The 9/11 Key to Political Transformation

-- A belated strategic initiative to turn the world around
by W. David Kubiak

Given the momentum and added troop strength of the corporate forces now in power, citizens will face unending appeals this year to help combat firestorms on many different fronts.

Already we are struggling to prioritize our efforts to stop war atrocities, torturers' appointments, escalating Pentagon appropriations, horrific new weapons, the resurrection of Star Wars, and the imminent draft, not to mention environmental assaults, our ballooning debt, attacks on our rights, the slashing of the social safety net, and a dozen other centrifugal symptoms of the sickness at the top.

Alternatively we could step back a pace or two and see where all this carnage connects and focus on a strategy that might stop it all at once.

We need what social analyst George Lakoff calls a "strategic initiative" - a plan in which a change in one critical area has automatic reverberating effects in many, many, many other realms.

THE SOURCE OF DARK FORCE
Looking at the onslaughts we face, it's obvious that this administration's primary source of war-making, rights-taking, vote-raking power is still and always has been the "official 9/11 story." The exquisitely timed "surprise attack" it portrays instantly justified what we now know was a long planned agenda to take us into endless war, crippling debt and constitutional twilight.

There is now an enormous amount of scholarly evidence and expert testimony that a) clearly demonstrates the official 9/11 story is a sham, and supports the millions of New Yorkers who, according to a recent Zogby poll, believe that top US officials "consciously" allowed the attacks to happen and that we desperately need a new investigation now.

This is no longer a fringe position. Identical calls have been made by fifty victim families and over one hundred prominent Americans including three 2004 presidential candidates [Nader (Ind), Cobb (Green), Badnarik (Libertarian)], respected rabbis and imams, historians and legislators, military officials and diplomats, as well as celebrated leaders from the environmental, alternative economics and "peace & justice" communities. Examining these eminent names on the 9/11 Truth Statement at 911truth.org will quickly show that with regard to 9/11 at least, today's so-called "conspiracy theorists" are not who they used to be.

Indeed one of America's greatest theologians, Dr. David Ray Griffin, methodically demolished the credibility of the Kean Commission cover-up in his latest book, "The 9/11 Commission Report - Omissions and Distortions."

As this extraordinary breadth of skepticism clearly signifies, the demand for 9/11 truth is not about to go away. It is not simply a matter of belated justice for the tragedy's immediate victims. The attacks have since been relentlessly exploited to keep generating new victims for many years on many fronts both here at home and in places far away.

UNPLUGGING THE NEOCON POWER SUPPLY
The fabricated "official 9/11 story" has in fact empowered so many subsequent offenses that 9/11 truth has become the mother of all issues and remains the key to widespread redress. If anyone is really looking for a "strategic initiative" to unplug the entire neocon power supply, consider the impact that full disclosure of 9/11 deceit would have upon the following range of concerns.

Uncovering the truth of 9/11 is simultaneously:

A peace issue: the public's ongoing ignorance of official 9/11 lies will continue to feed the fear and hostility the "War on Terror" depends upon. Once the truth is known, "Remember 9/11!" will take on a whole new significance and foster a vital "fool me twice" mistrust of our military-industrial complex and most aggressive leaders.

A national security issue: as long as 9/11 lies are exploited to mount support for brutal resource wars, the more the Muslim world will rightfully despise us and threaten our kids for generations to come. (Some indeed argue that creating this durable new defense budget-sustaining threat was a more important motive for the phony 9/11-to-Iraq war segue than seizing oil or shoring up Sharon.)

A children's issue: the social programs sacrificed for "War on Terror" boondoggles and profiteering overwhelmingly victimize the young, especially those with disabilities.

An environmental issue: post-9/11 calls for "energy independence" have been seized and twisted by Bush's corporate sponsors to justify more wilderness oil drilling, abusive environmental practices, and a rebirth of nuclear power, not to mention a lengthening list of corporate takings from the ecological commons.

A public health issue: in New York, official lies about post-attack air quality promise to kill more residents from toxic WTC pollution than those who died from the attacks themselves; nationally, the cost of the 9/11-fueled War on Terror is gutting public health budgets across the land.

A women's issue: the ongoing costs of 9/11-related warfare, job loss and social program austerity fall far more heavily upon women and children nationwide; and 9/11 fear has politically empowered the far right to launch a war here at home on women's basic rights.

A human rights issue: the official 9/11 story has spawned such bigoted and vengeful fear that a recent Cornell University poll found that 44% of Americans are now ready to slash US Muslims' civil rights, while a nearly equal number now accept the "need" to torture prisoners.

A social justice issue: poor and minority Americans are deeply scarred by "War on Terror"-related cutbacks in social programs at the same time that their youth are the most heavily recruited by the military and sacrificed in battle as the conflict proceeds

An electoral issue: although "god, gays & guns" are often characterized as "family values" election ploys, their common denominator is fear. Fear that we are beyond self-help as a people, fear our children will not think or act like us, fear that without our firearms we are helpless in a sick and scary world. The higher the national fear quotient (and custom color-coded threat level), the more these constituencies will flock to bellowing "tough guy" leaders who peddle dread, feign infallibility, and seem happy to wield deadly force to protect them from all harm. (See Erich Fromm's "Fear of Freedom" for the classic study of how fear fuels authoritarianism and acceptance of fascist societies.)

A Constitutional liberty issue: the official 9/11 story (and deftly timed anthrax attacks) generated instant blind assent to the Constitution-shredding Patriot Act as well as scores of other presidential and Department of Justice directives that further threaten accountability and our shrinking Bill of Rights.

