What we KNOW about 9/11 – Crashing the Gate

138 Comments

1. 

   dougr on September 19, 2006 at 9:11 pm

   There’s now too much known to hold back for much longer.  Just pray that the bush/cheney crime syndicate don’t freak out on the country again.

   • 

     dougr on September 21, 2006 at 6:23 pm

     The anatomy of false flag terrorism;
     The 9/11 Issue:  Key to Stopping World War III

     a presentation by Webster Tarpley

     http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-3390733082467388648&q=TARPLEY&hl=nl

   • 

     dougr on September 23, 2006 at 11:24 am

     Project Censored:  Complicity In 9/11 – Who Else Was Involved?

     Download .wmv
     http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/20060911-Project-Censored-911-Complicity/20060911-Project-Cen
     sored-911-Complicity.wmv

     Download mp4 (quicktime)
     http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/20060911-Project-Censored-911-Complicity/20060911-Project-Cen
     sored-911-Complicity.mp4

     click & play
     wmv
     http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=0&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=173&epi=418&
     amp;typ=0&form=1
     mp4
     http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=0&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=173&epi=418&
     amp;typ=0&form=0

     • 

       dougr on September 24, 2006 at 10:40 am

       When I started this diary, knowing it would be a voluminous one, I only provided a link to the evidence that I put on Daily Kos so it wouldn’t be too cumbersome at the outset.  Now that this diary has become more complete I think inclusion of those 6 pieces of evidence are necessary to better round out what I have here.  So….

       There are two acts committed by what I call the bush/cheney crime syndicate that amount to crimes of historic proportions.
       I call it that not because bush is the “mastermind” behind it but because bush is the frontman for it while cheney is both operational and a link to the rest of the structure.
       The two acts that this crime syndicate have committed amount to mass murder and much more.
       Two separate groups have formed to raise the consciousness of Americans and the world regarding these acts.
       One group, from among this nation’s First Responders, have produced evidence that they say warrants the calling of a Grand Jury to bring charges of murder against high ranking government officials for their roles in lying about air quality in NYC thus sending yet uncounted people to certain death.
       Another group consisting of over 200 physicists, mechanical engineers, construction engineers, military experts, aviation experts, former members of the CIA and FBI, and scholars from a wide range of areas of expertise relating directly to specific 9/11 events have produced, from widely available public sources, indictable evidence of another kind.
       This group is known as Scholars For 9/11 Truth.  http://www.st911.org/

       Below, some reading for any First Responders here on kos that shows facts, that everyone should be aware of, which directly relate to what brought about the criminal blight which impacted upon the thousands who became heros on 9/11 and after.
       Since charges of murder are being sought by these officially disrecognized heros, this further information should also be included in any proceedings that arise from the effort to bring these charges forth.
       Throw the book at them.  Throw an entire freaking PHYSICAL SCIENCES LIBRARY at them.

       No theories, no controversy, no references to opinion, no conspiricizing….just cold, hard science.

       Here’s two very weighty tomes on Gravity:
       ….The first shows that, “…the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible.”
       Impossible must be taken in its most literal sense here:

       From the rooftop of WTC1, drop one dark blue billiard ball over the edge. As it falls, it accelerates. If it were in a vacuum, it would hit the pavement, 1368 feet below, in 9.22 seconds, shown by the blue curve in the figure 1, below. It will take longer if air resistance is considered, but for simplicity, we’ll neglect air resistance. This means that the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be.

       Figure 1. Minimum Time for a Billiard Ball dropped from the roof of WTC1 to hit the pavement below, assuming no air resistance:
       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/WTC-A5-75.jpg
       Notice that the billiard ball begins to drop very slowly, then accelerates with the pull of gravity. If in a vacuum, the blue ball will hit the pavement, 1368 ft. below, 9.22 seconds after it is dropped. That is, unless it is propelled by explosives, it will take at least 9.22 seconds to reach the ground (assuming no air resistance).

       According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The “pancake theory” implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn’t see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn’t enough kinetic energy to do either.
       [Trumpman][Hoffman]
       http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm
       http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html
       But, for the sake of evaluating the “collapse” time, we’ll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings “collapse.”

       Figure 2. Possibilities to consider for modeling the collapse.
       Model A: The floors remain intact and pile up like a stack of pancakes.
       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelA.jpg
       Model B: The floors blow up like an erupting volcano from the top down.
       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelB.jpg

       Which of the two models, above, best matches the images below?
       Figure 3. Images from the “collapse.”
       (a) WTC2, demonstrating there is little to no free-fall debris ahead of the “collapse wave,” and (b) layer of uniform dust left by the “collapse.”
       a. http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg
       b. http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/img_1479.jpg

       If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. For one thing, that energy can only be spent once. If the potential energy is used to pulverize a floor upward and outward, it can’t also be used to accelerate the building downward. In order to have pancaking, a force is required to trigger the failure of the next floor. If the building above that floor has been pulverized, there can be no force pushing down. As observed in the pictures below, much of the material has been ejected upward and outward.
       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg
       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/bwMushroom.jpg
       Any pulverized material remaining over the footprint of the building will be suspended in the air and can’t contribute to a downward force slamming onto the next floor. With pulverization, the small particles have a much larger surface-area-to-mass ratio and air resistance becomes significant. As we can recall, the dust took many days to settle out of the air, not hours or minutes. So, even though the mechanism to trigger the “pancaking” of each floor seems to elude us, let’s consider the time we would expect for such a collapse.

       To illustrate the timing for this domino effect, we will use a sequence of falling billiard balls, where each billiard ball triggers the release of the next billiard ball in the sequence. This is analogous to assuming pulverization is instantaneous and does not slow down the process. In reality, this pulverization would slow down the “pancake” progression, so longer times would be expected. Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be.

       `Progressive Collapse’ in ten-floor intervals
       To account for the damaged zone, let’s simulate the floor beams collapsing every 10th floor, as if something has destroyed 9 out of every 10 floors for the entire height of the building. This assumes there is no resistance within each 10-floor interval. i.e. We use the conservative approach that there is no resistance between floor impacts. In reality there is, which would slow the collapse time further. Also, there was only damage in one 10-floor interval, not the entire height of the building. Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be. Refer to the figure below.
       The clock starts when the blue ball is dropped from the roof (110th floor). Just as the blue ball passes the 100th floor, the red ball drops from the 100th floor. When the red ball passes the 90th floor, the orange ball drops from the 90th floor, … etc. Notice that the red ball (at floor 100) cannot begin moving until the blue ball reaches that level, which is 2.8 seconds after the blue ball begins to drop.

       This approximates the “pancaking” theory, assuming that each floor within the “pancaking” (collapsing) interval provides no resistance at all. With this theory, no floor below the “pancake” can begin to move until the progressive collapse has reached that level. For example, there is no reason for the 20th floor to suddenly collapse before it is damaged.

       With this model, a minimum of 30.6 seconds is required for the roof to hit the ground. Of course it would take longer if accounting for air resistance. It would take longer if accounting for the structure’s resistance that allows pulverization. The columns at each level would be expected to absorb a great deal of the energy of the falling floors. Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be.

       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/WTC-A3-75.jpg

       `Progressive Collapse’ in one-floor intervals
       Similar to Case 2, above, let’s consider a floor-by-floor progressive collapse.
       Refer to the figure below:
       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/WTC-A4-75.jpg
       Total time: 87.9 to 96.7 seconds.

       Now, let’s consider momentum.
       Assume that the top floor stays intact as a solid block weight, Block-A. Start the collapse timer when the 109th floor fails. At that instant, assume floor 108 miraculously turns to dust and disappears. So, Block-A can drop at free-fall speed until it reaches the 108th floor. After Block-A travels one floor, it now has momentum. If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving. If Block-A stops moving, after triggering the next sequence, the mass of Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum to the next “pancaking” between Block-B and Block-C. In other words, the momentum will not be increased as the “collapse” progresses.
       Now, recall the physics demonstration shown below. (I believe everyone who has finished high school has seen one of these momentum demonstrations at some point in their life.)
       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/momentum.jpg

       Note, if some part must stop and then restart its descent every floor, the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds. Given that the building disintegrated from the top down, it is difficult to believe there could be much momentum to transfer, anyway. Also, consider the energy required to pulverize the floor between each “pancake.” After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don’t believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it “hangs” in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the “collapsing” floors.
       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/pic1.jpg

       Now, let’s consider reality.
       QUESTIONS:
       (1) How likely is it that all supporting structures on a given floor will fail at exactly the same time?
       (2) If all supporting structures on a given floor did not fail at the same time, would that portion of the building tip over or fall straight down into its own footprint?
       (3) What is the likelihood that supporting structures on every floor would fail at exactly the same time, and that these failures would progress through every floor with perfect symmetry?

       Let’s say that we want to bring down the entire building in the time it takes for free-fall of the top floor of WTC1. (Use 9.22 seconds as the time it would take the blue ball to drop from the roof to the street below, in a vacuum.) So, If the entire building is to be on the ground in 9.22 seconds, the floors below the “pancaking” must start moving before the “progressive collapse” reaches that floor, below. To illustrate this, use the concept of the billiard balls. If the red ball (dropped from the 100th floor) is to reach the ground at the same time as the blue ball (dropped from the 110th floor), the red ball must be dropped 0.429 seconds after the blue ball is dropped. But, the blue ball will take 2.8 seconds after it is dropped, just to reach the 100th floor in free fall. So, the red ball needs to begin moving 2.4 seconds before the blue ball arrives to “trigger” the red ball’s motion. I.e., each of these floors will need a 2.4 second head start. But this creates yet another problem. How can the upper floor be destroyed by slamming into a lower floor if the lower floor has already moved out of the way?
       Case 2, above, shows the red ball being dropped just as the blue ball passes that point.

       Remember, I’m assuming the building was turning to dust as the collapse progressed, which is essentially what happened.

       So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.
       Did we see this? I believe it’s pretty clear in some of the videos. The “wave” of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation sequence.

       Realizing that, for example, the 40th floor needs to start moving before any of the upper floors have “free-fallen” to that point, why would it start moving? There was no fire there. And, if anything, there is less load on that floor as the upper floors turn to dust.

       In the picture (at right), notice that WTC2 is less than half of its original height, yet has no debris that has fallen ahead of the demolition wave.
       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg

       This part of the building surely took a lot longer to hit the ground as dust than it would have if it came down as larger pieces of material.
       We know that sheets of paper have a very high surface-area-to-mass ratio and will stay aloft for long periods of time, which is why paper is an excellent material for making toy airplanes. The alert observer will notice that much of the paper is covered with dust, indicating that this dust reached the ground after the paper did.

       http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/img_1479.jpg
       In the above picture, there are a few tire tracks through the dust, but not many, so it was probably taken shortly after one (or both) of the towers were down. Also, the people in the picture look like they’ve just come out of hiding, curious to see what just happened and to take pictures. If there had been a strong wind blowing the dust around, it would blow the paper away before it would have blown the dust onto the paper. So, the fact that much of the randomly-oriented paper is covered with dust indicates the relative aerodynamic properties of this dust.
       Also, notice the dark sky as well as the haze in the distance. This was a clear day with no clouds in the sky… except for the dust clouds. This overcast appearance as well as the distant haze can only be explained by dust from the “collapse” that is still suspended in the air.

