Home > News > Robert Fisk
Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11
http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece
Published: 25 August 2007
Each time I lecture abroad on the Middle East, there is always someone in the audience – just one – whom I call the "raver". Apologies here to all the men and women who come to my talks with bright and pertinent questions – often quite humbling ones for me as a journalist – and which show that they understand the Middle East tragedy a lot better than the journalists who report it. But the "raver" is real. He has turned up in corporeal form in Stockholm and in Oxford, in Sao Paulo and in Yerevan, in Cairo, in Los Angeles and, in female form, in Barcelona. No matter the country, there will always be a "raver".
His – or her – question goes like this. Why, if you believe you're a free journalist, don't you report what you really know about 9/11? Why don't you tell the truth – that the Bush administration (or the CIA or Mossad, you name it) blew up the twin towers? Why don't you reveal the secrets behind 9/11? The assumption in each case is that Fisk knows – that Fisk has an absolute concrete, copper-bottomed fact-filled desk containing final proof of what "all the world knows" (that usually is the phrase) – who destroyed the twin towers. Sometimes the "raver" is clearly distressed. One man in Cork screamed his question at me, and then – the moment I suggested that his version of the plot was a bit odd – left the hall, shouting abuse and kicking over chairs.
Usually, I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?
Well, I still hold to that view. Any military which can claim – as the Americans did two days ago – that al-Qa'ida is on the run is not capable of carrying out anything on the scale of 9/11. "We disrupted al-Qa'ida, causing them to run," Colonel David Sutherland said of the preposterously code-named "Operation Lightning Hammer" in Iraq's Diyala province. "Their fear of facing our forces proves the terrorists know there is no safe haven for them." And more of the same, all of it untrue.
Within hours, al-Qa'ida attacked Baquba in battalion strength and slaughtered all the local sheikhs who had thrown in their hand with the Americans. It reminds me of Vietnam, the war which George Bush watched from the skies over Texas – which may account for why he this week mixed up the end of the Vietnam war with the genocide in a different country called Cambodia, whose population was eventually rescued by the same Vietnamese whom Mr Bush's more courageous colleagues had been fighting all along.
But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.
I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".
Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard "explosions" in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound. OK, so let's claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA's list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error.
But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose "Islamic" advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the "Fajr" prayer to be included in Atta's letter.
Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us. It would stop people kicking over chairs.
Full Version: Robert Fisk-Even I question the TRUTH about 9/11-says science prooves it could not have happened
Robert Fisk Bio:
Born July 12, 1946 in Maidstone, Kent is a British journalist and is currently a Middle East correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent. He was married to the American journalist Lara Marlowe. He lives in Beirut, Lebanon, where he has resided for over 25 years.
Fisk is one of the few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden - three times (all published by The Independent: December 6, 1993 July 10, 1996, and March 22, 1997).
During one of Fisk's interviews with Bin Laden, Fisk noted an attempt
by Bin Laden to possibly recruit him. Bin Laden said, "Mr Robert, one
of our brothers had a dream. He dreamed ... that you were a spiritual
person ... this means you are a true Muslim." Fisk replied, "Sheikh
Osama, I am not a Muslim ... I am a journalist". Bin Laden and Adam Gadahn, an alleged Al-Qaeda spokesman and translator of American birth, have apparently mentioned Robert Fisk in speeches. Osama bin Laden said Fisk's reporting was "neutral". According to a MEMRI report, on September 2, 2006, in a videotaped statement, Adam Gadahn, said that Fisk and George Galloway
have a "respect and admiration for Islam," have "sympathy for Muslims
their causes", and added "I say to them, isn't it time you stopped
sitting on the fence and came over to the side of truth?"
Fisk described the September 11, 2001 attacks of the "9/11 killers" as a "hideous crime against humanity." In the aftermath of 9/11, he called for an honest discussion for identifying explanations for the attacks. He believes that Al Qaeda ordered attacks on the United States because of U.S. policies in the Middle East, especially its support for Israel, and disagrees with President Bush's statements that the perpetrators of 9/11 did it because "they hate our freedoms."