A national solvency issue: the "national 9/11 emergency" has allowed the Bush team to abandon any pretense of fiscal restraint, flood corporate backers with exorbitant profits, plunge the nation into an abyss of debt, and hasten arch-privatizer Grover Norquist's dream of "a government small enough to drown in a bathtub."

A media reform issue: the consistent, breathtaking refusal of mainstream media to investigate official deception since 9/11 (up through Iraq and 2004 electoral fraud) has openly exposed the industry as cowardly and/or corrupt. Thus far only the independent and second-tier media have shown any journalistic integrity regarding these questions and will benefit enormously when public outrage over the cover-up finally forces the breakup of conglomerates and across the board reform.

And so on...
REVERSING THE ARTS OF ROVE
In sum, the official 9/11 myth's emotional and political power will continue to drive the country in a dozen different destructive directions until we confront and deconstruct it with 9/11 truth.

This cynical fable has indeed become the corporatists' essential power supply upon which all their military crimes, legislative overreach, and electoral success depend. (See how incessantly they invoke it to justify every brutality, theft and assault upon our rights.)

It is, however, also their gravest vulnerability since it is only sustained by a tissue of lies, corrupt media and public ignorance.

One of Karl Rove's most useful axioms is "attack your opponent's greatest strengths." He thus focused on Kerry's war record and Gore's intellect, and systematically savaged them with loud and clever lies. We can likewise devastate support for the current administration, but honestly and honorably using 9/11 truth.

We can also use it to forge a wider, more diverse coalition with many others equally afflicted by this government's abuse of its misbegotten power. In fact, there are few groups fighting for social justice, the environment, or basic human rights in the world today who would not profit immensely from a fearless indictment of our top officials for their 9/11 lies and crimes.

THE OTHER 9/11 FEAR FACTOR
For many of us that truth may prove more disturbing than the countless lies we've recognized, but the threat will no longer be invisible, mysterious or misunderstood. It will also be within our power to deal with as a democratic people, using the force of law instead of black ops, torture or high tech brutality. Yes, it will take a lot of anachronistic courage, but recently the Ukrainians, Serbs, Venezuelans and Filipinos have all been kind enough to show us the way. Closer to home but long ago in 1775, Patrick Henry also challenged us with words that ring today.

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it now."
==========================
W. David Kubiak is a Project Censored Award-winning journalist, executive director of 911truth.org, and founder of Big Medicine, a Maine-based research & education institute focused on the corporate takeover over our country, culture and consciousness. Email: kubiak(at)nancho.net
---------------

You are quickly becoming one of our "wise ones," Magmak. Do you really believe this? Or are you simply offering it up for discussion?

-Pegatha

Magmak -

Have you ever seem
Hijacking Catastrophe / 9/11 ??

If not, you need to!

Pegatha asks me: "Do you really believe this? Or are you simply offering it up for discussion?"

I respond: What is this "this" that you ask if I believe?

(Doesn't that sound like Bill Clinton?!)

Yes, I really believe that a national focus on the issues that pertain to 9/11 is the mother of all issues. I think the material I posted states the case quite well.

Detailed and intense inquiry of key elements of 9/11 would quickly make discussion and media airplay about the new Pope, the ethics of DeLay, the war on Iraq, Social Security, the stain on the highway wall, and Michael Jackson all vaporize (or come into sharp focus).

Yes, I am offering it up for discussion. I think discussion in a democracy is always valid. More importantly, I am simply mirroring the work of many in asking us to take a long and hard look at the timelines, testimonies, record, evidence (or lack thereof), etc. This issue demands a thorough investigation by many. This issue must be brought into the public mind again, however difficult and painful that might be.

No, I do not believe every little angle of every theory that's been put forth. No, I am not prepared to advance my own theory, or to stand on any particular angle or bit of postulation or small piece of "evidence". There are, as I sure many of us already know, competing theories, conflicting theories, conflicting evidence, etc. There is also a great degree of disinformation (the Popular Mechanics article is one example). There has been a great deal of obfuscation. In many notable cases, the top intelligence and investigatory agencies of this government have blocked, stonewalled, and simply refused to follow interesting leads. More importantly, there are many routine procedures that ought to have been followed from an investigatory point of view that have not been followed in this case.

Yes, I believe this issue is the Achilles heel of the Bush/NeoCon world. I do not think they could adequately defend or explain what is now known about what went down that day. I am not going to advance a particular angle here. I'm not yet entirely sure whether I'm in the LIHOP camp or the MIHOP camp. (The theory of simple incompetence has been blown out of the water if only by the fact that those incompetents have been promoted.)

There's plenty of argument and discussion available to those who are interested via numerous web sites, several free DVD's, video at web sites, and several books. A core number of these web sites seem to me to be solid and measured in their approach, neither histrionic nor wildly running off to advance theories on other subjects. There are three "timelines" which are generally recognized to be solid in their journalistic and investigatory approaches. There is significant evidence or commentary by credentialed people from within the worlds of the military, the national government, the world of commercial aviation, construction and engineering, etc. At first glance, many of the photos and videos appear to be inconclusive, or fuzzy, or potentially PhotoShopped. However, increasingly, those doing the investigatgory research are finding videos and photos taken at the moment and published immediately, or by using photos and footage made available by citizen observers. Also, what is becoming more clear now is how key bits of information (ex: information about Atta, the photo of Atta in the Portland airport, etc.) made their way in the mainstream press very quickly, yet much other information or evidence has been suppressed or blocked.

The bottom line here is this: There are still hundreds of questions for which a reasonable answer has not been given. There was an amazing string of coincidental events. And, on the whole, our national government did not act within existing policy or protocol in a large number of ways. Our government and its leaders did not act in any way as though they were genuinely curious and eager to find out precisely what happened. And our government and its leaders seemed to have acted repeatedly in ways that were designed to sell a theory, and bury any consideration of alternatives.