       So, how could the ground rumble for only 8 seconds while WTC1 “disappeared?”
       I don’t think this part of the building made a thud when it hit the ground.

       In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001. The “collapse” of all three WTC buildings may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation.

       http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

       Gravity; Part II

       It is an absolute fact that WTC7 fell at the speed of freefall in a vaccuum.
       There is NO “official” explanation as to WHY WTC7 fell.  This particular book on gravity was the inspiration for an educational presentation that leaves no room for any alternatives:
       Go here and click “play” and see for yourselves :::: WTC7 collapsing at the rate of freefall in a vaccuum:
       http://www.v911t.org/911Clips.php

       Further video which gives an expert explanation…..since we have no “official” explanation:
       Mr Jowenko is a controlled demolition expert with years of experience in this area. He didn’t know WTC7 had also come down on 9/11. Here he sees it for the first time and is asked how it fell BEFORE he is told it was WTC7 on 9/11:
       The opinion of an Expert Without an Agenda
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

       The clip is from a nationally televised program aired in the Netherlands. Jowenko is in no doubt even after being told the circumstances.
       “This is professional work without any doubt.”

       This understandin of gravity renders all the explanations offered by the administration’s propaganda machine IMPOSSIBLE.

       From the Structural Mechanics and Hydraulics shelves:

       Physics is a funny thing…it contains immutable laws.
       These laws are used all the time in definitive proofs.  One of these laws is conservation of energy.  In the case of the towers it can be applied to the known mass of a tower and its known average height.  These two numbers, along with the force due to gravity at sea level yield the total potential energy available in a gravity driven collapse.  The value is not debatable…it’s fact.
       Certain effects of the collapse are also facts.  The physics has been done and the values show that just 2 of these known effects required over 12 times the energy available in a gravity-only collapse.

       The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower’s dust cloud (the observed pyroclastic flow after collapse) was many times the entire potential energy of the tower’s elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.

       The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.
       http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

       So…just the expansion of all the material that was reduced to 30 micron-sized dust particals was more than can possibly be accounted for by the government fable.

       On top of the expansion of the dust clouds there was the required energy to create the dust in the first place:

       The energy required to convert a tower’s 600,000 tons of concrete into dust of 60 micron particle diameter is about 900,000 KWH.
       http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm
       http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev1.html

       Gravitational potential energy is the energy released in a structural collapse, which may typically be dissipated by concrete crushing in a “pile driver” effect.

       This energy is calculated by the equation U=mgh, with mass in kg, gravitational force constant g=9.8m/s/s, and h in meters. The energy units in this equation are joules (watt-seconds) but large energies are more commonly expressed in kilowatt hours (1kwh=3.6e6 joules).

       Because the WTC towers are both massive and tall, the gravitational potential energy of each tower is enormous.

       Assuming a mass of 750,000 tons (6.8e8 kg) falling from an average height of 207 meters (half of the overall height of 1365 feet), the gravitational potential energy is about 1.4e12 joules or 400,000 kwh.

       The energy required to crush rock is roughly proportional to 1/sqrt(powder diameter), so the exact amount of energy required is critically dependent on the fineness of the powder. The energy required to reduce solid rock to 60 micron powder is about 20 kwh/ton:
       http://www.elorantaassoc.com/eob97.htm

       However, concrete is softer than rock, and a round number for the energy required to crush concrete is around 1.5 kwh/ton:
       http://www.b-i-m.de/public/ibac/mueller.htm

       With roughly 600,000 tons of concrete in each WTC tower, the available energy from gravitational potential energy was only about 0.7 kwh per ton of concrete.
       http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm

       “This was the South Tower. This was 104, 106 stories, all of it – this is what is left. Up there was the North Tower. And you look and you see – there’s no concrete. There’s very little concrete. All you see is aluminum and steel.
       –George Pataki
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5kF9ldtgrc

       The “official” story is impossible on so many levels.  How many times does something have to be impossible to truly be impossible?  ONCE.

       An Earth shaking Seismology treatise:

       Before the planes struck
       The times of the seismic spikes is undeniable proof that more than just airliners impacted the towers.
       The particular seismic facts discussed here have added weight.  It is independently corroborated by eyewitness accounts.  Independent corroboration is significant because it makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts because both pieces of evidence corroborate each other…it’s a two-way connection.

       http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html

       On 9/11 the seismic stations grouped around New York City recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. Because these seismic events preceded the collisions, it is clear they were not associated with the impacts and must therefore be associated with some other occurrence. None of the authorities charged with the responsibility for the investigation of the events of 9/11 have proposed a source for these seismic events, nor have they given a valid reason for the difference in times between the seismic events and the aircraft impacts. Only by consideration of the evidence of basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others, can an explanation be found for the fact that the seismic stations recorded seismic events originating from the WTC sites prior to the aircraft impacts. It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high level technological coordination. The facts presented here, simple and few, raise the possibility of inside help and involvement in 9/11/01, both before and after the attack.

       OVERVIEW
       This paper is concerned only with the factual data surrounding the exact impact times of the two aircraft that hit WTC1 and WTC2. Everything else about 9/11 is outside the scope of this paper.

       This is not a theory or hypothesis, but a statement of publicized facts regarding the timing of the aircraft impacts. There exist two separate precision data time sets that address when the aircraft crashed into the Towers. Both data time sets are based on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the world’s atomic clock system) and the sources that determined these times were prestigious, reliable and credible.

       There is no question regarding the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to record both data time sets, since their entire function depends and relies upon temporal accuracy, and therefore there can be no doubt that both data time sets are correct. The time data sets represent objective scientific data recorded by two separate, independent entities.

       The problem is the data sets have different impact times.

       These times were given out years ago but at different times. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (LDEO) gave its findings around the time of the actual event with what it thought were impact times based upon the seismic data recorded, while the 9/11 Commission published its impact times, based upon FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic, years later in its Final Report. The Commission no longer exists.

       Here are the impact times for each source:
       ………………………….AA Flt 11…..UA Flt 175
       LDEO:………………….8:46:26…..9:02:54
       9/11 Commission: ….8:46:40…..9:03:11
       Differentials: ………..14 secs…..17 secs

       SEISMIC DATA AND TIMES
       LDEO Published Findings

       Link: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

       (all times plus or minus 1 to 2 seconds)
       http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof-image002.gif
       LDEO confirmed its data as accurate:
       http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

       9/11 COMMISSION DATA AND TIMES
       Commission Timeline

       Link:  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
       The Commission’s times are based upon: “We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic.” [9/11 Commission Report, pg 460, Note 130]:
       http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof-image003.gif

       http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html
       (Note 130 is the basis for WTC1 & WTC2 precision impact times to the second)
       http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof-image004.gif

       It is known that the FAA followed the aircraft using four different radar tracking stations utilizing primary radar return with all times to the second. Radar is based upon microwaves that travel at the speed of light, and therefore an error variance (which is in microseconds) need not be stated.

       The Commission Report has the impact times.

       Their data set is based upon actual flight data that ended when the Towers were struck.

       There is no question: AA Flight 11 died exactly at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11 [UTC – 4 hrs].

       Since the planes crashed at those times, the question is: What caused the LDEO times 14 and 17 seconds earlier? What caused those seismic spikes?

       On the face, it seems tenuous that the spikes were “impact times”. How does an aircraft impacting the WTC near the 90th floor result in energy transference that travels all the way down to the earth, even through the massive multi-level, 6-story sub-basement structure, and be picked up by LDEO as a seismic spike? Energy from the crash should have mostly been absorbed by the building’s immense structure and mass.

       The following is an excerpt about an eyewitness at WTC1 by the name of William Rodriguez (he worked at the WTC complex for 20 years, was acknowledged a hero for the many lives he saved that day, and he was the last person out of the building before it came down):

       http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna17.htm

       Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at that same time. As he was discussing the day’s tasks with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were an additional twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

       At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. “When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking.” said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, his supervisor for the American Building Maintenance Company.

       Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the Tower at about the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion’s resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: “I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building.” He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the Tower.

       The number of witnesses who presented evidence of explosion and explosion damage, and particularly the injuries that some witnesses received, again leaves no room for doubt that there were explosions in the basement of WTC1. The following video link of the powerful testimony of William Rodriguez is evidence that corroborates the facts of this paper; and these facts corroborate these 37 eyewitnesses:

       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294

       CONCLUSION

       Several seismic stations recorded seismic signals originating from two events which occurred at the WTC site, immediately prior to both aircraft impacts. Because these signals preceded the impacts there can be no doubt that the seismic signals recorded were not those associated with the aircraft impacts on the Towers.

       These signals were, in fact, the seismic spikes associated with the huge basement explosions reported by witnesses.

       From the Geometry section:

       The slope coming off the road at the Pentagon where the lamp poles were:
       http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/geometrie/survolRoute.jpg

       The path taken by what struck the Pentagon as dictated by the first two Pentagon videos released:
       http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/geometrie/analyse4.gif

       To strike the Pentagon the trajectory that MUST have been taken does not match up with what the Pentagon videos purportedly show:
       http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/geometrie/analyse1.jpg

       The “Pentagon videos” are frauds.

       http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/im-2ndlev.html

       Remember, by definition, the impossible cannot occur.

       Bonus book as a reward for making it this far through this diary…Videography
       http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/im-1stlev.html

       A Chemistry Text:

       If you haven’t heard of Professor Steven jones yet…where have you been?  His findings from tests conducted on 2 samples of WTC steel is said to show that an incendiary compound called thermate was at work on 9/11.
       The chemical signature left by a thermate reaction is like a fingerprint.  Specific ratios of specific compounds are what make up this fingerprint.  This fingerprint cannot be caused by the random introduction of the ingredients necessary to produce a thermate reaction…it can only come specifically from thermate itself.  His work has not yet been published as far as I know but it is said to have been verified by two other labs at other universities and a peer-reviewed paper of the study is forthcoming.
       There’s also some verification in the FEMA report which puzzles over the observed sulfidation of the steel.  It puzzles over this because it has no explanation that can be taken from the narrow context within which it seeks to explain the phenomenon.
       http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

       From http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
       There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel–which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit–may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) reveal that a novel phenomenon–called a eutectic reaction–occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

       Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

       A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.

       A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

       A piece of possible photographic evidence is an often pointed to pic:
       http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=5821
       There is substantial evidence that thermite was used to cut the central support columns, which caused the towers to fall.
       Evidence can be seen on photographs of the columns from the rubble of the World Trade Center.
       In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman’s helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite.
       Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch.

       The recognition by the administration that these facts are getting through to more and more people has prompted an interesting statement by bush that amounts to a trial balloon for how they might spin the explosive implications.
       “…Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out…. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high — a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.”