After the U.S. launched its attack on Afghanistan shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Fisk was for a time transferred to Pakistan
to provide coverage of that conflict. While reporting from there, he
was attacked and beaten by a group of Afghan refugees but was also
saved from this attack by another Afghani refugee. In his graphic
account of his own beating, published in The Independent of December 10, 2001,
Fisk excused the attackers of responsibility ("I couldn't blame them
for what they were doing,") and said that, in his view, their
"brutality was entirely the product of others, of us — of we who had
armed their struggle against the Russians and ignored their pain and
laughed at their civil war
and then armed and paid them again for the 'War for Civilisation' just
a few miles away and then bombed their homes and ripped up their
families and called them 'collateral damage."
In August 2007 Fisk publicly expressed, for the first time, doubts
about the historical record of the September 11 attacks. In an article
for The Independent, he raised such concerns as missing aircraft parts, the melting point of steel, the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, and other familiar criticisms that have circulated within the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Born July 12, 1946 in Maidstone, Kent is a British journalist and is currently a Middle East correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent. He was married to the American journalist Lara Marlowe. He lives in Beirut, Lebanon, where he has resided for over 25 years.
Fisk is one of the few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden - three times (all published by The Independent: December 6, 1993 July 10, 1996, and March 22, 1997).
During one of Fisk's interviews with Bin Laden, Fisk noted an attempt
by Bin Laden to possibly recruit him. Bin Laden said, "Mr Robert, one
of our brothers had a dream. He dreamed ... that you were a spiritual
person ... this means you are a true Muslim." Fisk replied, "Sheikh
Osama, I am not a Muslim ... I am a journalist". Bin Laden and Adam Gadahn, an alleged Al-Qaeda spokesman and translator of American birth, have apparently mentioned Robert Fisk in speeches. Osama bin Laden said Fisk's reporting was "neutral". According to a MEMRI report, on September 2, 2006, in a videotaped statement, Adam Gadahn, said that Fisk and George Galloway
have a "respect and admiration for Islam," have "sympathy for Muslims
their causes", and added "I say to them, isn't it time you stopped
sitting on the fence and came over to the side of truth?"
Fisk described the September 11, 2001 attacks of the "9/11 killers" as a "hideous crime against humanity." In the aftermath of 9/11, he called for an honest discussion for identifying explanations for the attacks. He believes that Al Qaeda ordered attacks on the United States because of U.S. policies in the Middle East, especially its support for Israel, and disagrees with President Bush's statements that the perpetrators of 9/11 did it because "they hate our freedoms."
After the U.S. launched its attack on Afghanistan shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Fisk was for a time transferred to Pakistan
to provide coverage of that conflict. While reporting from there, he
was attacked and beaten by a group of Afghan refugees but was also
saved from this attack by another Afghani refugee. In his graphic
account of his own beating, published in The Independent of December 10, 2001,
Fisk excused the attackers of responsibility ("I couldn't blame them
for what they were doing,") and said that, in his view, their
"brutality was entirely the product of others, of us — of we who had
armed their struggle against the Russians and ignored their pain and
laughed at their civil war
and then armed and paid them again for the 'War for Civilisation' just
a few miles away and then bombed their homes and ripped up their
families and called them 'collateral damage."
In August 2007 Fisk publicly expressed, for the first time, doubts
about the historical record of the September 11 attacks. In an article
for The Independent, he raised such concerns as missing aircraft parts, the melting point of steel, the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, and other familiar criticisms that have circulated within the 9/11 Truth Movement.
g, he dismisses almost every conspiracy you've paraded.
the letter. who wrote the letter/prayer?
but what has that got to do with what happened on 911 and how it happened?
and snuffy, where does fisk say...
the letter. who wrote the letter/prayer?
but what has that got to do with what happened on 911 and how it happened?
and snuffy, where does fisk say...