None of this is new to anyone who's looked into this subject. But we all seem to have put it behind us while we debate about a dozen issues that aren't even close to being a core issue.

9/11 is the nightmare that has been visited upon the US and the world.

It is still, quite simply, a case of mass murder for which no serious investigation has taken place, and no suspect brought forward to face trial. There is some suggestion that the famous tape in which OBL took credit was a fake, and this stands next to a statement made immediately following the event by OBL in which he said quite bluntly that alQaeda was not responsible for it. Furthermore, the odds of that event going down the way it has been suggested that it did border on the astronomical. There is also serious indication that our military capability to respond to simultaneous hijackings was severely compromised by the co-presence of a NORAD drill to simulate air combat responses to multiple hijackings. As I noted elsewhere, the use of such military simulations, as well as civilian DHS exercises and drills, as "cover" is a deeply disturbing allegation.

So, yes, I think there is sufficient information that suggests that our government was, at the very best, grossly incompetent, and that this information deserves intensive investigation with the highest capabilities (even if our government will not provide them). It also suggests that our government LIHOP (let it happen on purpose). But, as well-argued on one of these sites, the LIHOP angle on inquiry only opens wide the door and even more powerfully suggests that they MIHOP (made it happen on purpose). In either case, we must ask the question as to why they've covered it up, hid the evidence, obscured inquiries, etc.

Several of the web sites also offer and suggest various levels and methods for activism.


Is 9/11 an issue where we can find common ground and apply common sense?

Don't the lingering questions about 9/11 have to be put to bed before we can make serious progress on any other major issue?

No, Jill, I haven't (at least I don't believe I have).

What is it? Where is it?

I should perhaps point out that I'm a late-comer to this issue. Many of us are "veterans" of the old John Kerry forum, where a lot of these issues were discussed. I had done a lot of personal reading and research at that time, but I thought that, while the questions were valid and required answers, some of the "evidence" that was being put forth was questionable, or insufficiently strong.
If I had been a grand juror, I'd have perhaps voted to proceed with further investigation.

At the Kerry forum, for example, there were some photos that had been posted that suggested that one or both of the planes that hit the WTC carried "pods", antenna, had fired missiles, etc. I'm still not absolutely ready to "buy" this theory, but I did discover that the military has converted a few commercial aircraft with precisely this kind of technology.

Similarly, there is the debate about how a commercial jet disappeared into the Pentagon.

Increasingly, there are new findings (or perhaps I was slow to go back and re-visit the issues post-November 2nd), and much of the old ones have stood up to scrutiny.

But where I stand can be stated in the context of an old Chinese proverb:

"If you ask one person, you'll get an opinion. If you ask two people, you'll get two opinions (and maybe an argument or a controversy). If you ask a lot of people, you'll get enlightened."

I think 9/11 has to be put in front of a large body of experts on a wide range of issues, and we ought to have the opportunity to hear what everyone has to say.

Do you get FSTV?

http://www.hijackingcatastrophe.org/

but if you have FSTV they play it alot - for free

No, Jill, never heard of it (though the message is not new). Thanks for the link! I shall acquire it soon.

I note also that the book editors are/were professors in my old college program (Media Communications). I wish they'd been there when I was there, back in the late 60's (the Pleistoscene era to some).

In a TV production class, one of the student groups put together their project... and the professor (who'd been involved in the production of some of the WTW sit-coms like Mary Tyler Moore and Archie Bunker) tore it apart. They'd spliced together some interesting video clips with a sound track from a local rock band. For their effort, they got an excoriation and a C+. Many decades later, they're probably retired in a mansion living off the profits they made off MTV.

"Wise ones?" Who are these other wise ones you speak of? Are you referring to those of us that believe 911 was a wag the dog scenario?

That's quite a coincidence about your college professors! Now you would probably have alot more to discuss with them.

Also interesting about the video!

I really think you would enjoy watching Hijacking Catastrophe. It ties all of this together, with some enlightening commentary. But it would be unfortunate if you had to buy it.

A good book on the subject is Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon."

It ties in the lies of 9/11 with the BushCo rush into Iraq for the oil.

there are two aspects of 9/11 that are subject to challenge. One is the Bush Admin response to the pre-9/11 intelligence. And a good case could be made that they knew or should have known that the plot was brewing. When you have people like Richard Clarke, George Tenet and others testifying publicly to this, it's a valid and fair position, and can be easily defended from their testimony.

On the point of how the buildings collapsed, what hit them and so on. This has been investigated extensively by structural engineers. Their analyses have been published in peer-reviewed journals and on the web. I am not aware of a single analysis that showed that the damage to the WTC or the pentagon was inconsistent with planes of the given size and speed hitting them. On the contrary every analysis shows that the buildings acted as would be expected under such stresses.

The sequence of events that led to the building failures in both cases are very well understood in most if not all details. Analysis continues to this day, as there is extensive interest in making future buildings more resistant to such attacks.

The sites that talk about coverups and lack of scientific evidence are either lying or don't how to use google. Here is one place where expert analysis may be found. It's on the American Society of Civil Engineers website.

http://www.asce.org/responds/index.cfm

Magmak1,
Your posts absolutely BLOW ME AWAY! You have a remarkable way of focusing in on the issues, articulating the problems, challenging us to seek the truth and have the courage/belief that we'll be able to cope with whatever problems the truth brings with it. I can see why you have been successful in emergency management.