       This was a scripted statement…not just one of his extemporaneous inanities.
       http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

2. 

   BooMan on September 19, 2006 at 10:10 pm

   you’re welcome here, but I don’t know that this seismic differential tells us much.  The FAA times are not atomic clock precision estimates.  They are based on radar tracking and air traffic control tapes.  I don’t find this a compelling discrepancy for that reason.  Additionally, I thought the theory was that bombs were used to bring the towers down after the impact.  What purpose would they have before the planes hit?  

   • 

     dougr on September 19, 2006 at 10:33 pm

     “The FAA times are not atomic clock precision estimates.”

     Respectfully, I have to correct you about that.

     Maybe you missed this:
     “There exist two separate precision data time sets that address when the aircraft crashed into the Towers. Both data time sets are based on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the world’s atomic clock system) and the sources that determined these times were prestigious, reliable and credible.”

     The FAA/radar times are atomic clock based as well as the seismic times.  

     There’s no way to explain the time differential by saying the two sets of data are from different clocks.  They’re from the same clock.

     • 

       BooMan on September 19, 2006 at 10:39 pm

       no.  you’re missing my point.  The date stamps at FAA may be on the same clock, but the date stamps are not the determinate of when the planes impacted.  That is surmised by looking at the radar and communications.  And that is not as accurate as seismic events.  See my point?

       • 

         dougr on September 19, 2006 at 10:48 pm

         The radar information is also linked to computerized air traffic control software logic.  There’s no “eye-balling” or surmising involved.

         http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof-image004.gif
         Note 130 is the basis for WTC1 & WTC2 precision impact times to the second
         http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof-image003.gif
         http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html

         All the supporting links are in the full diary on kos.

         • 

           BooMan on September 19, 2006 at 10:58 pm

           we’re talking about .16 and .14 of a second.  They transponders were turned off.  How are they going to expect to line up closer than that with a seismic event?  I’m just saying, I don’t see this is as very compelling.  I’d be more surprised and suspicious if they were exactly the same.  

           And you didn’t answer me on the other question.  Under what theory were there two bombing events, in addition to the planes? And what was the point of the first one?

         • 

           dougr on September 19, 2006 at 11:05 pm

           No,no,no…not .14 and .16.  
           Fourteen seconds and sixteen seconds.  Whole seconds.

           Then you have to understand the power of independent corroboration.
           Reports of explosions in the basements heard and felt from below and their effects witnessed by several people independently corroborate the seismic data.
           Independence of the corroboration is the key.
           It works in both directions.  They corroborate each other.
           In court, this type of corroboration means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

         • 

           Gaianne on September 19, 2006 at 11:48 pm

           air traffic control software logic.  There’s no “eye-balling” or surmising involved

           because the software does the surmising for you.  

           Until you know what was built into that software, you don’t know where the technical problems lie.  Something to investigate, for sure, but at this stage it is not clear where it leads us.  

           If you are hinting at bombs planted in each of the two towers, then you are suggesting a premature detonation for EACH BOMB.  In short, somebody goofed twice.  (I know, not impossible for this administration!  😉 )

           The fact that the times disagree by almost the same amount suggests a systematic timekeeping error.  The difference of two seconds in the disagreements suggest imprecision in the time measurement itself.  A technical investigation would be needed to show why that is.  

           If it is impossible, you would need a technical investigation to show that.  

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 12:20 am

           The nature of the FAA systems are known.  Being linked to an atomic clock based system makes it accurate.
           Radar traveling at the speed of light produces accuracy.
           The author of the paper did the technical investigation.
           The author also assigned a probable error variance of +/- 2 seconds.

           For 14 seconds on one tower and 16 on the other, I’d say it’s conclusive.

           The witnesses’ corroboration provides a lot of strength too.

           And I don’t think the explosions were premature…as I explained in another comment.

           If you want to learn more about what’s happening in the “conspiracy theorist” world…under the radar of the MSM…take your time and go through the entire diary on kos and those 3 other links I put in this diary.

           One thing to keep in mind…there ARE some nuts out there with some far out theories.  Those are the ones the MSM are using to put all the really good work down.
           They ARE getting nervous that they won’t be able to contain it much longer.  It’s taken years for the cream of the research to rise to the top.  It’s taken me months to sift through it all and skim it off.

           There’s so much information out there and so many different angles to approach it from.
           Just looking at Silverstein’s history and the history of the WTC itself is over 100 pages out there…all somewhat strewn about.
           Stuff like Marvin Bush, George’s brother being a board member of the security company operating at the WTC and Wirt Walker III, their cousin the CEO of the company.  The contract they had with the WTC was written to expire on 9/11/2001.  In the weeks before 9/11 the towers went through sequential security shut-downs during which security worked double shifts and were the only ones with access to the affected areas.
           And that the towers were on the verge of being condemned when Silverstein bought a 99 year lease 6 weeks before 9/11 and insured the buildings, specifically adding a terrorism clause, for over $3 billion each.  There was an asbestos remediation problem that was too costly to undertake and the Port Authority had run out of options.  Silverstein paid 1.2 mil out of pocket and got a 6 bil return.  When Silverstein filed his claim he submitted an engineering report using the same engineers who had written up NIST’s engineering report.
           For NIST, these engineers claimed the engine behind the collapse was successive floor failure.  For Silverstein’s insurance claim they said there was NO floor failure.
           So, you can see, there’s a lot of information on every aspect after 5 years.

         • 

           Gaianne on September 20, 2006 at 3:22 am

           Found your comment; my appologies; now I get the concept–that the foundations had to be struck first to maximize the damage the planes would cause when they hit.  

           And so the discrepancy would be meaningful.  

           I accept it as a possibility.  

           There is a side benefit:  Upon being struck, the cores of elevators in both buildings were knocked out–from top to bottom, with fireballs bursting out on the main floors, and it has never been completely convincing that the fireballs from the aircraft should have penetrated downward all 70 or 80 floors with elevator compartments in the way, blocking the shafts.  Just one of the many little issues overlooked in the lurid media accounts.  But with an explosion immediately underneath, this becomes much more comprehensible.

           I am mostly with you on WTC 7.  Free fall in a vacuum?  Free fall in AIR is good enough for me, as controlled demolition should do approximately that.  And how much does air slow falling steel and concrete, anyway?  

           Being a conventional skyscraper–not an exotic design–and being struck by nothing but a bit of debris (a serious bit, but only that) with fires reported on two (2) floors, WTC 7 defies innocent explanation.  Demolition it was–an inside job.  

           By the way, Popular Mechanics DOES HAVE an explanation based on a broken fuel line in the building–which I don’t believe 1) because even after reading it I do not believe heat damage could have produced the instant, symmetrical collapse and 2) the fuel line would have been a gross, criminal fire-code violation which would have warranted its own investigation, which never happened.  That is, the cover ups themselves imply a cover up:  They never get us to the place we are supposed to be–that NO investigation of 9/11 is needed or warranted.  

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 8:12 am

           Popular Mechanics is brought to us by Hearst publishing.  The phrase “yellow journalism” was first coined to describe their practice of it.

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 8:37 am

           Also…about the elevator shafts.  
           First, the designers took into account the possibility that fires might spread through them so the shafts were sealed to minimize the amount of air available for combustion.
           Second, they were offset.  No elevator traveled the entire height of the building.  You could not get on an elevator at the 70th floor and take it to the basement.  At around the 40th floor you would have to get off and walk down a hallway to get on a different elevator.

           If enough jet fuel remained after the initial fireball to get into an elevator shaft in large quantities and found enough oxygen to continue burning, it was impossible for it to get past the 40th floor.

         • 

           Gaianne on September 20, 2006 at 10:28 am

           Well, this just gets better and better.  

           I must say, for an event (9/11) of such monumental import, media accounts were awfully vague about what actually transpired.  Suspiciously vague, actually.  

         • 

           technopolitical on September 22, 2006 at 12:25 am

           Yes indeed. I’ve always found media accounts to be comprehensive and accurate on other topics.

         • 

           glitterscale on September 20, 2006 at 12:50 pm

           tapes regarding this theory and I have to say that I would never have expected the buildings to collapse straight downward like that.  I would have expected more outward explosions from heat.  But the downward fall look more like processed demolitions where they keep the debris in a tight footprint.

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 1:36 pm

           If you look again you will notice that as the destruction progressed down the towers there was a “mushrooming” of debris being thrown out beyond the buildings’ perimeters.  Examine that mushrooming and you will then see that massive quantities of debris are not just being thrown horizontally.  There is an upward trajectory to it that could not possibly result from a gravity-only collapse.  If the buildings are crumbling downward, what’s throwing all that debris up and out?

           In the following documentary that trajectory is analyzed.  Go 1:19:15 in.
           http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603

           Also in the documentary you can hear explosions prior to the towers collapsing….starting at 44:27 minutes in.  The sounds are also analyzed to fix their time relative to collapse and other characterisitics.

         • 

           technopolitical on September 22, 2006 at 12:38 am

           …the instant, symmetrical collapse…

           — didn’t happen. Have you ever watched a video of what happened, and seen how one side of the building collapses first, turning as it falls?

           It falls straight down, of course, because gravity pulls exactly in that direction.

           Score another point for the mythical-impossibilities squad. They either haven’t watched the videos, or don’t give a fig for the truth. Or maybe I’m wrong, and they’ll now busy themselves with repairing their credibility by retracting this argument.

         • 

           afs on September 22, 2006 at 1:40 pm

           TP, anyone that has googled the subject of 9/11 even once knows that if there is one thing that “9/11 truth” advocates do a whole heck of a lot of, it’s watching video of the events of 9/11 over and over and over and over again.

           Someone might be able to sometimes criticise “9/11 truth” advocates for watching too much video, and maybe making too much out of what is seen in the video frames, but to claim any “9/11 truth” advocate has not seen video footage of 9/11 demonstrates you are completely ignorant of the subject matter involved.
           —

           The South tower cap “tilt” is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against the “mainstrean version” of the crash/collapse story. Gravity should have dragged the cap of the South Tower over the side of the lower floors, relieving some of the pressure on the lower floors. When the top of the South Tower went over the side, some of the stress causing the floors to pancake should have been relieved. That tilted cap should have fallen to the ground independently. The fact that the pancake continued beneath the tilted cap requires the entire core structure of the South tower to have suddenly have become insignificant in it’s ability to hold a load.

           One microsecond, the core structure of the lower floors of the tower were capable of sustaining their load, and the top floors were going over the side. A few microseconds later, their ability to sustain a load instantaneously evaporated.

           That’s the very definition of suspicious.

         • 

           BooMan on September 22, 2006 at 1:48 pm

           find is suspicious in the least.

           WTC7 is suspicious.  WTC1 and 2 are not suspicious.  At all.  Try dropping thirty stories of office building on 80 stories of office building.  Or, try dropping a bowling ball on a pint of milk, or try dropping an encyclopedia on a house of cards.  

           Once the top started moving it was all over.  

           Unlike WTC1 and 2, WTC7 start collapsing from the bottom.  And that is what is strange.  How that building failed is a mystery, but it doesn’t extend to the towers.  

