Atlantic Free Press - Hard Truths for Hard Times

Home

Writings

The Time Has Come

Written by Tom Chartier

Friday, 02 March 2007

by Tom Chartier

‘The time has come,’ the Walrus said
‘To talk of many things:
Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and Kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot
And whether pigs have wings.’

- Lewis Carroll

Has the United States gone mad? Can an entire country completely lose its sense of reality?

On February 17, 2007, four years after President George W. Bush invaded Iraq, the U.S. Senate debated whether or not to debate the situation in Iraq. Meanwhile, the dictatorial Bush/Cheney regime agitates for war with a third country… Iran. All the tried and true deceptions used to justify the Iraqi invasion are being reprised. Does the U.S. Congress have the spine to halt Bush’s next gambit… or will they continue to debate whether to debate?

Most Americans do not trust their leaders. According to a Zogby poll taken in May 2006: “Overall, just 3% said they think Congress in general is trustworthy, compared to 24% who said President Bush is trustworthy and 29% who said they can put their faith in the national court system. Corporate leaders in America are nearly as widely distrusted as Congress – just 7% said they are trustworthy.” Americans have always had a healthy distrust of their government.

It follows, then, that in the shadow of a historically traumatic event, when a government fails to offer a timely and complete explanation, questions will be asked and conspiracy theories will arise. Some would say that any official explanation produced by a government must be the biggest conspiracy theory of all!

This brings me to the 9/11 Truth Movement. An increasingly popular conspiracy theory, the Truth Movement holds, among other things, that 9/11 was a federally orchestrated “inside job.”

I do not buy it.

According to a press release issued by the 9/11 Truth Movement to accompany a Zogby poll which the Truth Movement sponsored: “over 70 million voting age Americans distrust official 9/11 story and support new investigation of possible US government role in the attacks.”This is a significant number of Americans. However it reveals more of a mistrust of the 9/11 Investigation and official report rather than a belief in an “inside job” theory.

I have done my homework. I have read the official report of the 9/11 Commission. I have logged onto the 9/11 Truth Movement website to study “The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11, 2001.” I have diligently read every pro-conspiracy theory article that has come my way. I have watched the 9/11 Truth Movement videos such as, Loose Change and 911Mysteries: Part One. I read Steven E. Jones and books by David Ray Griffin. On the other side of the argument, I have read Popular Science’s book Debunking 9/11 Myths Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. I’ve watched the PBS Nova film Why The Towers Fell. I’ve tried to keep as open a mind as possible.

My conclusion is that the “inside job” theory does not stand up to scrutiny. I agree with the analysis offered by Dr. James B. Calvert, more about which below.

Why? Because there is an undercurrent of hysteria in the Truth Movement’s presentations. I feel more like I am being “Roved” and coerced rather than persuaded.

The Feds have not “gotten to me.” I have no government funding to protect. I do not hold an elected office. I am distinguished by my lack of connections to corporations in the military-industrial complex… or any corporations for that matter. I have nothing that could be taken away from me for failure to “toe the White House line.” And, I am not naïve: it has been shown that in the past, governments have been behind diabolical conspiracies.

I could be wrong. However, how many 9/11 Truth Movement supporters are willing to admit they might be wrong?

Let me call your attention to some of the things I find questionable about the 9/11 Truth Movement.

For one, its description of events on September 11, 2001 reads like a Hollywood action script that ascribes to government a stunning degree of competence.Could the same folks who brought you hurricane preparedness and Katrina relief be expected to orchestrate a “Mission Impossible” scenario as complex as a 9/11?

How about the Iraq“cakewalk” which has turned into the Iraq quagmire of corruption, incompetence and destruction? Are we seriously to believe that the Bush Administration is capable of organizing and executing anything… aside from stolen elections and propaganda?

The 9/11 Truth Movement inadvertently gives the Bush/Cheney administration far too much credit. (On the other hand, is Bush’s use of foolish behavior and tongue-tied speech a smoke screen to mask his darker purposes… like the destruction of the Constitution and quest for dictatorial power?)

Let’s consider the films. I make it a point to never trust films, DVDs or videos for proof. Film is the most powerful propaganda tool yet invented because what you see is a presentation crafted very carefully in the way the film makers want you to see it. While viewers are being directed in their thinking, they are also being manipulated subliminally through sound, image and time. There are more persuasive tricks to mislead viewers in documentaries than I can count. The 9/11 Truth Movement documentaries are packed with them. So are some of the debunking films.

If you don’t believe FOX news then why would you believe a 9/11 video?