Silver, I am genuinely interested in understanding these issues. However, at $95 per copy, I won’t be buying this report soon. Maybe I can find one in the library. Do you have one? Maybe one of us here is a member (or already has a copy of the CD) and can enlighten us all by explaining, posting key content, or putting up the graphics. The graphics at the web site are, to me, inconclusive. (The accompanying slideshow at this web site doesn’t tell me anything, except that I can see that there are slides I feel I should salute, what with all the red, white and blue graphics, and the music..(!) is good enough for a Hollywood production.)

Without wishing to have a “he said, she said” war in which we throw argument at one another by the truckload, I would ask the following:

You’re aware that the team which developed this report was never allowed access to the WTC 7 site? http://www.wtc7.net/noprobe.html

Does it explain how both towers were essentially reduced to dust during the collapse?

Does it explain why, in the case of all three WTC buildings, the collapse of the building was virtually straight down, at or near the speed of gravity, with no attendant delay for collapsing floors and beams being momentarily hung up?

Does it explain how, in a collapse, steel beams were ejected hundreds of yards away from the side of the building?

If the collapse was due to fire, and the fires were very high up in the building, how did the 36 4-inch steel core beams fail well below those floors? If your answer is that the jet fuel etc fell through the core to the lower floors, why are there reports of no fires by firefighters at these lower levels? Why is there no evidence of fire damage in the lobby in the available video of the lobby prior to collapse? Why is there evidence of (and eyewitness testimony to) explosive damage in the lobby?

Are you aware of the seismic data available from that morning that show a subterranean “event” in lower Manhattan that morning just prior to the collapse of one of the towers?

Are you aware of the satellite photos that project a heat signature in the rubble, days after the event, which exceeds the capability of jet fuel temperature in a fire, or any of tghe left-over debris including steel?

Have you viewed the videos of the collapses of the three WTC buildings? Have you compared these with the videos of other buildings which have undergone a controlled demolition? Have you seen the photos and read the stories about two other steel-constructed high rise buildings (an office building in Madrid and a hotel in Philadelphia)which burned for hours on end and were never structurally compromised? These can be found at the following web sites:

http://www.reopen911.org
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

Why has the mainstream media never discussed WTC 7?

Do you know what offices were housed in WTC 7? (FBI, CIA, SEC, the NYC Office of Emergency Management and its EOC)

Why did the lease-holder of the WTC say to the fire officials, late in the afternoon, as small fires were burning in the building (controllable fires, according to the fire fighters), ‘let’s pull it’? http://www.webfairy.org/pullit/index.htm

What about the multiple eyewitnesses (and media reports) indicating bombs in the vicinity or in the buildings or in the basement? See and download Tarpley’s 25-page narrative at http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf or see http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#bombs.

Have you checked out the “original source” firefighters’ tapes (not yet fully released to the public)? These are the transcribed recordings made of firefighters in the towers… http://physics911.ca/modules/wfsection/art...hp?articleid=11

Have you read the analysis of the theory of jet fuel burning hot enough to melt steel beams? You can find it here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/12110

Have you read the physical and mathematical analysis of the Pentagon crash?
http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13

Do you accept the theory that the US has the technological capability for remotely piloting large aircraft?

In other matters:

You’ve heard about the case of Delmart Vreeland, the US Naval Lieutenant who sought asylum in Canada and foretold the event? (There’s a rabbit hole..!)

How about the fact that the FAA destroyed the tape recording of the air traffic controllers who “handled” the planes that morning?

You’ve seen the movie “The Long Kiss Goodnight”? It was distributed in 1996. Please listen to an audio clip from the movie that described the event here:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/Pages/1404...sgoodnight.html

Despite the length of this post, this is merely an introduction…. But, finally, there’s a good overall review of the coincidences and anomalies of that day at
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html

It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

-------
One of the issues that we observers have to be cognizant of is that there are attempts to explain something on the basis of an item at a time. One allegation is made; one explanation is offered. Each explanation is worthy of our consideration and review. But who's gonna explain the whole thing, the entire package?
----
Are you aware that, for the most part, no significant evidence has been put forth to prove the prevailing understanding of what happened that day? We have a few photos of Atta in Portland, the passport that survived the WTC events, five frames from the only surveillance camera apparently operational at the Pentagon that day, etc. How much of this evidence can and will stand up to inquiry?

Contrast this with the amount of information that has been withheld, destroyed, suppressed, etc.

I'm sorry but, which report is $95? That being said, no I probably don't have a copy of it. lol.

However, I do give away free DVD's of "911 In Plane Site Directors Cut". If anyone here wants a copy just PM me with your address and I'll send a copy out to you. The producers of the DVD have given everyone the right to duplicate and distribute them so there won't be any legal issues either. I guarantee after seeing this doc you'll never believe the "official version" of 911 again.

Sorry, Silver, I misattributed my response to you. It was very late at night, and I was tired. I was referring to the $95 ASCE report noted in the link offered up by progressivephoenix.

I have not seen the DVD you referred to, although I've seen the site and the argument. I received two free DVD's in the mail from www.reopen911.org. I didn't request them, but I signed one of their petitions in the past.

I've been screaming about this stuff for over a year now...

It is disgusting...

Disgusting that America is not more interested in knowing the truth about 9/11...

Maybe the C-SPAN program will open some eyes...but I doubt it...

If 52 FAA warnings about Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 didn't do it...nothing will.

The truth will come out though - and it will set some free and send some to jail...