QUOTE
In August 2007 Fisk publicly expressed, for the first time, doubts
about the historical record of the September 11 attacks. In an article
for The Independent, he raised such concerns as missing aircraft parts, the melting point of steel, the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, and other familiar criticisms that have circulated within the 9/11 Truth Movement.
... these things?about the historical record of the September 11 attacks. In an article
for The Independent, he raised such concerns as missing aircraft parts, the melting point of steel, the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, and other familiar criticisms that have circulated within the 9/11 Truth Movement.
g, he dismisses almost every conspiracy you've paraded.
the letter. who wrote the letter/prayer?
but what has that got to do with what happened on 911 and how it happened?
and snuffy, [strike]where does[/strike] fisk say(s)...
the letter. who wrote the letter/prayer?
but what has that got to do with what happened on 911 and how it happened?
and snuffy, [strike]where does[/strike] fisk say(s)...
QUOTE
In August 2007 Fisk publicly expressed, for the first time, doubts
about the historical record of the September 11 attacks. In an article
for The Independent, he raised such concerns as missing aircraft parts, the melting point of steel, the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, and other familiar criticisms that have circulated within the 9/11 Truth Movement.
... these things...but all he needs do is read what Popular Mechanics wrote
about the historical record of the September 11 attacks. In an article
for The Independent, he raised such concerns as missing aircraft parts, the melting point of steel, the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, and other familiar criticisms that have circulated within the 9/11 Truth Movement.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
JAMES MEIGS: You know, that clip is really interesting, because it shows how slickly made this film is, how compelling it is at asking a series of sort of hanging questions and putting some spooky music behind it and making it sound as if someone’s covering up these facts. But a brave researcher can dig down and put all the pieces together. In fact, there's answers to all those questions.
If you look at the sources that were used throughout that clip, they’re all things that came up in the first day or two after the attacks. In some cases, somebody is standing across the field and saying, “I don't see a plane.” Well, when a plane strikes the ground at 500 miles an hour, flying almost straight down, there typically isn't much visible above ground.
They also quote the coroner in the Shanksville area. We talked to the coroner. He had the horrific job of collecting the body parts and cataloging and performing all the necessary tests. Those bodies were identified. The plane wreckage in the pieces -- the tiny pieces it was in after it had hit the ground was, you know, collected from the hole, cataloged.
And the black box was recovered. And we know what went on, because of the records of the voice cockpit recorder, and in this case, quite a few phone calls from the aircraft itself to various people on the ground. So we know a lot of what happened on Flight 93.
JAMES MEIGS: You know, that clip is really interesting, because it shows how slickly made this film is, how compelling it is at asking a series of sort of hanging questions and putting some spooky music behind it and making it sound as if someone’s covering up these facts. But a brave researcher can dig down and put all the pieces together. In fact, there's answers to all those questions.
If you look at the sources that were used throughout that clip, they’re all things that came up in the first day or two after the attacks. In some cases, somebody is standing across the field and saying, “I don't see a plane.” Well, when a plane strikes the ground at 500 miles an hour, flying almost straight down, there typically isn't much visible above ground.
They also quote the coroner in the Shanksville area. We talked to the coroner. He had the horrific job of collecting the body parts and cataloging and performing all the necessary tests. Those bodies were identified. The plane wreckage in the pieces -- the tiny pieces it was in after it had hit the ground was, you know, collected from the hole, cataloged.
And the black box was recovered. And we know what went on, because of the records of the voice cockpit recorder, and in this case, quite a few phone calls from the aircraft itself to various people on the ground. So we know a lot of what happened on Flight 93.
Robert Fisk now says he questoins the total story 100percent.
The specific little pieces mean nothing.