How about the 9/11 Truth Movement’s call for a new investigation? The harsh reality is that most of the forensic evidence is long gone. Indeed, one of the assertions of the 9/11 Truth Movement is that the U.S.Government deliberately removed most of the evidence before inspectors could cast an eye on it. Investigators from the National Institute of Science and Technology may argue they had sufficient evidence to satisfactorily complete their extensive, 10,000-page report. Whatever, the hasty removal of debris could show that someone had something to hide, but does it prove a government-orchestrated inside job? Could the quick removal of WTC debris have been organized to hide evidence of illegal corner cutting by the NY Port Authority when it built the towers? Or could the city of New York been eager to find missing loved ones and comrades and clean up the emotionally disturbing mess?

Is the 9/11 Truth Movement willing to consider the possibility that the innovative, lightweight design of the Twin Towers was flawed? Let’s look at the analysis of the collapse of the Twin Towers through the eyes of a structural engineer who has no evident interest in conspiracy theories. Denver University Professor, Dr. James B.Calvert, (Associate Professor Emeritus of Engineering, University of Denver Registered Professional Engineer, State of Colorado) writes: “this kind of structure has an inherent failure mode.” Calvert’s study points out that with a radically different and flimsy design, the Twin Towers were the exact opposite of the solid Empire State Building, which survived the impact by a B-52 bomber in 1945.

If a new investigation took place, would government agencies co-operate? Would the White House stifle co-operation? Would pro-conspiracy investigators be prepared to accept evidence they do not like from structural engineers? Are pro-conspiracy investigators then going to cherry-pick the evidence they want? One wonders if the 9/11 Truth Movement isn’t working backwards. Have they first decided the verdict, and then, second, gone about seeking the evidence to substantiate it?

We’ve seen what kind of disaster can result from cherry-picking evidence to make a case.Just look at the flawed intelligence used by Bush to justify his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I have no doubt there’s more to 9/11 than we have been told. There are unanswered questions in the official report. What has been hidden? Incompetence? Illegal operations and manipulations? Illegal kickbacks? Even the chairmen of the 911Commission felt the need to equivocate.Dedicated readers might want to delve into Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton.

In any event, I wish any new investigation the best of luck. If it can be proved that the Bush Administration did have warnings and decided not to heed them,surely that would bring down Bush and end the endless war. A worthy goal. Is there conclusive evidence that the government deliberately decided not to heed the warnings because Bush Administration objectives would be best served by another PearlHarbor?

However,what I find most disturbing is the reaction by the 9/11 Truth Movement to those who question the evidence offered up as proof on the “inside job” theory. This is discussed in detail in the afterword of PopularScience’s book. Conspiracy theory supporters seem to divide the world into two camps: Themselves, who claim to “know” there is overwhelming proof of government involvement and those outsiders who accept the “official” story which conspiracy buffs see as a massive government cover-up. They see only black and white with no grey areas. How unfortunate. And how fundamentalist. It is within the grey areas that healthy debate and questioning live… that is where answers are to be found.

One very side, are we confronted with fundamentalism run amok? In trying to defeat its enemy, has the 9/11 Truth Movement become rather a lot like it?The Movement has taken on a faith-based,“with us or against us,” quality.Does the 9/11 Truth movement rule out evidence when it is seen to be inimical to its cause?

Behind closed doors, the Bush administration must be as pleased as punch by the“faith-based” 9/11 Truth Movement. Unyielding faith in his own righteousness has been Bush’s justification for his criminal acts. Meanwhile, single-minded pursuit of the Truth Movement’s agenda could delay the investigation of the Bush Administration’s questionable activities.

Clearly,the Bush administration is rife with shady manipulations.For Bush and Cheney, it is always a game of “let’s see what we can get awaywith to advance our agenda.” Look at the incremental power grabs that have crept in on little Gonzales feet; examine the Bush administration use of Signing Statements. Is the 9/11 Truth Movement blinded by its own faith and therefore incapable of following the best leads?

Does the 9/11 Truth Movement take energy away from real investigations into more provable impeachable offenses? There are many of these. For one account, I refer you to Elizabeth de la Vega’s book United States v. George W. Bush et al. Even as 9/11 Truth’s dedicated scientists and scholars focus on events that took place six years ago and are debating the speed at which the Twin Towers collapsed, the U.S. Navy is in place in the Arabian Sea waiting to start another war.

The9/11 Truth Movement rules out the possibility that 19 members of al-Qaeda could actually pull off the attacks. However, that negation smothers the biggest question of all. Just what has the United States been doing to inspire such acts of terror?Whydo “they hate us”?