         • 

           afs on September 22, 2006 at 2:35 pm

           Building 7 is pretty blatant.

           The South Tower is less obvious, but the more you study that event the less sense it makes.

           Let’s use that encyclopedia/house of cards reference you brought up. Build a one story house of cards. Drop encyclopedia. Do it 20 times.

           How many times do all 26 books of the encyclopedia land on the floor in a stack in perfect alignment? How many times do you have books spilled all over your yard?

           Now… that’s the north tower.

           Now do the same thing with the A, B, and C volumes hanging 1/3 of the way off center of the encyclopedia stack when you drop them. Where do those A, B, & C books wind up? Probably about half the time, they’ll wind up tumbling halfway to your neighbors yard before they are done.

           Chaos rarely happens in an orderly fashion.

         • 

           Gaianne on September 22, 2006 at 6:53 pm

           WTC 7 was as I stated, and was plainly demolition.  

           Although WTC 1 & 2 are more ambiguous, for many reasons, including their eccentric design, the case for demolition is not poor at all.  

           You cite yourself a problematic point:  First the towers twist, and then they collapse straight.  A new failure COUNTERACTS the twisting momentum of the initial failure causing collapse.  How so?  What IS this new failure?  It is not clear that the innocent explanations are valid.  

           But I do not worry overmuch about 1 & 2, since 7 alone proves criminal complicity.  

         • 

           BooMan on September 22, 2006 at 7:10 pm

           WTC7 does not prove criminal complicity.  It indicates a mystery.  

           As for WTC1 and WTC2, the downward pull of gravity was much stronger than any angular momentum.  Leave it to the physicists.  They are not much concerned with the collapse of WTC1 and 2.  

           There are some curiosities, like the heat of the rubble pile in places.  They do not indicate anything conclusive.  

           If WTC7 was pulled, we will need an explanation for that.  But it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with 1 and 2.   It just doesn’t.  It might.  Not necessarily.

         • 

           Gaianne on September 22, 2006 at 11:23 pm

           WTC7 does not prove criminal complicity.  It indicates a mystery.  

           When we have clear signs of demolition and no investigation, what we have is more than a “mystery.”  We have government complicity–at some level of government–with “terrorist” attacks.  

           I am not a conspiracy theorist.  I have no conspiracy to offer.  Even though there are obvious suspects, more evidence is needed to move beyond mere suspicion.  

           But the “terrorist” explanation simply does not match the facts that we DO know.  

           As for WTC1 and WTC2, the downward pull of gravity was much stronger than any angular momentum.  Leave it to the physicists.  

           Forces add in vector sum.  Momentum cannot be created or destroyed–it must balance perfectly, like a bank with correct, clean books.  This is High School physics–nothing more elaborate is needed.  

           If WTC7 was pulled, we will need an explanation for that.  But it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with 1 and 2.   It just doesn’t.  It might.  Not necessarily.  

           You mean we have two SEPARATE CRIMES that just happen to be perpetrated on the same site on same day?  No:  Whatever 9/11 is, it is one single crime carried about by somebody–or a gang of somebodies.  

         • 

           dougr on September 23, 2006 at 9:50 pm

           This is the speed at which the floors of the towers would have to fail:

           http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/7.9hz.mov
           Each “thump” represents one floor failing.

           Simultaneous failure of floor trusses, perimeter columns, core columns.

           Simultaneous, gravity driven collapse of massive steel columns and the entire structure of the towers to proceed from top to bottom in 10 seconds would require all that simultaneous failure to progress floor by floor at that speed.  Completely unfathomable.
           10 out of 10 physicists agree.  It doesn’t even take a physicist to comprehend it.

           There’s no way possible for gravity driven structural failure to occur at that rate given the immensity and integrity of the structural complex within the towers.

           Now, do it via computerized timing of sequenced detonation?
           No problem.

         • 

           fourtytwo on September 24, 2006 at 8:50 am

           Heavy pieces of metal were flying UP and out at the start of collapse.  Gravity goes down.  Where did the UPward momentum come from?

           How do you imagine the vertical core columns were split into small pieces over their entire lengths?  The debris came down vertically, but still managed to somehow deliver horizontal kicks strong enough to break! all of them, top-down, in both towers?  Ever seen something piercing through/breaking steel columns?  Lets see..depleted uranium ammunition comes to mind….of course substances like thermite could do the trick

       • 

         dougr on September 19, 2006 at 11:00 pm

         Just to be clearer, the radar returns feed into the FAA’s computer system in real time.  The computer system is atomic clock based.  The returns stop at impact with the towers…so that point in time is registered in reference to UTC time.

         From the paper:
         “It is known that the FAA followed the aircraft using four different radar tracking stations utilizing primary radar return with all times to the second. Radar is based upon microwaves that travel at the speed of light, and therefore an error variance (which is in microseconds) need not be stated.

         The Commission Report has the impact times.

         Their data set is based upon actual flight data that ended when the Towers were struck.

         There is no question: AA Flight 11 died exactly at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11 [UTC – 4 hrs].”

         • 

           BooMan on September 19, 2006 at 11:05 pm

           yes.  I see that that point is being made.  And again, I ask you, what is the significance of .16 second variance?  That is a tiny variance.  It involves a best estimate of when the planes went off radar that lines up to under a fifth of a second.

           Before I take much interest in that, you have to tell me why someone set off bombs at the exact moment each plane impacted, since those bombs seemed to have no effect on anything?

         • 

           dougr on September 19, 2006 at 11:08 pm

           See above.
           Sixteen seconds…not point one six.

         • 

           BooMan on September 20, 2006 at 12:06 am

           okay seconds are more significant.

           This bedrock argument is pretty unconvincing to me.

           I would rather focus on the actual hijackers.  

           http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/3/91613/7260
           http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/5/18732/7606
           http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/6/211958/009

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 12:32 am

           About the bedrock, one can only speculate.  But, that there were massive explosions in the basements is pretty solid.

           When you get to the fact that WTC 7 fell at the speed of freefall in a vaccuum, a lot of bells should go off.
           Here’s a presentational video using the actual speed fall of WTC7 as seen on video compared to a gravity demonstration.  
           http://www.v911t.org/911Clips.php
           They match up the start of the collapse going frame by frame for accuracy with a “gravity laboratory” showing an object falling through air.  The building falls faster.  So they adjust the lab’s parameters to have the object falling in a vaccuum.  Only the visible portion of the collapse is used so there’s no guessing about when the collapse stopped.
           How was a vaccum achieved, you might ask.
           To remove all the air from the area the building was falling into would require that the air be forced out rather quickly.
           In this video, we get the answer:
           http://www.supportthetruth.com/wtc7.php

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 12:50 am

           Nuts…I just found that 2nd video has been removed from that location.
           It shows a demolition expert, from Holland I think, seeing WTC 7 go down for the first time.  He was not aware that it was WTC 7 and did not even know WTC 7 had fallen on 9/11.

           He watches it come down and states, yes, that is controlled demolition.
           The interviewer then tells him the circumstances but he doesn’t waiver in his opinion.  He says “That is the work of professionals”

           I’ll try to find it somewhere else.

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 2:39 pm

           Ok…I found the clip at another location:

           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

         • 

           technopolitical on September 22, 2006 at 12:40 am

           Would you say that the physics behind this argument is of better or worse quality than the metallurgy that declares that fire doesn’t soften steel, suggesting that blacksmiths are fools with a fire fetish?

         • 

           afs on September 22, 2006 at 12:28 pm

           Do you know what the fuel for a blacksmith hearth is? Wood. Charcoal. Have you ever had charcoal melt your backyard grill when you were cooking steaks? I’ll bet you haven’t.

           A blacksmith’s fire gets that hot because massive amounts of oxygen are focused by a blacksmith hearth on that fire. Do you know how much oxygen gets focused on a blacksmith’s fire by those huge bellows to acquire the temperatures needed for a blacksmith’s fire to get hot enough to make steel pliable enough to be hammered? Far far far greater amounts than were achievable at the WTC.

           The holes the planes opened in the side of the WTC does not come close. Neither would winds blowing through holes. Wind would have the exact same effect on the WTC fires as wind in you backyard while you were grilling steaks. A windy day on your deck grilling steaks still does not melt your backyard grill. To get the type of “bellows effect” you are discussing at the scale of WTC building fire, you would need several high speed wind tunnels attached to the sides of the WTC pointed directly at the fire.

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 10:01 am

           That’s very good work on the comings and goings of the hijackers.  I’d not seen everything you rooted out but, over the years, most of it.
           There are a few different avenues along which to take the information.
           Their presence at flight schools and always near airports sets up a legend for each of them.  That’s an important factor in setting up a patsy, although the planes they allegedly trained with at the flight schools were more like cessnas and piper cubs…definitely not jetliners.

           One avenue focuses on their presence at secure military bases where special ops forces are trained.
           The US military routinely trains individuals from other countries in clandestine and special ops.
           You have to segue that infomation with the multitude of drills being run on 9/11…some involving live-fly hijack drills using the WTC and Pentagon as targets.
           These types of drills, which take place all the time, are designed with what’s called “high fidelity” in mind.  Meaning they’re made to conform as much as possible to reality.  A drill calling for Middle Eastern hijackers would use Middle Eastern “hijackers”.
           All that’s necessary is to get particular people on a passenger jet and watch it take off.  The hijackers were shielded from investigation up one side and down the other from high up.

           With today’s technology, aircraft can easily be flown remotely.  It’s long tested and practiced technology.  Put 19 “hijackers” into a live-fly, extremely high fidelity training exercise and flip the exercise to a real hijacking at the push of a button.
           Result:  3.2 Trillion in missing Pentagon money, (admitted to by rumsfeld on Monday, 9/10…not on Friday.  Friday’s the day that everyone knows is best for releasing news that’s that bad.  Never Monday) is instantly forgotten while a ton of new cash arrives by the tanker load.  Wars that were being salivated over for years become “justifiable”.  The price of oil begins on a radical uptrend netting that good old boy network windfall profits.  Even insurance companies make a killing because now increased premiums for “terrorism” insurance opens a new channel for the money to flow in.  Weapons manufacturers go into high gear, turning over inventory like there’s no tomorrow.  The party in power has a super trump card in playing up the fear of terrorism.  There’s no end to the benefit to the corporate oligarchy…or the Global Domination Group as it’s called by Project Censored.

           With all your investigation into the hijackers can you really believe that Hanni Hanjour, who was denied rental of a cessna at a small airport because he was not competent when they checked him out, was able to perform the maneuvers necessary to hit the Pentagon at 500 mph?  They were not hijackers…they were “hijackers”.

           Heres an animated graphic of the planes’ routes that day which arguably show there was a level of military precision involved:

           http://team8plus.org/news.php?item.32.3

           And speaking of military…where did that untraced transmission “Angel’s next” come from?  

         • 

           BooMan on September 20, 2006 at 11:28 am

           no, i don’t believe Hani Hanjour was the pilot of Flight 77.  I also don’t believe that it was flown by remote control.   It appears to have overflown its target and then settled on the Pentagon as a Plan B.  