It is the big picture that is question
Give us an independent special prosecutor with supoena powers to individually question everyone under threat of prison under oath, and let's see what they say
What did George W. Bush know, and when did he know it (without Georgie boy sitting like Charlie McCarthy on Edgar Bergen's lap)(dickie cheney)
and where is the public release of the black box in its entirety from the entire day
The specific little pieces mean nothing.
It is the big picture that is question
Give us an independent special prosecutor with supoena powers to individually question everyone under threat of prison under oath, and let's see what they say
What did George W. Bush know, and when did he know it (without Georgie boy sitting like Charlie McCarthy on Edgar Bergen's lap)(dickie cheney)
and where is the public release of the black box in its entirety from the entire day
"Popular Mechanics ignores:
well documented, numerous warnings from US allies that 9/11 was about to happen and warnings provided to a few not to fly or get out of the way
the "plane into building" wargame in Virginia on 9/11 and the NORAD "live fly" exercises conducted on 9/11
the fighter planes sent the wrong way from Norfolk (over the Atlantic, instead of toward DC). 9/11 was a cloudless day, and this scramble happened after the towers were hit (but before the Pentagon) - what's their excuse?
stock trades a few days before 9/11 betting the value of American and United Airlines would drop
the fact that Flight 77 hit the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon -- something a terrorist would not have chosen (or been able) to do
the anthrax attacks on the Democratic leadership in the Senate and on the media, which came from an Army lab, not Islamic terrorists
--
The "Complete 9/11 Timeline" and "Crossing the Rubicon" have the most authoritative accounts of what really happened. Popular Mechanics does not dare mention the documentation in these and other quality reports about 9/11 complicity.
First they ignore you, then they attack you, then you win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Popular Mechanics Attacks -- Its 9/11 LIES Straw Man"
by Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html
"Popular Mechanics' Deceptive Hit Piece Against 9/11 Truth"
by Jim Hoffman http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
from Hoffman's article:
Popular Mechanics quotes the following excerpt from OilEmpire.us:
It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes.
It then dismisses this 'claim' with the following sweeping 'fact':
In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.
This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report [from Associated Press] of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!
From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
It is safe to assume that a significant fraction of scrambles lead to intercepts, so the fact that there were 67 scrambles in a 9-month period before 9/11/01 suggests that there are dozens of intercepts per year. To its assertion that there was only one intercept in a decade, the article adds that "rules in effect ... prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts," and the suggestion that there were no hotlines between ATCs and NORAD."
http://www.oilempire.us/popular-mechanics.html
------------------
--------------------
John V. Whitbeck, author of The World According to Whitbeck:
"After reading David Ray Griffin's previous books on the subject, I was over 90% convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. Now, after reading Debunking 9/11 Debunking, I am, I regret to say, 100% convinced."
Publishers Weekly:
"All but the most dogmatic readers will find Griffin's evidence-from the inconsistencies between NORAD tapes and the 9/11 Commission Report to rigorous exploration into the physics of the collapse-detailed and deeply unnerving.
ALA's Choice:
"Throughout the book's 391 pages, including 61 pages of references, Griffin exhibits exceptional skill in detailed scholarly analysis. He concludes with a call to the reader, and all of us, to bring these issues into full public discussion and to expose the truth about 9/11, whatever it may be. Indeed, such "truth" has certainly not yet been revealed due to extensive gaps and contradictions in official theories that he documents in detail."
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechani...y/dp/156656686X
---------------
By the way, who won the "Lawn Tractor Face-Off"?
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Aug 26 2007, 01:25 AM) 
Robert Fisk now says he questoins the total story 100percent.
The specific little pieces mean nothing.
It is the big picture that is question
Give us an independent special prosecutor with supoena powers to individually question everyone under threat of prison under oath, and let's see what they say
What did George W. Bush know, and when did he know it (without Georgie boy sitting like Charlie McCarthy on Edgar Bergen's lap)(dickie cheney)
and where is the public release of the black box in its entirety from the entire day
The specific little pieces mean nothing.