In his superlative article of investigative journalism, What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks? (Counterpunch,Vol. 14. No.3/4, February 2007), Christopher Ketcham asks several questions:What did the U.S. government know in advance of 9/11? Why did our government do nothing with information handed to it by Israeli agents working (illegally) in the U.S? A close study of Ketcham’s article might make one wonder if the CIA (illegally) subcontracts work to the government of Israel.

The 9/11 Truth Movement supporters seek to blame the Bush/Cheney administration for covering up the real story of 9/11 or, even worse, for orchestrating an “inside job.” Good and wise people can and should debate the points of this argument…but rationally… impartially… and fairly without pre-judgment. The floor is open.

Meanwhile there are facts that cannot be ignored about which we should be using all of our energies instead of chasing snipes.

The argument over 9/11 wastes too much time while the real game runs free…unchecked.

Comments (27) add comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

a guest: What about WTC 7 http://www.myspace.com/katncandy

Like the NIST report, you have conveniently left out any mention of the Salomon Brothers building also known as WTC 7 which fell at 5:20 on 9/11 due to "uncontrolled" fires. No other steel-framed building in the history of the world has collapsed due to fire. You haven't done your homework. This weekend, BBC reports from 9/11 came to light that showed reporters saying that the building had collapsed as it looms in the background of the live shot. It takes weeks to wire a building for controlled demolition. Someone fed them a script and the media ran with it. CNN also did a story saying the building was gonig to collapse, which it did one hour later in 6.6 seconds. The WTC towers 1 and 2 both collapsed in less than 15 seconds and the concrete was pulverized to dust measured in microns. Google Franklin cover-up. We're dealing with some pretty vile characters here and Katrina was probably a sacrifice of some megalomaniacal entities who don't give a whit about the little people. The Franklin cover-up was real. I live in Omaha. I know people intimately who confirmed the truth about what went on. Who are the insane people in this equation? We who question the madness or people like you who are too afraid to consider that what we are saying is the truth?

March 03, 2007

a guest: It makes no difference http://cyanidehole.blogspot.com

what anyone can prove about the WTC collapse. You told the truth when you said: "Most Americans do not trust their leaders. According to a Zogby poll taken in May 2006: 'Overall, just 3% said they think Congress in general is trustworthy, compared to 24% who said President Bush is trustworthy and 29% who said they can put their faith in the national court system. Corporate leaders in America are nearly as widely distrusted as Congress just 7% said they are trustworthy.' Americans have always had a healthy distrust of their government."

Indeed. And we have come to this pass because, not only have Americans always distrusted government but, in the 20th century, government has proved again and again that it cannot BE trusted. There was the JFK assassination. There was Vietnam. There was (plug in your con-job of choice).

What nobody seems to heed though is the simple fact that democracy is impossible in any country that has secret police. Secret police and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts. And the U.S. today has more secret police than any nation in history (FBI, CIA, BATF, NSA, NIS, and the rest of that alphabet soup), including Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Reich. And neither Stalin nor Hitler had access to computers and high-tech surveillance technology.

Maybe the 911 conspiracy buffs are cranks -- but maybe they're just reacting to a situation that thinkers among us have known for sixty years or more. I hear lots of proposals to restore democracy in America (and I've made a few of those pitches myself) but an essential first step is to rid ourselves of the horde of plainclothes cops that infest our daily lives.

March 03, 2007

a guest: ... http://piglipstick.blogspot.com/

Good God man, I could see the conspiracy unfolding before my eyes after the initial shock, several hours into that day.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING about the 'official' fairy tale holds water, and you'd rather believe it than disbelieve it?
Just one aspect of your thoughts above - the competency of this criminal cabal. They are quite competent at what they WANT to have happen. Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps Iraq has turned out exactly as planned, or that perhaps it was sort of an OK thing to make New Orleans somewhat less black? Yes they are that filthy, and yes they are capable of doing all these things.

March 03, 2007

a guest: 'Insider' is a wider term than 'tribals settling old scores'

Nah! There are semantic problems all over the place. Anyway it's 'game on' and things are going to get a lot worse, before some time in the distant future a consensus is reached that nobody finds completely satisfactory. As the fictional Macbeth said, "I've waded so far through blood that it is more easy to go on than to return."

March 03, 2007

a guest: my thoughts

Most of your points are opinion. Like the very first one- about the action film script. This is nothing but opinion. It isn't relevant to the issue at hand. People doubt the governments official story because the facts of that day do not corroborate with it.