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 12:12 pm

           Do you believe it is possible to direct such an aircraft via either remote control technology or onboard flight programming technology?

           Another factoid is that the company in charge of security for American Airlines, along with that of the WTC complex, were one and the same.
           Securacom/Stratasec.
           Marvin Bush was on the board and his cousin Wirt Walker III was ceo.

         • 

           BooMan on September 20, 2006 at 12:23 pm

           I’m pretty sure it is possible to take over an airplane by remote control.  It’s also something that the pilots would complain about.  It didn’t happen.

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 12:50 pm

           The pilots did not communicate that they were being hijacked either.  If they were in a position to communicate, surely they would have communicated that.

           From the above, it follows that either communication was rendered inoperable or the pilots were rendered inoperable…or both.

           It was the abrupt loss of communication with ground control that alerted the system that there was a problem in the first place.

         • 

           BooMan on September 20, 2006 at 1:49 pm

           Are you familiar with Occam’s Razor?

           Occam’s razor (also spelled Ockham’s razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham (Guilhelmi Ockam and Guillermi de ockam in Latin [1]). Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories.

           Occam’s razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or “shaving off,” those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness):

               entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

           which translates to:

               entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

           Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam’s razor is usually understood.

           It’s a pretty solid philosophical principle.  

           When it comes to 9/11, it should be applied vigourously.  

           To take one example, supposing a consipiracy, any theory should assume the fewest possible conspirators.  

           When you have evidence that there were Arabic speakers in the cockpits of both Flight 11 and Flight 93, you should assume that Arabs were in those cockpits.  To assume otherwise is to involve whole layers of additional conspiritors that would be able to take control of planes by remote control, cut off normal communications, insert false communications, etc.

           Add to this, the phone calls from stewardesses describing the hijackers and their seat numbers.

           Add to this the phone calls of passengers.  

           It’s adds levels of conspiracy that are totally unncessary and exceedingly unlikely.  And, IMO, is serves as a total distraction from the main issues.

           For me, the number one issue is, who were the hijackers.  Who recruited them?  Who trained them?  Who gave them money?  

           On those scores, I have found the 9/11 Commission’s explanations to be severely wanting.  Especially when it comes to the San Diego duo and Hanjour.  

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 1:57 pm

           I am very familiar with Occam’s razor.
           As a philosophical approach to things it can be helpful but it is not an infallible approach.  It should not ever be used with an implication that it is infallible.

           Let’s say that back in the 1400s you applied Occam’s razor to the question of whether or not the Earth was at the center of the universe.  After all, from the perspective of Earthbound humans, what could be MORE complex than positing that the universe is unimaginably vast and Earth is an infinitesmally insignificant speck?
           Occam’s razor says, given the prevailing perspective, that it must be so that the Earth is indeed in the center.

           However, if you apply the Occam’s razor approach equally to the two sides of the conflict between the government’s “official” story and that which I have outlined here, the “official” story comes out on the bottom on every level.

         • 

           BooMan on September 20, 2006 at 2:13 pm

           No, it doesn’t.

           Setting WTC7 aside, the simplest explanation for the collapse of the towers is that they suffered catastophic failure on upper floors due to the design failures and the way the floors were attached to the outer walls.  To conjecture that bombs were set off requires a tremendous amount of extra assumptions.  

           The question of 9/11 is not whether there was some gigantic conspiracy including NORAD, demolition teams, remote controlled airplanes, etc.

           Those theories fail to take into account the simplicity with which 9/11 could have been carried out.

           Here is a scenario that is much more probable.

           Zawahiri was recruited as a Russian agent while he was in their custody in Dagestan in 1995.  After his release, he joined up with bin-Laden.  The Egyptian Islamic Jihad group initially replaced him as head of EIJ because they did not trust him and his explanation of his time in Russia, nor did they agree with bin-Laden’s Arabian-centric agenda.

           The African bombings were masterminded from the former Soviet Union town of Baku, where EIJ set up shop.  Sibel Edmonds found evidence of foreknowledge.  She was an Azeri translator.  

           The Russians, using al-Qaeda as a cut-out, recruited radical Muslims from Germany to serve as patsies, instructing them to travel to America, train as pilots, etc.

           In addition to this, the war games on 9/11 were an annual event that took place in Alaska and the northwest.  The Russians are always notified in advance to avoid alarm.  They also run their own war games at the same time, each year.  In other words, they didn’t even need a mole in the Pentagon to know that 9/11 was the best day to attack the east coast.  

           Now, I could expand on this.  I am not saying we were attacked by Russia.  I’m saying it is possible, and that the US Government would go to almost any lengths to avoid the American people knowing about it.  

           Our response, to put bases in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kryrgistan, and Iraq, seems like just punishment that doesn’t risk nuclear war.  

           Chew on that, because it makes a lot more sense than remote controlled airplances and pre-positioned detonations.

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 2:32 pm

           For the towers’ catastrophic failure to proceed in the manner it did and to produce the observed results through a gravity-only collapse you would have to believe that there was absolute symmetry in a random event.  That brings in innumerable complexities.  Failures of independent structures of redundant support all occurring simultaneously due to something as random as structural failure is mind-boggling.

           To say that it was a demolition is the least complex explanation.

           For the “hijackers” to enter this country and elude every intelligence network in this country for years on their own is also a supposition that assumes vast complexity.  Especially considering that these agencies were also aware of their presence here and their whereabouts.

           To say that they were protected from the top of the intelligence network is the least complex explanation.

           For the FAA, NEADS, and the entire system of flight control to suffer innumerable failures due to “incompetence” at tasks that have been routinely performed for years with no instance of prior failure at these tasks is immensely complex.

           A single stand-down order is very uncluttered by complications.

           For a human pilot to maneuver a 767 at 500 mph through a 270 degree turn and seemingly randomly pinpointing the face of the Pentagon that had just been renovated to strengthen it against attack, and that also contained the personnel and paperwork involved with the accounting to be investigated for the missing trillions of dollars is truly astronomically complex.

           Electronic guidance by remote control or an onboard system is a very clean explanation.

           When you take all these things in sum…the complexity increases at each step of putting the “official” story together.  That does not occur in my alternative explanation.

         • 

           BooMan on September 20, 2006 at 3:16 pm

           the towers collapsed in pancake fashion and they did not go down symmetrically.  If you had lifted a floor of the WTC1 and flown it over WTC2 and dropped it on top, the whole thing would go down in a straight line.  

           I don’t think it makes any sense to suppose that explosives were pre-positioned in the towers.  Occam’s razor definitely argues against it.

           It also argues against Hanjour being the pilot of 77, AND of 77 being controlled by remote.  If it were controlled by remote it would not have needed to perform the loop-de-loop because the coordinates would have been accurate in the first place.

           It’s good to raise questions, but I think you are raising the wrong questions.  

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 3:37 pm

           The pancake collapse model has been thoroughly debunked.  So much so that NIST now says it does not support this mechanism of collapse.

           NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system–that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns–consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.”

           http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

           The problem with this new explanation from NIST is that if the outer columns were being pulled inward AND the floors maintained their connections to the columns, how could there have been pieces of debris, some weighing over 100 tons, thrown 600 feet outward.  Why is there no evidence seen either during or after collapse of floors connected to the columns.  The floors were completely pulverized in mid-air with huge quantities of debris thrown violently outward as is evident in every photo and video of the event.

           This thread on here is getting rather thin…maybe we could continue it from my last comment at the bottom of the page.

         • 

           technopolitical on September 22, 2006 at 12:30 am

           Right. Get planes to hit the buildings AND use explosives to blow them. A clever, almost diabolical plan.

         • 

           afs on September 22, 2006 at 12:38 pm

           Less diabolical than forging evidence that claims that Saddam had WoMD and was a threat to use them on the US, and using that forged evidence as justification for an invasion.

           Less diabolical than airdropping pamphlets over Afghanistan/Iraq telling people they can get rich sniching on people claiming they involved in terrorist plots, torturing those people who the snitches turn in, gathering no good evidence from the snitch victims, and then acting shocked when you find out the people the snithes ratted out were rarely involved in terrorist activities.

           Remember who it is being discussed.

         • 

           afs on September 21, 2006 at 9:33 am

           The classical criminal investigation questions – means, motive, and opportunity – carry more weight in the calculus of reasoning out what happened in any criminal investigation than Occam’s Razor does. Occam’s Razor is a good predictor of chaotic natural processes. Occam’s Razor becomes a secondary consideration when human beings get involved.

           Let’s look at human history to see how Occam’s Razor does. Does Occam’s Razor predict many key events in human history? No. Occam’s Razor would fail to predict the rise and spread of Christianity, The US and French Revolutions, Napoleon, The start of WW I, The Russian Revolution, the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, etc.

           Humanity has a clear history of going about things in most complicated ways.

         • 

           Arminius on September 21, 2006 at 11:45 am

           Well said. This is correct. It’s bogus to use Occam’s Razor as an objection to so-called conspiracy theories, a way to side-step the evidence. One has to address the evidence head-on.

         • 

           dougr on September 23, 2006 at 2:57 pm

           However flight 77 was being piloted, not only was pinpoint accuracy during a nearly impossibly extreme maneuver at high speed necessary, it was also necessary for the automated ground-based anti-aircraft/anti-missile systems installed around the Pentagon to be neutralized.

           The only two ways to get around the anti-aircraft/anti-missile defenses would be to disable it all manually or signal via transponder to them that the incoming aircraft was “friendly”…ie a US military aircraft.

           Obviously one or the other did occur which points to 9/11 being an inside job.

         • 

           dougr on September 19, 2006 at 11:26 pm

           The core columns were linked to the bedrock.  Explosions to separate them from bedrock, as you can imagine, would greatly weaken their structural integrity.  Timing the blasts prior to the planes striking allowed the impact of the planes, high above, to be leveraged so as to add further structural weakness.
           In the basements, I believe there were 6 sub-basement levels, witnesses in the upper basement levels heard and felt massive explosions below.  Seconds after the first explosion, one witness in an upper basement level turned to see a man exit an elevator that had just reached where he was from a lower level.  He was severely injured and began yelling “Explosion, explosion!”  The witness, William Rodriguez, took the stairs down and entered a machine shop to find the room was completely destroyed with all the multi-ton machinery obliterated.
           It’s all very well documented.
           It’s just not on fox or nbc.

3. 

   Gaianne on September 19, 2006 at 11:19 pm

   I was told derisively to come over here  

   Too funny.  I think you should take it as a compliment.  For my part, welcome to the pond.  

   I left big Orange during the Pie Wars.

   Markos is seeking popularity (and getting it!), and frankly, sometimes the truth just has to go.  Definite limits to the base of their reality.  

   I agree with Booman on the discrepancy:  It should not be there, but it may not signify.  My household clocks are not running on the same time, nor my computer.  Many large-scale operations are no better, for the simple reason that one minute precision is more than good enough for daily operations.  Actually, no one even notices.  

