets dislodged fireproofing surrounding some of the steel, and the higher temperatures led to the buckling of the towers' core columns.”:
20. The Twin Towers were notoriously White
Elephants to the city & port authority for a host
of reasons for several years prior 'to'... Yet
Silverstien comes along and buys the property
and immediately takes out an outrageous multi
billion dollar insurance policy on what is
already notoriously loosing money...!?
>>>A) this is incorrect- the towers were 98% occupied. the insurance issued was typical of what skyscrapers get insured for. and actually silverstien LOST about 3 billion, due to the court cases lodged against his claims by some of the insurance companies, over technical issues. and insurance was paid to rebuild - just like when your car gets hit you are supposed to fix it with the money- seems like a pretty high profile case to try insurance fraud with.
21. Ramon Gilsons [demolition expert] examines &
tells of classic crimp & implosions in building 7
..."Ramon Gilsons" "Ramon Gilson" "Raymond Gilson" i don’t find any demolition experts by that name on google... there was a dutch expert named Danny Jowenko who’s been touted as saying building 7 was controlled- problem is, when he was shown the footage he didn’t know it was building 7 - he has since strenuously objected that his assessment was out of context.
22. Marvin Bush's office and WD Walker 11
both direct relatives to senior Bush and yet
neither is mentioned in the Report! Is this
mysterious, at least worth mentioning as
stunning or not?
>>>A) M.bush was on the board of directors of SURECOM the firm dealing with electronic security systems. but he was in that position from 1993-2000. he has gone from surecom even before George II got appointed by the supreme court! and board members have nothing to do with operations on a day to day basis. the other fellow you note is Wirt D. Walker III apparently research into the bush family tree shows this guy IS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSH FAMILY AT ALL. check it out for your self... http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/georgeb/
23. Scott Forbes speaking of the power to
security systems being literally shut down; and
security dogs removed only weeks before hand for
a notable period - for over a week...!? While
men roamed about with cables and installing
what was purportedly [though since then not
exactly confirmed what or why] a new cable
system...
>>>A) out of the 20,000 people who worked in the trade center every day forbes is THE ONLY ONE who says this happened. do you really think that if security were shut down for over a week noone would complain? there was an upgrade of the internet infrastructure, but it didn’t require shutting down everything, and was a perfectly normal thing in 2001. there was simply no total shut down - it’s a hoax. forbes is probably lying to become a 9/11 truth celebrity. the actual head of WTC security was actually killed in the attack, so there’s no testimony from him... -
24. How is it Julianni knew ahead of the collapse
it was going to happen....?
>>>A) do you mean building 7? the building was severely damages and it was obvious that it was about to collapse. one whole corner of it was knocked off. anyway - on what basis do you think julian knew in advance what was going to happen - evidence? does your evidence have more than one possible explination?
25. Buildings 3 4 5 6 were still standing after
Towers 1/2 collapse yet 7 collapsed 'cleanly'
as in any classic demolition; reported on
radio and yet no plane hit it.. and so many saying
there wasn't even a fire in it...
>>>A) the supposition of “cleanly” is wrong - and there were intense fires, but most of the damage was from the debris field of tower 2. buildings 3,4,5,6 were all so damaged also that they had to be demolished. Richard Banaciski fireman stated: “They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski fireman
26. Mike Picarro Lou Cajasiin [fireman] reported
pre-collapse explosions...
>>>A) OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES there are NO FIREMAN who have endorsed the “controlled demolition” theory. describing things as sounding like explosions is perfectly reasonable - but that doesn’t mean the ONLY EXPLANATION FOR THEM IS planted bombs going off! how many time have you heard tornado victims on TV saying “i heard a freight train...” in describing a tornado? no doubt -there were things that sounded like explosions in the death throes of the buildings - elevator cables snapping, trusses warping, etc. etc. etc.