When you speak about the possibility of structural failure you ignore the other facts that contradict this idea as a possible explanation. I'm talking about documented explosions throughout the building, The Fire Chief calling from the 72nd floor saying there are only two small fires left and that he only needs two land lines to put them out, blast points ejecting from the building, black smoke indicating an oxygen starved fire, the fact that building 7 fell in the exact same way and was not hit by a plane (had no jet fuel), the fact that these building fell at near free fall speed, the fact that the core is a vertical structure and it's collapse cannot be explained by any "pancake theory", and much much more. So again- you haven't confronted the facts or presented them in a fair light. This is nothing but ramble and opinion. You're entitled to your opinions, but don't expect to force them on the American population as truth.

If you've done your research as you say you have you should know all these things. So.. what is your agenda? Why don't you mention them?

March 03, 2007

a guest: 9/11 lies at the heart of the real game.

"The argument over 9/11 wastes too much time while the real game runs free…unchecked."

9/11 lies at the heart of the real game. I do not need a conspiracy theory. I just need to know how building seven fell and how the BBC and CNN reported it before it happened. How the defense system did not work and who is responsible. How the highjackers were trained in US bases, and how they received money from pakistani intelligence. Is this too much to ask? The real game will be checked when these questions begin to receive truthful answers, until then the charade will go on covered under the banner of 'a war on terror' which is no more than a propaganda stunt to fool the American people into buying a dirty agenda.

March 03, 2007

a guest: ...

One aspect of the collapses on 9/11 that has not been well mentioned in the perfect symmetry in which the buildings collapsed. The plane crashes certainly did not start symmetrical fires in the twin towers, nor were the fires of WTC-7 widespread. By what mechanism, then, could all three buildings have fallen straight down?

March 03, 2007

a guest: The Clousau Effect

It's a very odd, compelling, and frightening situation. No one trusts the US government, inside or outside the US. No one has ever had so many justifiable reasons to distrust the US government.

The Bush administration has this uncanny 'Clousau Effect' going on: they are astoundingly incompetent, and yet everything seems to be going according to stated neo-con planning. 9/11 happens to effectively green light plans to invade the Middle East. The predictable debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq happens to destabilize the region, providing both the rationale and a launch pad to invade Iran. And destabilize the region. US military presence in the energy rich Middle East is pretty much guaranteed for the foreseeable future. Thus, in keeping with the Clousau Effect, a government led by incompetent people with careers in oil and gas and weapons are responsible for catastrophic but highly profitable wars that unintentionally leave them with military control over the world's energy resources.

I expect we can also look forward to new regions of catastrophe in Latin America. Cultivated instability in Cuba after Castros death will lead to intervention, and hopefully, if everything goes disastrously wrong there, it should serve as a catalyst to invade Venezuela as an incompetent response to yet another spontaneous, unpredictable crisis. It won't have anything to do with oil. It will be about an unprecedented form of narco-terrorism. It will be a catastrophe, but it will all work out for the US in the end. (This will make more sense if you remind yourself of the neo-cons first war on terror in the Reagan era.)

Incidentally, 'conspiracy' isn't a real word anymore. Once governments start leaking their own illegal activities as conspiracy theories, the game is over. All conspiracy theories are by definition, unverifiably false. The new game is Jedi mind trick. Follow advertising. Fear sells. A crisis is a need. War is a product. Failure is success. Perpetual war is security. Propaganda is freedom of the press. (And it *really* is. It means freedom of stake holders in the corporate media to market profitable wars without journalistic interference.)

March 04, 2007

a guest: Fair enough... http://www.truthmove.org

But I would suggest that you investigate and address the mountains of evidence other than "controlled demolition" that point to government complicity in 9/11. Here's a good place to refresh your memory:

http://www.truthmove.org/content/9-11-truth

March 04, 2007

a guest: What the World Trade Center Building Designers said: before and after 9/11 http://www.911blogger.com/blog/877

Before 9/11

“A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”[2]

(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):

“However, O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[3]

1993

“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”[4]

“The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[5]

2001

“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[6]

[Leslie Robertson:] “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[7]

[Frank A. Demartini:] “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[8]

Sept 3-7, 2001—just before 9/11

“The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.”[9]

After 9/11

“[The] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in 2005 state that it has been ‘unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.’”[12]

“In 2002, Leslie Robertson wrote: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”[13]

“[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report… The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it… Yes there was a red hot metal seen [in the WTC rubble] by engineers. Molten—Molten means flowing—I’ve never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was.” Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson [MP3] by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006

Analysis:

Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.

· Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph. Interestingly he made this claim only a few days before 9/11.[14] A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that “A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.[15] Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. He said in 1984-5 that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”[16]

· Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire”. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[17] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?

· NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no “evidence to indicate consideration of… thousands of gallons of jet fuel”. This statement is clearly false. See John Skilling’s statement: “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire… The building structure would still be there.”[18]

· In an interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had “never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal.” This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: “Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.”[19]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[20]

· Robertson is also incorrect when he says that “if they had seen [Molten Steel, they had not] performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was. This statement is false. FEMA analyzed samples of the molten steel.[21] However, NIST did not even mention the molten steel and called it “irrelevant to [their] investigation.”[22] This could have simply been a mistake by Robertson.

for references notes and more analysis:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6040

March 04, 2007

a guest: You Paint a Narrow Picture!

All of the eyewitness accounts recorded that day by the main stream media of bombs and explosions from the basement levels to the point of impact of the planes cannot be false as they number in the hundreds; to dismiss these accounts is to be ignorant of the most telling and important evidence recorded in real time as the event occurred. The NIST report which as you stated being ten pages long did not even consider these alarming accounts of fire fighters and victims.
Your theories and opinions do not stand up to scrutiny, and paint a picture of a linear minded faugh.

March 04, 2007

a guest: Why the towers fell: Two theories http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.

I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”

The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.

Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.

The prevailing theory

The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).

However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.

After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”

The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.

Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.

The politically unthinkable theory

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.

The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.

The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation.

March 04, 2007

a guest: Katrina and the Bush administration http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Always willing to call them incompetent, never criminal. Katrina was an intentional act of ethnic cleansing. Michael Chertoff deliberately witheld aid after the storm hit and the levees broke.

In 2001, New Orleans levees were on the FEMA top 3 list of potential catastrophes. Instead of strengthening levees, the funding was slashed.

See:
BushCo. Nukes New Orleans
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2005/09/bushco-nukes-new-orleans.html

I find it very odd that supposedly thinking people keep giving an admininstration that has committed Crimes Against Peace -- for which Nazis and Japanese officers were hanged -- the benefit of the doubt.

I guess it's because all US administrations are criminal, and the populace is trained to ignore America's international crimes.

It is a cold hard fact that they did nothing to stop the 9/11 attacks, and a hell of a lot to allow it. If that's not enough to get us a real investigation, not run by one of the authors of the Bush National Security Strategy (Zelikow), then I don't know what to tell you. You are simply not on the side of truth and justice.

The Facts of September 11th
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george-monbiot-these-are-facts-of.html

March 04, 2007

a guest: ...

"The argument over 9/11 wastes too much time while the real game runs free…unchecked."

This is what Chomsky and others advocate, and frankly it's beyond absurd. 9/11 is the hart of issue, it justifies everything from attacks on Civil Liberties to Wars of aggression. What else could have the power to actually fully delegitimise and stop the fraudulent "war on terror" except 9/11 truth? It’s an unfunny ignorant joke to try and marginalize the critical need for a real investigation into the attacks.

March 05, 2007

a guest: 10th grade physics, gray areas and hysteria

In addition to the cogent comments made above I would like to add that all you really need to study is 10th grade physics. Free fall speed, three buldings, no resistance provided by any supporting structures. The law of the conservation of momentum and angular momentum are not GRAY issues at all. If the author thinks Newtonian physics is 'gray' then I wonder what he regards as black and white. Believing in physics is not irrational. Discounting or ignoring it - as you appear to do - is.

I imagine you will just chalk my comment up to my being a hysteric...... you know, placing my faith in science and physics and all that rubbish.

dr. rdw
Forensic Neuropsychologist

March 05, 2007

a guest: No hunt for Bin Laden

The man who the US say masterminded the world's worst terrorist atrocity is not on the FBI's 'most wanted list for 9/11. They have admitted there is 'not enough evidence to prove a connection.

The patsy hijackers were trained by the CIA. Norman Mineta 's testimony about Cheney orderng the plane approaching the Pentagon not to be shot down was ignored by the Kean commission. Danny Jowenko says Building 7 was beyond doubt a controlled demolition.

How much more evidence do you need to change your emotional mindest?

March 05, 2007

a guest: Nearly 3000 victims

You know, there were nearly 3000 poor victims of the attacks of 9/11. You freely admit that the US administration has not allowed a proper investigation of the events, that they look like they've covered up something, and that they may have even allowed this to happen, and yet you talk as if the 9/11 truth movement is full of people who are unwilling to accept the truth. The least the world has a right to is an independent investigation that responds to all the unanswered questions. The US Administration owe this to their people, in consideration of the nearly 3000 lives that were needlessly lost. I repeat, nearly 3000 people died. That, sir, deserves an explanation far far better than has been fed to us by the mass media thus far.