   Congratulations on your series on the Orange.  Someone has to prod them!  

   Many people think that America can be fixed if we just do a little Get-Out-The-Vote on election day.  This is certainly the foremost view on Orange.  The facts of 9/11 challenge that, not only because there was government complicity in the attacks, but because our “own side”–the Dems–though surely not complicit, have been such unflagging enablers of the cover-up.  Which means that GOTV will be nowhere near sufficient.  

   In a way it is like the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  Looking back one can see that each of the major parties with a stake–the Kennedy family, the Dems, Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Air Force, the intelligence agencies, Lyndon Johnson (some pro-cover up, some anti-) all got the best deal they thought they could get, but that deal entailed acceding to an clumsy, official lie, and did not include allowing the truth to become public.  

   One could argue that American democracy ended right there in 1963.  I am still not sure.  

   PS  My favorite way of provoking them was election fraud–not that, at first, I meant to–it was just that certain things they cannot hear.  I am wondering if the Princeton video is softening them up any.  

   • 

     dougr on September 19, 2006 at 11:33 pm

     Thanks.  I didn’t really have a direction in mind when I started that series.  It just took itself there.  
     When it all finally came to a head and over 300 nasty comments were thrown at me I only said one thing with any derision in it although it took quite some doing to hold it to one.
     “Just keep watching all the pretty, shiny politics and elections………
     …
     …….oops
     Signing Statements.

     I almost mentioned vote fraud.

     • 

       Street Kid on September 20, 2006 at 12:51 am

       Glad to see ya!

       I almost mentioned vote fraud.

       That’s allowed!    

4. 

   Second Nature on September 20, 2006 at 2:35 pm

   I’ve seen alot of the conspiracy films and while they raise some good points I don’t think they make a credible case.  Still, WTC 7 is mysterious…

   • 

     dougr on September 20, 2006 at 3:10 pm

     This may be the only political site on the internet with reasoned debate on the subject.  I’m impressed.

     • 

       dougr on September 20, 2006 at 4:44 pm

       Even though it’s all here on this diary, it’s getting rather strewn…just like the same info is on the internet in general.
       The evidence for demolition of the towers is six-fold:

       There’s the laboratory analyses:

       “…high-powered chemical and other physical analyses done on WTC steel and residues and dust which appears quite conclusive and extremely damning.”
       http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/link.asp?ID=5175&URL=http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200
       609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf

       There’s the seismic evidence:

       http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html

       There’s witness reports:

       http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna17.htm

       There’s recorded audio evidence:

       “…you can hear explosions prior to the towers collapsing….starting at 44:27 minutes in.”
       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603

       There’s analysis of the trajectory of the debris given in the same video above:
       “In the following documentary that trajectory is analyzed.  Go 1:19:15 in.”

       There’s a study by a physics professor showing the towers could not have collapsed at the speed they did due to gravity-only models:
       http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

       Each of these pieces of evidence are independent of one another and independent of government influence.

       After digesting this…watch the towers go down again.

       • 

         dougr on September 20, 2006 at 4:53 pm

         The first link did not come out right above:
         http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/link.asp?ID=5175&URL=http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200
         609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf

         And I forgot a seventh piece:
         There was not enough potential energy in each tower to accomplish all three of the following:
         pulverize all the concrete…
         create the observed pyroclastic flows…
         completely collapse the building…

         http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm

         To explain all the above phenomenon in such a way as to rule out prepositioned explosives while also fully explaining the buildings’ demise is hardly possible.

5. 

   dougr on September 20, 2006 at 6:35 pm

   The growth of the 9/11 truth movement:

   http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s21911blogger&r=36

   • 

     dougr on September 21, 2006 at 10:38 pm

     The wide extent of the 9/11 truth movement:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5pXSWcULbI&eurl=

6. 

   Arminius on September 20, 2006 at 6:53 pm

   One 9/11 mystery that keeps haunting me, and for which I’ve never seen a good explanation, is exactly how it is that the FBI was able to broadcast the supposed names and pictures of all 19 hijackers on September 14th, just three days later.

   I had a dispute about this point here at the BMT a few weeks ago. Someone tried to dismiss my point by citing some FBI press release about the hijackers from later in the month of September 2001. However, that was just some final press release. I remember clearly, because I was in London, England at the time doing nothing but watching TV, that they had the names and pictures out almost immediately.

   Everybody seems to assume that the government has super powers. As a lawyer who deals regularly with the government, I think that’s nuts.

   It is absolutely impossible for the U.S. government to have determined the names and photographs of 19 hijackers within 72 hours. They must have had that information in advance.

   So what does that mean?

   I spent quite a bit of time on your links, but I can’t read everything today. Do you have anything on this one issue?

   • 

     Arminius on September 20, 2006 at 6:54 pm

     By the way, I found several articles on the Internet that confirm the 9/14 release of the names and pictures to my satisfaction, but I neglected to record the URLs. Sorry. It took me a long time to find and I was very tired by the time I got to it. If anybody has documentation on that one fact, I’d appreciate it.

     • 

       dougr on September 20, 2006 at 7:55 pm

       The story on uncovering the names of the hijackers is an odd one.

       First, take a look at the 9/14 article in the Washington Post:

       http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28194-2001Sep13&a
       mp;notFound=true

       Notice that by the 14th it is alleged that journalists had, by then, already scoured the globe and obtained interviews of people who had come in contact with or had personal knowledge of some of the hijackers.
       If this is the case, their identities were known even before 72 hours had passed.

       But law enforcement authorities on two continents, as well as landlords, neighbors and business people who knew the suspects, depict a group of polite and purposeful men.

       Several who are remembered in Germany as Islamic fundamentalists who wore traditional Arab garb switched in the United States to typical western attire and were noticed drinking alcohol in bars. Neighbors found them polite, if often withdrawn.

       On three days in mid-August, Mohammed Atta rented a four-seat, single-engine plane from a private company at the airport in Palm Beach, Fla. Investigators believe that he was the hijacker who took over the controls of American Airlines Flight 11 — the first to crash — and smashed it into the World Trade Center’s north tower. He told the owner of the company, Palm Beach Flight Training, that his goal was to log 100 hours in the air as soon as he could.

       Atta was one of several suspects who had a pilot’s license, or told people they were affiliated with airlines. Sources at the Immigration and Naturalization Service said yesterday that at least two of the hijackers may have entered the country on M-1 visas to attend flight schools.

       At least one who is believed to have died on the American flight from Boston, Abdulrahman Omari, and one who remains alive, Amer Mohammed Kamfar, had been roommates for several months in Vero Beach, Fla. They listed as their previous employer Saudi Flight Ops, a firm that performs maintenance for Saudi Arabian Airlines at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport.

       Curious eh?

       Anyway, the story is that Atta’s luggage was “accidently” put on the wrong flight!
       http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/national-reporting/works/092801.html
       After it arrived at whatever airport it was “wrongly” set to, it was opened and EUREKA!!! a handy list of all the hijacker’s names was in there.
       Another document in the luggage was Atta’s will!!!
       http://www.werismyki.com/artcls/atta_will.html

       Now, I ask you, who would bring a document which has the expressed purpose of surviving the deceased on a suicide mission destined for a fiery crash and certain destruction???

       Anyway, when hijackers began turning up alive all over the world…about a dozen of them so far…the “official” excuse for this was that they must have been using aliases.  Arabic names, but aliases none-the-less.
       Does that make sense?  That Atta would have a list upon which some of the names were aliases and others were not???  As the alleged ringleader in charge of ensuring the plot would come off flawlessly wouldn’t it be logical that such a list would have their real names on it?

       So, if the aliases were Arabic names, it can be assumed that they were to use when obtaining passage on their respective flights.  However, NO arab names appear on any flight manifest for all for flights while all names on the manifests are accounted for as persons who were NOT hijackers.

       The general concensus on all of this is that it’s planted evidence.

       Much like the now forgotten-by-the-government “Bin Laden Confession Tape” which shows a fat, right-handed, gold ring-wearing, broad-nosed obviously fake bin laden discussing details of the attack.

       And, by the way, the FBI has twice stated to reporters that they have no hard evidence on Bin Laden for 9/11.  Which is why it does not appear on his official wanted poster.

       • 

         Arminius on September 20, 2006 at 8:28 pm

         Fascinating. Thank you for your quick and excellent response. You seem to be more knowledgeable about this than anybody else I’ve encountered on leftie blogs so far, for what that’s worth.

         Thank you VERY much for the 9/14 article from the Washington Post about the identities of the hijackers. I was interested to see I know one of the reporters personally, but I’d never seen that story since I was in England at the time.  [BooMan, I hope you’re reading this exchange.}

         However, I’m a little disappointed by your second two links here. I’ve read them both carefully, and neither provides support for the idea that the FBI got all 19 names from Atta’s supposedly lost luggage. You knew immediately that the “story” is that that is where the names come from. I’ve been trying off and on to track this down for five years, and this is the closest I’ve gotten.

         Can you please tell me of a document where that theory is explicitly claimed? Is that in the 9/11 report? (I have a copy of that report, but I’m ashamed to say I haven’t had the heart to read much of it, and I don’t have the heart to track that down right now.)

         Thanks for your information!

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 9:10 pm

           After looking through all my files on the subject, and doing a good bit of googling and dogpiling, it does appear that there is no record of how the FBI produced their list of hijackers.

           This story:
           http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/terror/response/1064212.html
           has details of how one name got on there.  His rental car at the airport.

           One part of the story tells of information given to the US by German officials in regard to movements of some of the hijackers.  Maybe that information was about known associates and contacts which gave rise to more names for the list.

           In Germany, three senior officials told the Washington Post they have evidence of contacts between a small group of hijackers who lived in Hamburg, including Mohamed Atta, and bin Laden’s network.

           That’s speculation though.

           And, of course, Atta’s name came from “finding” his luggage.

           I believe another rental car at another airport yielded a name as well.

           I’ve found a few sites on which it is mentioned that a list was found in Atta’s luggage but there’s nothing backing it up.

           Thanks for bringing it up, I can now make a deletion in my data and add the mystery of the provenance of “the list” in its place.

     • 

       dougr on September 20, 2006 at 8:30 pm

       Also, There is some further illogic about the FBI’s claim that many of the names were aliases.
       The names…and pictures…belonged to people who are still alive.
       This implies that the aliases were actually stolen identities.
       If the names are matched up with pictures and the people pictured are still alive and their names match the pictures, the names were not the real names of the hijackers.

       Now it so happens that the FBI has biographies for all the hijackers named and pictured.
       These biographies tell stories of their introductions to jihad and their connections within the militant Muslim shadowy world of terrorism and Mujahadeenism.  Some going back many years.
       What’s completely illogical about this is that the REAL people attached to those names and photographs, who are still alive,
        DO NOT HAVE THOSE HISTORIES.

       So where did those histories come from and how can they be believable?

       • 

         BooMan on September 20, 2006 at 9:25 pm

         Sigh.

         Meteor Blades addressed this recently in this thread.