27. George Tammaro << ? ... Slurry engineer
reported 8 weeks after collapse, as did
Stephen Jones [physics professor/engineer
from Brigham Young Univ on MSN interview
on thermite and relation to molten metal
- evidence of sulfite Are you saying this
Jones guy is not a credible person to speak
out on the matter...?
>>> A) Tamaro is very credible, and was involved in stabilizing the slurry walls. “In the late 1960s and 1970s, Tamaro helped build the WTC while working for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He oversaw construction of the perimeter wall, which extended eight city blocks below the ground. The wall, nicknamed "the bathtub," was constructed from slurry walls, which Tamaro describes as "special walls built from the top down" that prevent water from entering the site. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Tamaro was asked to help stabilize the underground structure. He assembled construction companies to clear the debris and build support for the bathtub. Then he designed a process to move large equipment into the small area.”
jones is not credible
, in fact has been fired from brigham young university, as his assertions have not been peer reviewed. he was also involved in the cold fusion scandal and hoax of the 1990s. and even more bizarre is the fact that he apparently published an article entitled: “The Golden Era of Mesoamerica” about jesus visiting the mayans - he’s a devout morman - i don’t mean to impugn his religion but...jesus visiting the mayans? and no, he’s not an engineer.28. why did it become [after such a massive and
horrifying landmark event become] such an
hurried matter particularly when close
examinations and thorough investigations
would've been paramount...? Even every jet
plane accident automatically earns closer
scrutiny - professional efforts to understand and
put the vital pieces together. These are events
that don't have ANY political/terrorist
suggestions attached as a rule, yet
they want to know 'the whats and whys' -
example: >> flight 111
Swiss Air took over two years to examine and
to know better the details of what really
happened.
Yet the worst event in US history! & they rush
thru and even haul away molten metal, still
smoldering WITHOUT at least close attention and
chemical analysis etc. etc.>>???!! and then bury
it all in NJ.... IS THIS UTTERLY
UNPROFESSIONAL and highly negligent OR
[even suspect] or not ??
>>>A) there was 1.2 million metric tons of debris, removed at the rate of 10-15,000 tons a day. so only about 1% a day was removed - doesn’t seem like rushing it to me. and it was a jumbled mess of everything - human remains, the buildings, the planes - it’s pretty unrealistic to think a swiss air type investigation (which included large chunks of the recovered plane) was feasible at all. there were over 16 acres of debris piled as high as 20 stories in some areas - getting NYC up and running was an essential priority. and thousands of samples of air, substances, and indeed metal were actually tested. “We are measuring how each of the various types of steel used in the WTC buildings’ structural components deforms under high-impact conditions, akin to those caused by the aircraft that struck the towers,” explains NIST metallurgist Richard Fields. see http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/gallery/kolsky.htm for full article.
want more?
"Evaluation of World Trade Center dusts and girder coatings using a simulated precipitation leaching procedure" at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/ is quite facinating... sorry, it doesn't say anything about explosive residues -MUST BE ANOTHER COVER UP!AND LAST :
29. about molten metal pools; I've even
worked around metal and particularly aluminum.
Ask any welder about what happens to aluminum;
when hot enough charges or fire attacks it...
It would not melt into a pool like the one
described and even then what wouldn't burn up
completely would cool off much quicker than
weeks later. Its too light and soft...It would
mostly burn up first, especially in such a
fire as the one they've suggested
brought down the steel in
these these buildings - It'd mostly burn up in
such an intense fire - where as steel would
fester for long periods of time; especially if
its thick & heavy enough - but even then for it
to smolder in
a pool of molten it would not be from a
Fahrenheit fire; it would have to be some heat
that was exceptional and not from engine
fuel...
>>>A) i’m saying the fires WERE NOT hot enough to melt steel - they were hot enough to melt aluminum. you can’t have it both ways - 9/11 truth squads say “the fire wasn’t hot enough to melt steel” and i agree. you seem to be saying in an “intense fire” aluminum burns up - but the melting point of aluminum is 1220 degrees F. even 9/11 truth people admit those temps were reached... THE BOILING POINT of aluminum (the temp at which it would become gaseous and “burn up” is over 2600 degrees F. the NIST report does say "Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. " not unlike a ceramic kiln i'd say - and at any rate the key phrase is AFTER THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED.