March 05, 2007

a guest: It's getting to the point

It's getting to the point
that when I encounter another attempted debugging of 9/11 truth, or, the more common ad hominems from anti-9/11 truth posters I run through the following sequence:?
Is the quality of the writing such that the poster comes off as a yahoo? - If so, ‘Nuff said.

Or, is the writer simply doing the 'you're a traitor!' rag? - 'Oh, excuse me'?
Does the poster simply regurgitate warmed-over snot from Popular Mechanics, or one of the many sophomoric 'debunking' web sites? - Go study physics 101.

Or is it one of the left-wing disinfo folks who use ad hominem with little discussion of empirical data except to attack ‘straw men’ etc. Other common tactics of left-wing Mockingbirds is to ridicule and berate '9/11 truthers' for creating a distraction from the left-wing’s 'oh so terribly effective' anti-war efforts... Question? Do they ever wonder what is really going on or are they simply lemmings?' All well and good to be anti-war but do they actually imagine their officially-tolerated safety valve of a movement will have any effect upon the Nazis plutocrats who currently own and run the show? Tom, Tom, Tom....go see Dr. Glasser for some ‘Reality Therapy’. Or come to my practice and I’ll see what I can do for you.

Or finally, is it somebody who simply is a victim of cognitive dissonance and can't face what 9/11 truth implies about the true nature of our plutocrat/corporatist/fascist government.... someone who is so afraid of the rabbit hole that they deny what they can touch, taste, hear, see and feel. What they see.
All of the above so-called 'debunkers', in fact, are contemptible except the last ... with whom I can sympathize because I can understand how hard it is to accept that everything you have been told about how the current government works in your country is a lie. And that the vast majority of the wonderful myths and illusions you have believed about your 'country' are, in fact, falsehoods.??And a last comment to those cretins who argue that 'truthers' do this because they get some kind of 'high' from conspiracy theorizing.… or that advocating 9/11 Truth has become a kind of religious fundamentalism or reflects ‘black and white thinking’ i.e., thinking in terms only of polar opposites.. I have only to say..… in my case, Clinical Psychologists are not noted for black and white thinking but we do seek the truth. Fundamentalism is equally eschewed. And finally, coming to realize the sordid truths about our plutocratic and hegemonic government is not a pleasant thing to experience. I still have serious plans for restoring my house, a classic sports car and motorcycle... of participating in my son's life, making my forensic neuropsychology practice thrive and planning for a decent retirement. But now, all of that seems less important.… I am still doing those things but they take a back seat to working to save my country so that my patriotic belief in an honorable nation can once again be justified and so that my son might have some kind of decent future and a country free of the neocons and plutocrats to experience it in. Waking up the world to 9/11 Truth and our (and other)government’s use of false flags to manipulate citizens and all that that implies about the true ruling class, their behavioral history and future intentions is perhaps one of the only ways to bring that structure down. The whole edifice must come down for humanity to have a decent future.
dr rdw

March 06, 2007

a guest: The Time Has Come

I would like to thank all the good folks who have posted comments regarding my story, The Time Has Come. You have all done an excellent job of proving my point. I couldn't have done better myself. NONE of you got it! Once I stated I did not buy the inside job theory... and I repeat, theory... off went the anger buttons and lights upstairs.

To quote from my own story: "I could be wrong. However, how many 9/11 Truth Movement supporters are willing to admit they might be wrong?" Evidently NONE of them if I am to take these comments serious. Thanks guys!

Here's another little quote from my own article you may have missed. Concerning why I might not buy into the 911 Truth Movement I wrote: "Why? Because there is an undercurrent of hysteria in the Truth Movements presentations. I feel more like I am being Roved and coerced rather than persuaded."

This is exactly what most of these comments do. Rant and rave with anger to condemn and coerce others because why? They are not open or respectful of differing views! We are either "with you or against you." A differing opinion is NOT allowed!

How nice. Dissent and disbelievers must be oppressed. It's coming from both sides. Rather than serve debate these comments serve to intimidate. I for one refuse to be intimidated by either the Bush Administration or the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Did any of you bother to actually "read" the rest of my article? It doesn't seem so. Nor does it seem any of the commenters are at all familiar with any of my other articles and stance on the Bush Administration. I have dared to speak out my scepticism of the inside job theory and for this I am condemned. Is this really the kind of thinking you all want for your country? This is exactly the type of mentality emanating from the White House.