A very important point. People who believe the official conspiracy theory do so on much shabbier evidence than those of us who question it. I'd like to know what people's evidence is for 9/11 going down the way Bush said it did. Where is the proof a plane hit the Pentagon? Where is the proof these 19 hijackers were actually on those planes and are now dead? A passport that survived a fire that caused the collapse of 3 skyscrapers??? It seems a pattern has developed where people who question the official conspiracy theory present evidence and the acceptors of the official conspiracy theory refute the facts. Maybe we should look at things from a different angle. Where is the proof that things happened the way the official conspiracy theorists say they did?

Taz,
I've been trying for a year and a half now to talk to people about this, too. I've noticed many are starting to come around. Slowly people are starting to trickle in...

Time helps.

But other than that what is the reason people don't want to look at this? Magmak has mentioned some of the reasons when he discusses the economic fallout of a widespread acknowledgement of the truth. I don't want to destabilize our economy but on the other hand, not looking at the truth is destabilizing our economy.

Seems to me that being an American today is kind of like living in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Cancer Ward. We are not told the truth of our illness out of some twisted benevolent impulse to protect us from the trauma of knowing the truth. People can't make reliably good "evidence-based" decisions when they don't know the truth.

Seems to me that we somehow must summon up the courage to seek and acknowledge truth - even if it means we have to hear that our nation has metastatic cancer.

[quote=Magmak1,Apr 20 2005, 11:54 PM]
Silver, I am genuinely interested in understanding these issues. However, at $95 per copy, I won’t be buying this report soon. Maybe I can find one in the library. Do you have one? Maybe one of us here is a member (or already has a copy of the CD) and can enlighten us all by explaining, posting key content, or putting up the graphics. The graphics at the web site are, to me, inconclusive. (The accompanying slideshow at this web site doesn’t tell me anything, except that I can see that there are slides I feel I should salute, what with all the red, white and blue graphics, and the music..(!) is good enough for a Hollywood production.)

Without wishing to have a “he said, she said” war in which we throw argument at one another by the truckload, I would ask the following:

You’re aware that the team which developed this report was never allowed access to the WTC 7 site? http://www.wtc7.net/noprobe.html

Does it explain how both towers were essentially reduced to dust during the collapse?
[/quote]
The buildings were concrete and steel. Concrete is essentially "sand and glue." and is extremely brittle. If you place a block of concrete under very high pressure, (such as dropping it from 110 stories), it will crumble to dust.

[quote]
Does it explain why, in the case of all three WTC buildings, the collapse of the building was virtually straight down, at or near the speed of gravity, with no attendant delay for collapsing floors and beams being momentarily hung up?
[/quote]
According to the building designer, the building was designed to do exactly that, in the event of an expected catastrophic failure.



[quote]
Does it explain how, in a collapse, steel beams were ejected hundreds of yards away from the side of the building?
[/quote]
Just how far should a steel beam be thrown in a collapse? Look at the street level films of the collapse. You will see an enormous cloud of debris moving rapidly down city streets. It is mostly dust, but also other objects.

[quote]
If the collapse was due to fire, and the fires were very high up in the building, how did the 36 4-inch steel core beams fail well below those floors? If your answer is that the jet fuel etc fell through the core to the lower floors, why are there reports of no fires by firefighters at these lower levels? Why is there no evidence of fire damage in the lobby in the available video of the lobby prior to collapse? Why is there evidence of (and eyewitness testimony to) explosive damage in the lobby?
[quote]
Specifically, the fire on the upper floors "softened" (please don't say melt) the steel columns there, which led to their collapse. This created a force much higher than design force on the columns in lower floors, which caused their collapse, floor by floor. This is no mystery. An advanced undergraduate student in structural engineering can figure this one out.

Not sure what your point about the lobby is. Do you say there was a fire in the lobby or not?

[quote]
Are you aware of the seismic data available from that morning that show a subterranean “event” in lower Manhattan that morning just prior to the collapse of one of the towers?
[/quote]
The first set of blips coincide with the planes hitting the building with travel time to the seismograph. Yes, you CAN pick that up on a seismograph. The second blips are the building collapse.

[quote]
Are you aware of the satellite photos that project a heat signature in the rubble, days after the event, which exceeds the capability of jet fuel temperature in a fire, or any of tghe left-over debris including steel?
[/quote]
I don't think this is true. If a heat signature from the rubble were that hot, no rescue worker could stand there. They'd all be burned to a crisp. If you are talking about core temp in the rubble, be aware that jet fuel burns hot, 1500 F, if I remember correctly.


[quote]
Have you viewed the videos of the collapses of the three WTC buildings? Have you compared these with the videos of other buildings which have undergone a controlled demolition? Have you seen the photos and read the stories about two other steel-constructed high rise buildings (an office building in Madrid and a hotel in Philadelphia)which burned for hours on end and were never structurally compromised?
[/quote]
Jet fuel burns much hotter than typical building materials made of wood. Many Structural engineers agree that no tall building in the world could have remained standing under those conditions. Some engineers in downtown manhattan on 911 tried to warn the NYFD to get their people out because the building was not safe, but the situation was too confused to get the message to NYFD command.

There are cases of fire causing structural compromise in a building. The WTC was wrose due to the size and heat of the fire.

[quote]
Why has the mainstream media never discussed WTC 7?
[/quote]
???I've seen stuff about WTC 7???? What do you watch?

[quote]
Why did the lease-holder of the WTC say to the fire officials, late in the afternoon, as small fires were burning in the building (controllable fires, according to the fire fighters), ‘let’s pull it’? http://www.webfairy.org/pullit/index.htm
[/quote]
WTC 7? It was clear to experts at the scene that the building would never be habitable again. The owner apparently realized he would have to the demo the building anyway in the future. I don't think he meant to blow up the building on purpose then and there

[quote]
What about the multiple eyewitnesses (and media reports) indicating bombs in the vicinity or in the buildings or in the basement? See and download Tarpley’s 25-page narrative at http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf or see http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#bombs.
[/quote]
These eyewitnesses are disputted by other eyewtinesses.