         More importantly, look at this.  Did they really go to Chechnya, or did they, like Zawahiri, go to Dagestan and get introduced to Russian intelligence?  

         The hijackers’ identities were released and they are all believed to be dead, contrary to the BBC’s early report.  

         Here is the original release: link.

         Here’s a curious element.  The mystery hijacker:

         On September 13, the FBI says there were 18 hijackers, and releases their names. Hani Hanjour’s name is not on the list. [CNN, 9/13/2001] On the morning of the next day, CNN announces on the air that “CNN managed to grab a list of the names of the 18 suspected hijackers that is supposed to be officially released by justice sometime later today.” An announcer reads the list, which actually contains 19 names. It is the same list as the day before, except for one new name: Mosear Caned. (Note that the name is a very rough phonetic spelling from a CNN transcript.) [CNN, 9/14/2001] Later in the day, the list is revised. Caned is gone and is replaced by Hani Hanjour. It is never explained who Caned is, how he got on the list, or even how his name is correctly spelled. No name even remotely similar to his appears on any of the released manifests of the hijacked 9/11 flights. [CNN, 9/14/2001; Associated Press, 9/14/2001] A few days later, it is reported that Hanjour’s “name was not on the American Airlines manifest for [Flight 77] because he may not have had a ticket.” [Washington Post, 9/16/2001]

         A series of articles suggest that at least seven of the 9/11 hijackers trained in US military bases. [New York Times, 9/15/2001; Newsweek, 9/15/2001] Ahmed Alnami, Ahmed Alghamdi, and Saeed Alghamdi even listed the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, as their permanent address on their driver’s licenses. Hamza Alghamdi was also connected to the Pensacola base (see 1996-August 2000) [Pensacola News Journal, 9/17/2001; Washington Post, 9/16/2001] A defense official confirms that Saeed Alghamdi is a former Saudi fighter pilot who attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. [Los Angeles Times, 9/15/2001; Gannett News Service, 9/17/2001] Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School in San Antonio, Texas. [Gannett News Service, 9/17/2001] A defense official confirms Mohamed Atta is a former Saudi fighter pilot who graduated from the US International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. [Los Angeles Times, 9/15/2001; Washington Post, 9/16/2001] The media stops looking into the hijackers’ possible US military connections after the Air Force makes a not-very-definitive statement, saying that while the names are similar, “we are probably not talking about the same people.” [Washington Post, 9/16/2001]

         • 

           Arminius on September 20, 2006 at 9:37 pm

           Forgive me, but I’ve got to say this: Here we have BooMan himself citing a source that says the hijackers were identified on September 13th, a day earlier than I had thought. However, in an earlier dispute a few weeks ago, he told me I was wrong for claiming that the FBI had put that information out by 9/14, citing some FBI concluding report from later in the month. And he never acknowledged any of my subsequent responses.

           In other words, BooMan is busted, in his own words. Sweet.

         • 

           BooMan on September 20, 2006 at 9:47 pm

           yeah.  I was wrong.

         • 

           Arminius on September 20, 2006 at 10:17 pm

           Thanks.

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 10:20 pm

           So it’s throw in a bunch of names, mix well, add mud and mix some more.  
           And still, we’re told the “hijackers” bought tickets and boarded planes.
           If they did that, names would be on the flight manifests that could be pointed to and of them it could be said, “These are the hijackers.”
           If you buy a ticket and board a plane…your name goes on the manifest which would be logged before the plane even took off.
           But all the names on the manifests are accounted for as being somebody other than hijackers.

           Except for Hanjour that is.  I’d like to know how he was able to board a flight with no ticket.  Even in 2001 that’s pretty implausible.

           The whole thing is so muddied that it’s only value is to chalk it up as a question not answered.  Nothing can be made of it with any certainty.

           The only direction it points is that those 19 people never got on any plane.
           The videos of them going through security checkpoints in the airport don’t prove they boarded a plane.
           No communications from any of the pilots say that hijackings were in progress.
           And if that’s the case……I know you don’t want to consider it but…remote control does explain it.

           But people say, “what about the phone calls!”

           “She [Barbara Olson] had trouble getting through, because she wasn’t using her cell phone – she was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. “I guess she didn’t have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy.” … “She wanted to know `What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?’ “

           But it is at this juncture that we finally have the terminal error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

           It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone “setup” charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network. Under these circumstances the passengers’ seat phone on a Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy.

           Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a credit card from a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped through the phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call whoever she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any requirement to call collect.

           Sadly perhaps, the Olson telephone call claim is proved untrue. Any American official wishing to challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating from American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General.

           This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the “Mother of All Lies” about events on 11 September 2001. For this was the little white lie that first activated the American psyche, generated mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global population.

           Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar, and no “War on Terror”…
           […]
           Think about it, people! If you knew or suspected your spouse’s aircraft had just fireballed inside the Pentagon building, how would you spend the rest of the day? Initially you would certainly be in deep shock and unwilling to believe the reports. Then you would start to gather your wits together, a slow process in itself. After that and depending on individual personality, you might drive over to the Pentagon on the off chance your spouse survived the horrific crash, or you might go home and wait for emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad news. As a matter of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until six days later.

           About the last thing on your mind [especially if you happened to be the US Solicitor General], would be to pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to give them a “scoop”. As a seasoned politician you would already know that all matters involving national security must first be vetted by the National Security Council. Under the extraordinary circumstances and security overkill existing on September 11, this vetting process would have taken a minimum of two days, and more likely three.

           The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is therefore…impossible.

           http://www.fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.php?ArticleID=10794

           The cellphone calls are another interesting twist.

         • 

           dougr on September 20, 2006 at 10:52 pm

           One thing I forgot to add about Ted Olson:

           Lying to the public is all right, says Washington’s chief lawyer

           By Mark Helm, in Washington
           Sydney Morning Herald, AU
           March 20, 2002

           The United States Government’s top lawyer has said that officials have the right to lie to American citizens, telling the US Supreme Court that misleading statements are sometimes needed to protect foreign policy interests.

           “It’s easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information,” the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday.

           “It’s an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests.”

           http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/mar_2002/lying_to_the_public_okay.htm

         • 

           fourtytwo on September 20, 2006 at 11:55 pm

           From signs-of-the-times

           Reading, “911 – The Ultimate Truth”, on page 214 till about page 224, Laura discusses the call made by Babara Olson and as well as the interview of Ted Olson by Larry King.

           Assuming that Ted Olson, did receive the call, it was concluded that she couldn’t have made use of her cellphone to place the call. Using the passenger seat phone requires the use of  a credit card and one definitely cannot do a “collect call” with it. So if Ted did recieve the calls, how did Barbara call him?  

           Either Ted was lying and never receive the calls or Barbara did call him twice. The only other way I can think off is that she used the cockpit SATphone. Airline pilots have radios (like VHF and HF ) to communicate with Air Traffic Control(ATC). Also available is a SATphone. It is used by pilots to call the company, or engineering or  to call an ATC should problems arise during a flight. Or it can be used to call anyone else. All you had to do is to punch in the numbers and select the “Place Call” button. No credit card is required.

           Remember that there were reports which stated that she may have been with one or both pilots. What if she was in the cockpit using the the SATphone to place the call to Ted? Which perhaps means that she and Ted were in on the plot. Lots of other implications as well.

           Is it true that Bush found time to console/speak with Olson in the morning of 9/11?  What was that all about?

         • 

           dougr on September 21, 2006 at 12:04 am

           From Barbara’s alleged conversation she couldn’t have called from the cockpit.  She stated that everyone had been herded to the rear of the plane.

           As a side note about bush visiting people;
           he also met with the Provost of BYU just before Professor Jones was suspended with pay from his teaching position there.  Oh well…a coincidence no doubt.

           I’ll have to check on the possible visit with Ted O. Although if it happened, it only produces nothing more than speculation.

         • 

           BooMan on September 21, 2006 at 12:15 am

           also, .pdf that shows what ZM’s attorney’s stipulated to.  I think you’ll find plenty of evidence for a violent takeover of the planes by Arabs.

         • 

           dougr on September 21, 2006 at 12:35 am

           http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

           When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing

           By William M. Arkin
           Special to washingtonpost.com
           Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

           “Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government.” So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

           At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

           But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice “morphing” technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

           By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner’s voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

           Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun’s team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating “I am being treated well by my captors.”

           “They chose to have him say something he would never otherwise have said,” chuckled one of Papcun’s colleagues.

         • 

           BooMan on September 20, 2006 at 11:57 pm

           think about this.

           Are you suggesting that Barbara Olsen agreed to either a) die in a plane crash or b) pretend to die in a plane crash?

           Are you suggesting she has been secretly living in her basement for the last 5 years?  Or at Dick Cheney’s undisclosed location?

           And on top of this…are you suggesting that her husband agreed to go thru with this ruse?  

           Please…

           Here is what probably happened.  She probably reached an operator at the Dept. of Justice, who then contacted Mr. Olsen, who then had to pick up the line and be patched thru.  In the rush of events, he might have thought she was calling collect since she didn’t call directly to his line.

           This flight manifest thing is bull.  Have you read the 9/11 report?  Obviously their names are on the manifests (except for Hanjour’s).  And Hanjour is reported to have been posing as a pilot and got a free ride.  That happens all the time.  

           If you want to know, go here download the flash presentation.  Pick a flight.

           As for the manifests, I can see al-Shehhi’s name on the manifest for 175.  But I am still looking for the DOJ link for those photos.

         • 

           dougr on September 21, 2006 at 12:21 am

           The problem with using the 9/11 report as a source is that it’s already known to be a heavily tainted work.
           Most of it is useless and the main force behind it is Phillip Zelikow.
           Zelikow was the lynchpin between the researchers and the commissioners on the panel. Zelikow controlled the flow of information, omissions and distortions.
           And just WHY should we trust Zelikow and the “official” story?

           Zelikow’s area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”

           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow

           For an investigator of a criminal airplane crash, the first source of inquiry would be to study the list of passengers (or flight manifest). On the base of such a list, further investigation becomes possible, such as tracing the passengers’ addresses, contacting their families, tracing their credit card payments, etc.   Shortly after 9/11, mass media began publishing lists of the passengers who crashed with the four planes.  At least four variations of one such list (the passengers of AA 11) have been identified by Gerard Holmgren (see http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288505.shtml) , each with differing numbers of passengers and partly different names. No official explanation was provided for these variations.  None of these published lists include Arab names.  Yet the FBI and the airlines have until this day refused to publish the original passenger lists, which presumably were the source for these multiple lists published by the media as well as the source for their own claims on the hijackers’ identities.  An FBI press officer who declined to identify herself, told the author in a telephone conversation on July 23, 2004 that the FBI is not required to publish the passenger lists and did not explain why the FBI would not do so.  In spite of the evidential importance of the original passenger lists, the  Commission of Inquiry has neither published these lists nor indicated why these lists have not been published.  The primary source for attributing the 9/11 atrocities to persons with Arab-looking names has thus remained secret.

           http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV407A.html

           And what I’m saying about Barbara Olson is…she died on 9/11 along with all the other passengers.
           I’m saying she did not make the phone calls to her husband because she could not have.
           Nothing I’ve said even remotely implies that she was a party to anything other than being on that plane….just like any other passenger.