It is the big picture that is question
Give us an independent special prosecutor with supoena powers to individually question everyone under threat of prison under oath, and let's see what they say
What did George W. Bush know, and when did he know it (without Georgie boy sitting like Charlie McCarthy on Edgar Bergen's lap)(dickie cheney)
and where is the public release of the black box in its entirety from the entire day
George Bush knew diddly squatabout 911 before hand...that you can take to the bank. Saudi Arabian crazies trained by UBL flew planes into the WTC.
The proof is out there! (If you have the desire)
people call the PM article a "HIT PIECE" and that is one of the craziest accusations ever. 
QUOTE(70sliberalism @ Aug 26 2007, 08:44 AM)
George Bush knew diddly squatabout 911 before hand...that you can take to the bank. Saudi Arabian crazies trained by UBL flew planes into the WTC.
The proof is out there! (If you have the desire)
The proof is out there! (If you have the desire)
I don't think you know "diddly squat" about what he knew and didn't know. We know he was warned repeatedly and did "diddly".
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_al...ief_of_nist.htm
------------------
August 21, 2007 at 14:25:22
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
by Alan Miller
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.
In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”
Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”
World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ]
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”
In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."
"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...
"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...
2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...
3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...
6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/scien...hsy24133_0f.htm ]
Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.
Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:
· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association
His presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index.php?c...bc57ec492fa21e3
For a list of over 180 other engineers and architects who question the official investigation into the events of 9/11, please visit http://PatriotsQuestion911.com
------------------
August 21, 2007 at 14:25:22
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
by Alan Miller
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.
In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”
Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”
World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ]
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”
In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."
"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...
"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...
2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...
3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...
6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/scien...hsy24133_0f.htm ]
Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.
Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:
· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association
His presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index.php?c...bc57ec492fa21e3
For a list of over 180 other engineers and architects who question the official investigation into the events of 9/11, please visit http://PatriotsQuestion911.com
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Aug 26 2007, 10:02 AM)
I don't think you know "diddly squat" about what he knew and didn't know. We know he was warned repeatedly and did "diddly".
Pure nonsense. You know no such things and it is ridiculous and serves very little purpose to repeat such things. Nobody was warned about 911. There may have been warnings things might happen but that kind of stuff is what keeps the Dept of Homeland Security alive.
Enough with the plots. Bush will be out of the WH in a little while and real Democrats are laying the ground to beat the GOP in elections.
911 is history and The Truth Is Out There: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
QUOTE(70sliberalism @ Aug 26 2007, 09:10 AM)
Pure nonsense. You know no such things and it is ridiculous and serves very little purpose to repeat such things. Nobody was warned about 911. There may have been warnings things might happen but that kind of stuff is what keeps the Dept of Homeland Security alive.
Enough with the plots. Bush will be out of the WH in a little while and real Democrats are laying the ground to beat the GOP in elections.
911 is history and The Truth Is Out There: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
Enough with the plots. Bush will be out of the WH in a little while and real Democrats are laying the ground to beat the GOP in elections.
911 is history and The Truth Is Out There: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
I don't say I believe there was a plot. Of course I don't know for sure. But he ignored what warnings there were and Clinton didn't. Clinton stopped previous terrorist attacks. Bush couldn't be bothered. To my mind that gross criminal negligence is AT THE VERY LEAST impeachable.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=4
there is an element of anti-Israeli/anti-semitism involved in places like http://www.rense.com/general63/bellchert.htm that have published stuff on 911. Here is a link of a blog that talks about such hate.
beware..they say nasty things about debunkers:
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2...s-in-tizzy.html
there is an element of anti-Israeli/anti-semitism involved in places like http://www.rense.com/general63/bellchert.htm that have published stuff on 911. Here is a link of a blog that talks about such hate.
beware..they say nasty things about debunkers:
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2...s-in-tizzy.html
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.