[quote]
Have you read the analysis of the theory of jet fuel burning hot enough to melt steel beams? You can find it here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/12110
[/quote]
Broken link.

[quote]
Have you read the physical and mathematical analysis of the Pentagon crash?
http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13
[/quote]
Don't enter a building designed by those guys. the analysis does not meet a bare minimum requirement for scientific review.




[quote]
One of the issues that we observers have to be cognizant of is that there are attempts to explain something on the basis of an item at a time. One allegation is made; one explanation is offered. Each explanation is worthy of our consideration and review. But who's gonna explain the whole thing, the entire package?
[/quote]
As i said, ASCE covered a lot of this.
----

Much of the information is right there on the website. If you live near a University with an engineering department, they probably have the full report in their library. You might also get a friendly civil engineering prof. to talk it over with you.

G-

I think it also has to do with the fact that a majority of Americans voted for Bush and are living in denial and can't bring themselves to come to terms with the facts....that they may have supported someone who is really as bad for this nation as has been advertised.

I think a lot of people just do not believ ein conspiracy theories...

And I think most of the people just plain don't care.

But it will come out - no doubt about that...in this day and age - someone will get their hands onthe information...

Bush sealed his records from Texas and from the White House and his fathers records - but a new president can unseal them...and we'll find ut what happened...

Do you remember kitty27 from the Kerry website.

Kitty27 knows this information inside and out and has provided me just recently with an interesting link from

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2005041114035711

US 9/11 Complicity in Psychohistory

We have not been aware of the Journal of Psychohistory's 9/11 interest before or vetted this article yet, but it is 62 pages long and certainly seems to address the right questions. See also the flyer for their extremely intriguing June conference in New York here. - Ed.

DID BUSH KNOW ABOUT 9/11 IN ADVANCE?
Get the current Special Issue of The Journal of Psychohistory on what Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, with explosive evidence from seven new books showing how the FAA was told to ignore all the appeals from air controllers to intercept the hijacked planes, how audio tapes and photos were destroyed that pointed to collusion by the Bush team, how Rumsfeld has said 9/11 was "a blessing in disguise", and much more.

Just email your postal address to psychhst@tiac.net and you'll get a full year (4 issues) of the Journal at half price ($29), starting with this special 9/11 Summer issue.

More news at http://www.psychohistory.com

I wish someone here subscribed so we could get the article...I may end up subscribing just to get it...

I requested a copy from them Taz. Doesn't look like you can get it online. When it comes I'll transcribe it to the forum so we have a copy.

The entire report is online here


http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

That's very generous of you.

Thanks.

The report from the journal fo psychohistory?

How did the towers, which fell according to a pancake theory, fall at the speed of freefall?

What is the data on other buildings that have fallen in this pancake manner? There must be one or two other buildings out there that have pancaked. How long does it take for the pancake structure to fall?

Why did the tower that was hit first fall second? If heat was needed to melt the steel beams in order for the structure to collapse then the tower hit first should have it's beams exposed to the heat longer and collapse first. Instead, the tower that was hit second, the tower exposed to less time and less magnitude (the second building was hit at an angle such that most of the fuel/fire occurred outside the building and was over in a few seconds) of burning fuel, fell first. How is this explained?

That was my initial hope, too, Taz. But no, he's referring to the "official" FEMA report on how the buildings collapsed.

De nada. The magazine looks right up my alley! Kids, psychiatry, politics...

Don't mean to be negative, but nothing but conspiracy theories are EVER likely to come of this. There are NO records that would definately implicate the powers that be that would ever be allowed to exist. It is suspicious that Air Traffic Controller Tapes would be destroyed. But not surprising.

If they "Let it Happen", then there will be nothing but speculation available for discourse. They will see to that. That would include elimination of any evidence of such and any "loose" people who might be able to prove this.

If it happened due to their gross negligence, then they have already covered that by making sure they blamed the Clinton Administration for "not getting OBL" in the 90's. The 911 report, and the hearings with Richard Clarke showed me that what they were covering up was gross incompetence, and deliberate negligence, because they hated the Clinton Administration, rejected anything they thought was important (again deliberately and beligerently). And had "other" agendas, such as invading Iraq, and robbing the the Treasury.

They quickly took advantage of it though. And have consolidated power to an unprecedented degree. So much so that the endless war on terror threatens our very Republic, because the very worst people possible are at the helm.

The theory that they "Made IT Happen" would require massive proof. More then some witness coming forward because he could be impeached. A witness would have to have incontrovertable proof. And such a scheme would require lots of people who could then not be allowed to live to rat it out.

I think most people if they are honest KNOW that Bush was asleep at the switch, but are willing to give him a pass on it. That is how it is likely to remain. He should have been impeached many times over for that and many other things but it won't happen to my great sadness. This is not a fair world, and has never been.

peace

On the last question

Could it have been that the locus of the heat was more intense and debilitating in the second building?

Somewhere on another thread I posted a video by David Ray Griffin where he discusses this theory. That's where I got it. He explains (and shows footage) of the plane hitting the second tower. The plane hit at an angle and most of the fuel can be seen exploding for a few seconds outside the building in mid air. This is the stuff that would need to have exploded close to the steel beams in the core and catch everything in the building on fire to create the 1,000+ F degree temperature necessary to melt the steel columns. I forget the exact degree necessary to melt the columns. It's been a while since I reviewed the information. So the first building to fall was the one exposed to the least amount of heat energy (less duration and less intensity). That doesn't make sense.