I have also stated I wish any new investigation the best of luck. I do. However, I seriously doubt the 9/11 Truth Movement, the way it is going, will ever be able to prove anything conclusively either way in a manner which will have any success towards an impeachment... despite what they believe.

Did any of you bother to read the article the article I cited by Christopher Ketcham in CounterPunch? Evidently not. Here I've gone and pointed you in the direction of evidence of conspiracy that might actually work in bringing down Bush and Cheney... and nobody looks... at least none of all knowing people who have posted comments.

To reiterate, you have all proven my point! I thank you all from the bottom of my heart!

Tom Chartier

March 06, 2007

a guest: The Time Has Come http://Atlantic Free Press

I have read thru Tom Chartier's article twice to make sure I was taking the full issue in. I concur with just about everything Tom has penned and admire the ironies, self bashing and honesty. We HAVE lost our country to the point where no one takes rsponsibility for anything without the agreement of government policy. One point on FOX News - it reports on a parallel Universe and for that reason, I check in to see what is going on out there in the galaxy.
I portend to nither being a liberal, conservative, Libertarian or member of the Green or Communist parties. There are no parties anymore. I suppose I wwould have been a Goldwater Republican, now considered so far to the right, I could get stoned in the streets. But what of conspiracy issues regarding 9/11 and 'our side' being responsible for it. Come on people...we have been a target for radicals forever. It was only when our own radicals took office that the world spun out of control, the people lost their trust and we finally realized that 'We The People" is directed to a very tiny segmant of the total population.
Tom did his homework, I have followed this issue with one part synasysm and one part fright. It is time that "WE The People" stop whining, deferring to internationally challenged leaders and start taking action and stop crying in our watered down for more profit beer. If you don't do something, you have NO rights to complain.
L.J. Williams

March 06, 2007

a guest: the time has come. http://atlantic free press

The total oil reserves of Irak are worth $6.720.000.000.000.00 at $60.00 a barrel according to figures released by the CIA, see Nationmaster.com
If the Neocons want to democratize the Middle-East, then they control the flow of oil in that region. The total amount of money of these reserves of oil are beyond belief. The Twin Towers would have been a small sacrifice to lay your hands on the oil in that region. Bush and cronies are a nutcase.They would blow up the White House and move the administration to Crawford. Then the Military Commission Act would give him the possibilty to declare a nation wide state of emergency to rule the USA for as long as he likes! In this article I missed flight 93 and the coment of Mr.Silberstein.
Flight 93 and all of her passengers were NEVER found!! For all we know it could have crashed anywhere, but certainly not near Shanksville. Ask the local police for more details. Steel buildings are very flexible, the top of it sysin the wind,because otherwise it would break!! Planes on impact DON'T produce a fine dust of pulverized concrete in the building. Never mind the 9/11 Commission or the Truth Movement,we should ask ourselves WHY these buildings came down and who stood to gain by it. Maybe the people who are after the amount of money I mentioned before. Removing the evidence is a crime. It happened under the guidance of the NYPD and and the FBI,CIA.
Nobody was allowed to come near to the place of the crime. Why remove evidence if you have nothing to fear?? After it's a democratic country. Right? Kind regards,Joop van de Swaluw, the Netherlands.

March 08, 2007

a guest: understanding mr. chartier

I suppose mr. Chartier thinks the truth of what happened or didn't happen on 9-11 takes focus away from his vision of seeing a Bush-Cheney impeachment. Why should we care? 9-11 is bigger than a politician. With this penning, it's clear he tried to throw a cherry-bomb in the middle of ordinary truth seeking citizens around the world looking for answers to a crime that is the foundation upon which these ME wars are being built upon. Most people I know who are not turning their heads away from the glaring anomalies of the official 9-11 account, are doing so because they feel that to expose the sham that is the government's theory, is to stop dead in its track the insane dogs of neocon wars. That imo is a bigger vision than a Bush-Cheney impeachment, and it's probably a more effective way to avoid the Iran attack. Walking in circles with placards sure isn't going to stop it. We've been there, done that with Iraq.

Chartier's logic for swallowing the official account? Because those that don't, have an air of 'hysteria' about them. ??? OK, nevermind that intense emotions resembling 'hysteria' could be entirely normal given the implications of the topic at hand-- the most telling aspect of this 'logic' is that it reveals how mr. Chartier makes his big, potentially life-changing decisions. He observes other people's reactions; he doesn't think critically for himself. I wonder if Chartier is aware of that himself?

March 08, 2007

a guest: To the author of comment # 22.