---------------------
My father
William L. Awodey worked for the architectural office Minoru Yamasaki and Associates during the 1960's. “Yama” and eleven of his architects, including Dad, designed the World Trade Center. He is now semiretired in Florida. Below is an e-mail I sent him and his reply. As noted, I was writing to let him think about some questions for an article about 9/11. After reading and rereading our correspondence, I decided the story was written.
----- Original Message -----
To: William Awodey
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:00 PM
Subject: stairs versus fire...
*
Dear Dad-
I am writing to let you know about an article I have been invited to submit to the paper I write art reviews for. Especially here in the northeast, everyone knows someone who was directly affected by Tuesday. One friend of mine lost three people he knew- two in one of the planes from Boston, and one on the ground. When people ask if I and my family are ok I say- "we were affected in a unique way- my Dad is one of the architects who designed the World Trade Center. I remember seeing the models as a kid. I sort of grew up with the Trade Center."
Everyone who worked on the World Trade Center is probably having the same feelings right now- the pipe fitters, electricians, suppliers, engineers, and architects. Many thousands participated in the great achievement that was the World Trade Center. You were in an elite group, and though you must have been one of the junior architects (what age were you then- 35?) I am sure your professional investment was as great as any other.
On Tuesday you saw the buildings fail. I cannot imagine how that could have been for you. No one at Yama's office could have conceived of the inconceivable. But the failure happened. Survivors have said that the impacts of each jet were felt but the buildings just gently swayed. Even then failure seemed impossible. But as you said when I called on Tuesday night "at 1200 degrees steel starts to buckle", and "we didn't consider that amount of jet fuel." You also made an interesting comment that I world like to know more about- "thank god the stairs worked."
On the CBC, a Canadian survivor described how amazed he was that he could descend from an extreme upper floor, down the stairs beyond the burning floors because he was shielded in the stairwell. Horribly, he was the only one in his office to go down instead of up. Also on tv, a fireman sitting in rubble, hot and dirty said "the architects who designed this building should be very proud. There is allot of void space in the plan. If any one could have survived we will find them." That was on Thursday.
So to write this article, I am going to interview you. I will call tonight, but maybe you can send me a few thoughts in advance. Tell me what went right with the buildings. What was the team like that designed the Trade Center? I'll also want to ask- why not the jet fuel? Was it hubris? The same question can be asked of all America. In 1969 we put two men on the moon. We had eradicated smallpox, completed the interstate highway system. We had earned the monumentality of the Trade Center. Has any building complex before or since used that much steel? How long did the architects think these towers would last?
Those are some of the questions I would like to ask.
much love
Marc
*
Dear Marc,
Watching the North Tower in flames, followed by what seemed to be the two towers being pierced by a very large airplane- I clutched, I grabbed my face, I choked, I became very emotional. I was speechless in disbelief. I was embarrassed. I left the room.
I had been watching a large TV in the east conference room of our office with my colleagues. As if anyone was listening, I was quite vocally mumbling things like "they've hit it in the third zone above the 78th floor", "it was designed for the impact of a large passenger plane", "it will not fall..." Although the room was filled with engineers and architects, nobody really heard me. No one really cared or understood what I was talking about.
Watching the explosion of the South Tower due to its floors collapsing was like getting a stake in my heart. Not since we lost your brother Scot in '92, did I have this feeling. The gasp in the room was very loud. I choked. I left. I called Pene and told her to come get me- I cannot stay here. I'll just walk home (we live about two miles from the office). She counseled me to calm down, stay there. I went back into the conference room. Left the room again, came back, and did the same for much of the day.