Mazeltov...

I don't know that we need to prove they let it happen or that they made it happen. I guess I'm optimistic and choose to believe they just let it happen. I don't want to believe they made it happen although that probably is somewhat true.

What we need is to reach mainstream America with the notion that there are serious issues regarding whether or not these men in power had something to do with causing 9/11.

Here's a quote from When Democracy Goes Wrong on p 16 of the April 2005 edition of Harper's Magazine:




What happens is we get stuck in the mindset of whether or not 9/11 complicity can be proven in court. It can't - but the fact that it can't is irrelevant because we're not trying the case in a court of law. This is about the court of public opinion TRU.

If BushCo can use 9/11 to their ends we can certainly use it to ours. They never proved who did 9/11 in a court of law but that hasn't stopped them from going to war with two nations based on that public opinion. Nothing that has happened on 9/11 has ever been proven in a court of law. It has been tried in the court of public opinion and the truth lost out to greed.

I don't know if I answered on this post, but I have been saying all these things about a phony 9-11 since two weeks after 9-11.

The hijacked my mind the first few days, until my being scared was told by my brain to stop and think about it and I keep saying the following-

who is the only person(family) better off 9-12 than they were 9-10,
bingo, if you answered the Bush clan.

OK gang you know the routine

Bush was in the classroom as an alibi
The megaphone was planted at the WTC site
9-11 allowed the Pearl Harbor event Wolfie/Perl/Jeb/Rumsfeld talked about years earlier to avenge the assassination attempt by Saddam on 41

Preplanned, done, taken out, and keep the country in fear and re-election was possible, (even if it didn't really matter to this gang.)

Keep the fix in with Bill and Hill and no papers come out for decades

And we here and a few proverbial others are about 1250 people who still get it.
The rest of the nation seems to have sipped the kool aid and joined the darkside

There is no other speed for which an object to fall. At each layer of the pancake, the steel beams below buckled almost instantenously? How instantaneous? HOw long does it take for a car to dent in an accident.


Don't know of other data like this. Might be something in the Oklahoma City bombing. But it would be expected that collapses occur quickly based on the physics, not slowly as you seem to suggest. In other situations where steel beams are overstressed, such as earthquakes, they can be twisted like pretzels in a fraction of a second.


It was hit in a more vulnerable location.


SOFTEN, NOT MELT!!!!!! It is a key distinction. What happens to butter if you leave it on the table at normal room temperature? Does it soften or melt? What happens to ice cream? See the difference? Try it home.


Which tower fell first depends on where the fire was in relation to the columns how the fire was spread.


An eyewitness report from me -- (As in, I was in downtown New York on 9/11). Flames were clearly visible inside BOTH buildings. There were clearly extensive fires in both.

Sorry I didn't know you were looking for the other report

All this has already been relegated to the "conspiracy theorist wastebasket".

I agree with Graham that I was thinking in the days after the event that this would greatly benifit Bush. He was falling in the polls and would have had a much harder time invading Iraq without 911. But the Public Opinion that Gabrielle talks about would take years to change and would be moot as to the damage that has been and will be done to this country.

We NEEDED to get BushCo. out in 2004, we didn't. We are focused on blocking them in 06 with a win in one or both houses of Congress. Right now that is our only hope of rescue from this nightmare.

If the House and or Senate was to go Democratic, investigations COULD be started that MIGHT uncover evidence of 911 mendacity, or complicity. But, even if they found evidence, it would be spun as being a "partisan" investigation and dismissed by the kool-aid drinkers. Still it would be something at least on the record.

I don't agree that the Clintons are with Bush.

A car denting in an accident presupposes the car has an initial velocity. At first the towers had no velocity. They went from no velocity to freefall. There would have been resistance to the fall of the towers from the floors below the area of the pancake that was collapsing. This resistence from the floors below would slow down the velocity of the fall.



They can be twisted like pretzels but they don't freefall at the speed of gravity. Resistance to downward momentum is encountered by the structures below. There must be some other building videotaped collapsing like a pancake. Lots of buildings have collapsed on video. I would like to see what another building collapsing like a pancake looks like - to compare that with the three WTC towers.



If the beams had softened they would still represent some resistance to the collapse of the building and this resistance would have slowed the fall.

In addition, the towers that were exposed to less heat collapsed first. Why would butter you just took out of the refridgerator soften quicker than butter that's been out for a longer period of time and exposed to more heat?

And what about the butter that's still in the refridgerator (WTC 7). How did that manage to soften?



The fire in the towers that fell first was on the outside of the building for the most part. We all saw that on live television.



There have been massive fires in many buildings throughout the world. But these are the first three steel buildings ever WTC 1, 2, & 7, in the history of mankind, to collapse as a result of a fire, into their footprints, at the speed of gravity (indicating little to know resistance from the floors below that a pancake theory would presuppose).

Monday 14th February 2005 (04h45) :
Madrid Fire Re-opens 9/11 Questions: Why did the twin towers fall so fast?
36 comment(s).

Madrid Fire Re-opens 9/11 Questions
Prior to 9/11, no steel building had ever collapsed due to fire. Here is a photo of the smoking buildings. wtc2, was on fire for less than an hour when it collapsed



Isn’t it odd, the wtc collapsed after an hour, and the black smoke indicates that fire wasn’t even burning hot. Now compare- this is the Madrid Fire, it burned for 10 hours and still has not collapsed



Why did wtc2 only last an hour before collapse while the Madrid building burned throughout?

This is wtc7, another building near the twin towers, it had two isolated fires which can be see here.