I would like to ask just why the author of comment #22 feels it necessary to be so vindictive and rude? What does he, or she, hope to accomplish with such an emotionally driven personal attack on me? Once again, like so many who have commented on my story the author of #22 has missed my point entirely. And in doing so as backed it up.

9/11 is the pivitol moment. The issue is what was the US doing that led up to it? And now, with the disaster in the Mid-East what can be done to change course and hopefully, fix things. This is not going to happen without a distance, calm rational approach fair to all parties involved. Since this has not been the method of Bush or Cheney and since they have committed a number of assaults on oue constition let alone war crimes, removal of them is the first step.

I have stated, my opinion, based on much reasearch both pro and con on 9/11. For every piece of evidence prooving government complicancy one can find evidence to the contrary... if one is willing to look outside the circle of the 9/11 Truth Movement. But evidently, as commentor # 22 shows, alternate opinions are blasphemy.

How sad. This kind of hysterical thinking can only open the door for future disasters.

I stand by my story.

Tom Chartier

March 08, 2007

a guest: from author of comment #22

Mr. Chartier if my post comes off as a vindictive, rude, emotionally-driven personal attack, I can tell you it wasn't conscious on my part, believe it or not. Maybe I've unknowingly developed a harsh tone about the topic. This is probably due to the abuse I've weathered from strangers, acquaintances, even family members whenever I expressed doubt in the 'official theory'. Keep in mind Tom that this official account was rolled out by the White House just hours after the collapses, and they haven't deviated from this account one iota. That fact alone is stunning, in my opinion.

Please let me recount quickly a personal story. I was in Athens when the planes went in, and the towers went down. That night I was in a hotel room watching CNN Europe and I distinctly remember a woman reporter talking about another WTC building that was heavily damaged (this was WTC7), and that they were "going to bring it down". Even she herself didn't know exactly how to articulate it. She was with fire and police personnel and reported she was told by them that the area was being evacuated in order to purposefully demolish the building--in order to save lives. I remember thinking about that, being a little impressed that we had the ability to do that, to go into a burning, heavily damaged building and place enough explosives to bring it down safely. It wasn't until years later that I learned what I heard that day was impossible. There is no such technique or procedure. But I did hear, see this report on CNN Europe, Tom. What is also disturbing is NIST and FEMA's attempts to come up with a reasonable explanation for how WTC7 came down. If they had reported that the building was intentionally brought down that day to save lives, I would have gone on with my life and forgotten about it, none the wiser. But now we know why they could not publish that explanation. It takes days, maybe weeks to prepare a building of that size for safe demolition. Can you see why this is disturbing, Tom? Its the implications that reel the head.

But back to the point of your article. I understand it. You think 9-11 truth seekers are turning off potential allies in the fight. You could be right, I don't know. If you are right, then someone needs to articulate another direction.

March 09, 2007

a guest: one thing

I just want to reiterate why I think the WTC7 collapse story is so disturbing. It's because it shows that someone in NYC that day was feeding information to the MSM and they screwed-up 'the script' by letting slip foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse. Kind of like the little dog Toto pulling aside the Wizard's curtain ever so slightly. At least that's the way I see.

Anyway, back to the topic of 9-11 truth seeker's fundamentalism, or perception thereof...

March 09, 2007

a guest: To the author of comments #22 and #24

Thank you for you last posting. I appreciate it. Now that's more like the type of healthy respectful debate we need.

best regards,

Tom Chartier

March 09, 2007

a guest: The time has come. http://atlantic free press

Bush sr. ended the first Gulf war when the Irakis pulled out of Q'wait,he complied with the UN mandate. Gen. Schwarzkopf wanted to go into Bagdad but Bush sr. said no. Long before the Irak invasion CNN/Time Warner/Turner came forward with the phrase:The forgotten war. Reminding Bush jr. that daddy forgot to finish his war! When the Towers came down CNN was the first to utter the words: America at war! Immediately after Muslims were held responsible for this attack. The word terrorists was on everybody's lips. A new enemy was found and the military industrial complex started to make overtime. It's an industry important to America's economy! It's very well possible that 9/11 had to happen for several reasons.It's up to the individual to lay the connections. America at war!! Maybe it was planned well well in advance. Jack Bolton said that the UN is a useless institution and that gave the USA the reason to invade Irak by herself.The gun diplomacy has always been USA's strongest point. To solve problems in a civilized way proves to be very hard. Once a cowboy always a cowboy, ask the Iraki people. All options are still open on IRAN.As Vera Lynn said:Till we meet again.All the best,Joop van de Swaluw, the Netherlands-Peter Stuyvesant country.

March 10, 2007

Write comment