That day, that morning, a reflection, a memory image occurred that flashed me back to 1963 in what we at MYA called "the New York Room". Your mother had called to say Kennedy has been shot. I told Yama. Yama came into the room saying "the President has been shot, get a TV in here". Colleagues and I watched the aftermath of a horrible, history-altering event. We were in the presence of a 10' tall architectural model of the World Trade Center complex. It was in the process of being studied, as the tallest buildings in the world.
As designers we were very interested in how it would work, how it would macroscopically enhance NY and its skyline. How it would enhance life at work, at shopping, at relaxing, at play. We weren't terribly impressed with the fact that it would also be the largest construction project in history. We just wanted it to work, to work right, to last forever, and for it to be beautiful.
The "NY Team" including Yama, Aaron Schrier, Kip Serota, Dick Knight, Frank Arens, Jerry Karns, Violetta Dumlao, Gunnar Gruzdins, Sewa Barmi, and myself watched Dallas in horror. Among others watching were Bill Ku, Yama's chief designer. He had hired me as a designer in September 1963. We were all somewhere under 40. I was 29 then. Mike Pudist and Henry Guthard were there as well, and still at MYA. I hope at least 6 to 8 of us are still around.
When we were designing the Project we were quite aware of the B-25 that had cracked into the Empire State Building during WWII. Of consequence, the towers were designed to accommodate the impact of a large jet passenger plane (this was pre-747, 67, etc.) however we had no knowledge of the types of fuels and planes that would be used in this day and age.
In those early days the towers were considered to be the tallest at 1350'. The clients wanted them to be 100' taller than Empire State building. Ultimately the Trade Center towers finished out at 1368' and 1362'. The difference was due to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the clients) executive offices. Those were located around the 89th and 90th floors of the South Tower, and had to have 10' ceiling heights as opposed to the 8'8" ceiling height in the balance of the towers.
Seattle based structural engineers Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson designed the structural system of the Trade Center towers. Yama wanted the towers to be as tall, as slender, and as graceful as possible. His very close friend structural engineer John Skilling came up with a system that made the request possible.
Each tower was a tube within a tube. The outer "tube" was a square of 208' on each side. The inner "tube" was the tower's core. It contained elevators, exit stairs, toilets, and the building's mechanical and electrical services. These services were all shafts running through the building core, rated to what we call a "4 hr fire rating". They were intended to withstand a raging fire for up to four hours. Apparently the shattering and exploding airplanes damaged cladding and fireproofing to the point where Tower 1 stood for one hour, and Tower 2 for 1 3/4 hours before failing. Fortunately and thankfully the fireproofed shafts, and the core located stairs (none were located within the open office areas), allowed many to exit past the flaming and failing office levels.
The core was a rectangle of approximately 90' by 150'. The truss supported floors spanned column free from the inner core to the exterior wall. The exterior wall was a bearing wall, with columns occurring every 3' 4" on center; approximately shoulder width. This allowed room for viewer hand support, to give a feeling of ease and security while looking at the world from hundreds of feet and many stories above the street.
The Tower's exterior 3'4" spaced columns become 10' between the seventh and ninth levels. This allowed for large glass areas through which the gleaming 90' high ceilinged lobby could be viewed from both plaza (larger than St. Peter's) and Concourse (shopping) levels. The lobbies were entered through neatly fitted, bright mirror finished stainless steel revolving doors.
At ground level each tower had approximately the same foot print dimension as the Sears Tower in Chicago. The Sears Tower was 100' taller when it was completed, and it contains 102 floors...8 less than the Trade Center.
We didn't realize we were at the tip of a very large iceberg. Since 1963, thousands of persons went on to build the World Trade Center. Ten's of thousands worked there daily. Millions have visited.
When Pene called that morning to say that the top of one of the Trade Center Towers was in flames I was struck dumbfounded.
love,
Dad.
(Edited by Marc Awodey. First appeared in SEVEN DAYS, 9/01 Burlington, VT")
--------------
--------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