This building, wtc7, also collapsed on 9/11, even though it was not hit with an airliner. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

This is a recent fire in a Venezuelan skyskraper...



it burned out of control for 17 hours, yet did not collapse. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/venezuela_fire.html

Why did this building stand after a huge, 17 hour fire- but wtc7 collapsed after sustaining only minor fire damage? Why hasn’t the mainstream media ever mentioned wtc7’s collapse?

Are these honest and reasonable questions, or am I a traitor for asking them?

You are no traitor Gabrielle. You are a concerned American. I don't know the answers to the questions you've raised. Maybe the great height of the fires with the great winds up there caused a blast furnace effect that softened the beams. Who knows?

I guess I'm just cynical about the wicked ever being held to account. Don't mind me.

TRU, I didn't write this and wasn't referring to you! You're a sweetie pie!!!!

You have a right to be cynical about them being held to account. What's more, you're correct! Please don't think I wrote that and meant it for you. It's from Bellaciao.

Huh. Please study some more physics. Then you can answer this question yourself.



Mainly demolitions are caught on video.


There has never been a collapse directly comparable to the WTC collapse. There have been other collapses, but the circumstances were different. Generally, buildings do fall straight down, not to the side See the oklahoma city after-photos for example. Circumstances were different, but most of the debris ended up in a pile right under the damaged part of building.

But you need to realize, no building in the world is designed to withstand a highspeed impact from a plane. Some are designed for low-speed impacts. The WTC was disgned for a lowspeed impact. But the energy from a highspeed impact is 5 to 10 times greater. There is also no form of steel in the world that can retain it's structural integrity in a hot sustained fire. Such a thing does not exist.


That's simply not what happens when a "catastrophic failure" occurs. The closest analogy is what happens in earthquakes. Buildings can fall in seconds. Into their own footprints. In less time than it would take for you to run out from the lobby to the street.




Flaming debris fell on building seven causing a fire. I saw this myself. In the InPlaneSite video, you can see the fire from building as an "unexplained" plume of smoke to the side of the towers. Building 7 was on fire

Next experiment (Do not try at home!) Take a deisel tank out of a truck and hold a blowtorch to it for several hours. It will explode. Deisel burns violently under pressure. Heating a closed vessel raises the pressure. This is introductory chemistry.



It's pointless to argue from television with an eyewitness. What you like to me say? I didn't see what I saw? Go look at the footage more carefully.



Here are a few "partial collapses."
http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Histo...apse_Survey.pdf

But as I said, the WTC was unique in several respects, due to it's size, construction, cause of the damage etc. The taller the building, the more likely it is to fail totally rather than partially.

Consider the 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse. Do you know about it? A bridge was blown down by the wind. There has always been wind, and there have been many bridges. But prior to 1940, no bridge had been blown down by the wind. Does that mean it didn't happen?

If you haven't seen the film of it, you should. It's fascinating in its own right. Did you think steel and concrete could bend like rubber? Watch the film.

http://www.ketchum.org/bridgecollapse.html

Of course, I have to repeat this-

It was a precise military style hit on the two buildings in weather that was unknown when the go ahead was given for that morning.

Meaning there could have been wind/clouds/rain, etc.

There is no way, no way, no way 19 bumbling suicide bombers could
have done this.

Sorry. It is beyond consideration.

Again-although the WTC was big for a building, a 1 percent shift in something and the plane would have gone right by it and landed in the water.

And again, on the morning when Bush had an alibii.
Bullspit.
And he knew going into the school and still went on.
Bullspit.
And all the other things

He and his people knew.

Maybe it will never come out. But I will go to my death knowing it did not happen like they said. I don't need proof.
And the general public just is scarred, doesn't care or beyond being able to comprehend it.

But us 1250 people still arguing, well, we know.

It would have been odds of a zillion zillion to one to happen the way they said.
Somebody died, somebody crashed, but not the way they said.

not to mention that who was better off 9-12 than 9-10, and it is the same person(family).Yeah right, and Al Gore didn't win Florida.

They are honest and reasonable questions, but they really should be directed to a structural engineering expert. From my discussions and what I've read from such experts, there are different circumstances in each case. Ultra-tall buildings like the WTC are designed under entirely differently principles than 17-story buildings, and are inherently more vulnerable to total collapses.

As I've mentioned, the designer of the WTC is not surprised that it collapsed like it did. If he isn't surprised, why are you? Do you know more about his building than he does? Does his opinion count for so little?


As to the WTC 7 collapse. If the 10,000 gallon deisel tank in the basement exploded under pressure, that would be equivalent to a 70 thousand pound bomb.

Since you have a better understanding of physics perhaps you could explain to us how a 110 story building completely collapses to the ground in 10 seconds without a demolition.

Three steel buildings collapse due to fire. The first three steel buildings to collapse due to fire in world history. All occured at the same time and since then there's a hot debate about whether or not they were imploded.

I think most people who hear about this information eventually come to see how incredible it is that all these oddities occurred all at one time.

And where is the proof that 9/11 happened the way the administration says it did. We have examples of complicity theory. Where is the official conspiracy theory evidence?

Maybe because the designer of the building knew what was going on, was in on it, because answers were needed before hand.

Just like Larry Silverman the owner said #7 had to come down.

Don't forget too---
like the DieHard movies, something was in the safes below ground.

All that stuff was gone.Robbed? Destroyed?

There was one photographer that had 1000s and 1000s of photos/documents destroyed without backup copy.
Maybe the whole thing was to destroy ONE of those for some obscure reason?

It is my understanding that they could not have set up WTC 7 to be "pulled" within the time from when the attacks began until when it fell. Which means that building was set up to be pulled (ie loaded with explosives) before the planes struck the towers.

BINGO!!!!!