7. 

   suladog on September 20, 2006 at 11:36 pm

   This is a great Diary! I’ve been immersed in all this stuff for a while now in fact just as I surfed over here we (my husband and I ) were reading through more stuff. The other day I purchased and viewed 9/11 Press For Truth, an excellent  documentary on the subject. It’s a shame that so many are cowed into silence on the subject , so many afraid to ask questions and I agree with you thoroughly that until we take this down very little will be changed.
     I’ve been podcasting as TheGoriDetails.com and I interviewed Mary Schiavo the other day about her representation of a number of 9/11 families  who did not accept the governments’ settlement money and their struggle to get the case to court. The Bushies and the airlines really don’t want anyone digging in that pile o crap.
    It does boggle the mind that on so many liberal/progressive blogs that any questions/truths about  9/11 is “that which must not be mentioned…or else”. Glad to see it’s not the case here.

   • 

     dougr on September 20, 2006 at 11:56 pm

     I’ll check out that podcast first thing in the morning.
     thanks.
     It looks like tomorrow I’ll have to cover the cellphone calls here.  If you’ve been researching for a while you probably know what’s up with those.
     When I get to the part about Colin Powell ‘saying’,
      “I’m being treated well by my captors”, Occam will no doubt return and need dealing with again. gg

     And if you have any questions about what’s in the diary, feel free to ask.

     • 

       suladog on September 21, 2006 at 1:32 am

       just get hold of that documentary. I think you’ll like it.
       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083

       • 

         dougr on September 21, 2006 at 9:22 am

         I’ve seen it, thanks.  I have over 200 hours of video on storage.  Another 200+ of audio…interviews etc.

8. 

   dougr on September 21, 2006 at 1:47 am

   I have been asked if I understood Occam’s Razor.  That is an important question because many people do not understand it and it gets used without regard to its limitations.
   A generally misunderstood aspect in the use of Occam’s Razor is that it is best suited for natural sequential phenomena observed under controlled conditions.  This is because natural sequential phenomena are geared toward the conservation of energy.  This makes simplicity the direction in which nature moves.  A sphere is the shape that air bubbles in water form because it is the least energy intensive shape that can be formed in those conditions.  Just as water droplets in air form spheres for the same reason.  And planets and stars.  Simplicity.
   In man-made sequential phenomena, the opposite is true.  People are geared toward increased use of energy and therefore toward complexity.
   An example would be the building of a barn.  The building of it is energy intensive and its structure adds to the complexity of the environment.  But once nature gets hold of the barn, it is reduced, over time toward a continually lower state of energy intensity…it falls apart.

   So in the case of 9/11, applying Occam’s Razor in a manner that dictates how a man-made sequential phenomenon should be viewed, it lacks the power to do what many people assume it does.  When human will is involved, nearly any level of complexity that is possible is just as likely to occur as any other.  It’s a matter of what people want to make happen and Occam’s Razor has nothing to do with that.

   • 

     BooMan on September 21, 2006 at 2:25 am

     this is totally wrong.

     If you understand intelligence work at all, you would know that any conspiracy is compartmentalized, restricted to a need-to-know basis, that plausible deniability is built into the program, and that absolutely no more people are involved than necessary.

     In this case, the simplest explanation is also the most plausible for reasons of operational security.

     What would it take to recruit a few pilots willing to die, train them in hijacking techniques, tell them the day to launch the mission, run a little disinformation during the attacks, and make sure it is blamed on someone other than yourself?  

     Not a whole lot.  In fact, it is within the capabilities of any major intelligence agency.

     What does it take to do all that AND pre-position explosives throughout the World Trade Center, set them off at the exact moments the planes impact AND after the fact?  What does it take to seize control of the planes via remote control, fake phone calls, impersonate voices using advanced software, etc.?  And then to keep it all quiet?

     No way.  That’s why people are impatient with these theories.  

     • 

       Poeschek on September 21, 2006 at 2:31 am

       I agree. If the Leader of the Free World (TM) and his intern can’t keep a BLOWJOB a secret, the odds of keeping something of this magnitude secret is on par with being hit by lightning and a meteorite at the same time. It’s the same reason there are no aliens in Area 51, do you really expect that the tens of thousands of people who have worked there since the 50s would be able to all keep a secret?

       I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I would need a crapload more proof than is being presented. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

       • 

         dougr on September 21, 2006 at 9:10 am

         Can the military keep a large secret?

         Two words…..Manhattan Project.

         • 

           sidewinder on September 23, 2006 at 1:56 am

           F-117. B-1. SR-71. All of which were developed &/or flown for many years before their existence was acknowledged.

       • 

         afs on September 21, 2006 at 10:26 am

         Stop for a moment, and look at what you are claiming is a reasonable explanation for the events of 9/11.

         The primary extrordinary claim here is that 19 foreign national amateurs managed by a guy in a cave half a world away took over and piloted 4 757/767 class aircraft and piloted 3 into their targets.

         Looking at what actually happened on 9/11, it’s much more reasonable to conclude highly trained personnel from some intel/special operations infrastructure somewhere used known remote piloting technology to have trained pilots take over the controls of those aircraft.

         • 

           Poeschek on September 21, 2006 at 12:51 pm

           Why did dozens of people make phone calls saying they had been hijacked by Arab terrorists? Why didn’t the pilots radio ground control to say that they had lost control of their aircraft?

           Not to mention that any idiot can steer a plane. Have you ever seen those ads for those air combat experiences where people with NO PILOTING EXPERIENCE can go up in a couple of aircraft and have simulated dogfights? You don’t need much training to be able to fly an aircraft that is already in flight. The hardest part of flying an aircraft is takeoff and landing and they didn’t have to worry about either.

           Yeah, it’s much more reasonable to conclude that highly-trained intel/special ops personnel remotely took over the controls of those aircraft, except that there is absolutely no evidence for it. If some actual evidence was provided that was peer-reviewed by experts, I would be more than happy to give these theories some credit. As is, this is all just speculation.

         • 

           afs on September 21, 2006 at 2:08 pm

           Any idiot can pilot all over the sky when there is a PROFESSIONAL PILOT who’s hands are also on the stick of those air experience planes guiding them. Only trained pilots can hit a relatively small fixed target at hundreds of miles an hour.

           You clearly have not flown a plane. I have. I had an uncle who flew for an airline, and I’ve been nuts for airplane stuff since I was a little kid. It’s hell for an amateur to just keep their altitude and heading steady. Why do I know that? Because after years of piddling around with and getting pretty good with flight simulation software, I finally went out and got some flying lesson. I sucked. I was all over the sky in clear and calm conditions. I couldn’t keep my altitude within 1000 feet of target. I couldn’t keep the plane aimed much more than about a 90 degree cone of where I was supposed to be going. I’m certain I made my uncle roll over in his grave. After 10 lessons, I finally had to quit out of self-embarrassment.

           And my mess in the sky happened in a Piper Cherokee. Not a fly-by-wire 757/767.

           As for the hijackers, there’s lots of possibilities for that aspect. They run from faked calls to the hijackers not being told they were going to be suicided into the WTC. They are just possibilities at this point.

     • 

       dougr on September 21, 2006 at 9:05 am

       What would it take to put together a unit for training purposes?
       A lot less than steeling 19 men for suicide.

       The non-denial denial from the military, “We’re probably not talking about the same men here” is not convincing.

       2 scenarios

       One.  Train a unit for “hijackings”. Or simpler, a unit to test airport security.  They buy tickets, pass through all checkpoints and go home.
       If it was for hijackings, they board the plane.
       Either way, they’re unaware of the plan to direct the plane into its target.

       Two.  Task a group of 10 operatives for a training mission simulating the placement of explosives in a large building in order to completely eradicate it. The drill presupposes the building will not be one with access hindered for political reasons.
       It would be in a country where the operatives could move about freely. Possible reason could be to destroy a building that contains extremely sensitive US records in an area that had just fallen into “enemy” hands. An embassy or building at a US overseas military installation. Very reasonable. Any number of seemingly innocent reasons could be used.
       So the 10 operatives are told they must practice placing explosives unobserved. The site for their “practice” or “training” is chosen. They want to make it as real as possible so they go covert into the WTC.

       Marvin Bush, as board member and Marvin’s cousin, as CEO of the security company operating at the WTC clear the way for the operatives to succeed in the exercise.  They “hire” the team as security guards.  The towers, which we have seen to be the case, undergo a period of security shutdowns in sequential sections with double shifts of security.
       That alone was a huge chunk of time guaranteeing 0 witnesses. Whole sections of the buildings were shut down and put off limits to all but security at different times.

       10 people carrying in 40 lbs twice per day of what THEY THINK is harmless mock-ups of explosives and devices could place nearly 1/2 ton of material per day. The entire tower is rigged in under a month. The guy who gives the team their orders says…ok…let’s make sure we can really do this with perfect military precision.
       Do the other tower.

       The guy giving the orders was, of course, given the order to tell the team they would do it again. The chain of this order, all the way up, wouldn’t have to lead to anybody who might know the whole story. If it does, it need only be the one person who initiated the order. This could be the head of an agency through which the drill is being conducted. Or even that guy could have received his orders from higher up. Rumsfeld is the top of all military chain of command.

       The special ops units in the military and who knows how many other covert ops in multiple departments do so many drills and exercises of hundreds and hundreds of different scenarios and purposes nothing in any drill could be considered abnormal. It’s their job.

       These exercises are run with what is known as a high level of fidelity. Meaning they’re as close to the real thing as they can make it. The materials used by the unwitting team would look and be applied just like the real thing…..because, on this training exercise, it is the real thing while the team is not aware of this because they’re told it’s just realistic.
       Would they leak? “Hey, I’m on a covert training mission and we’re planting fake bombs.”
       No, they wouldn’t say that. They’ve been on any number of previous training exercises and telling people that your on a covert exercise would immediately get you VERY big trouble.

       After the exercise is over the unit is broken up and the men are shipped out to Iraq and Afghanistan and Columbia etc. and “Pat Tillmaned” by the time 9/11 rolls around.

       And remember, if people behaved according to the philosophy of Occam’s Razor all the time…we’d all be spherical.
       Well…ok…Americans seem to be headed that way with the obesity problem here…but…Occam’s Razor does not work with willful people making things happen.

       • 

         BooMan on September 21, 2006 at 12:55 pm

         that’s too big of a conspiracy.  

         That’s what I’m talking about.  Faced with conflicting information about why the towers came down, one should accept the explanation that requires the least assumptions.

         What we are seeing is a lot of smoke and mirrors that is leading to all kinds of wild conjecture.

         The people that put together 9/11 had a lot of fun with it.  The ‘pilot’ hijackers show every evidence of having been manipulated into creating legends.  But they could just as easily have created legends on purpose to misdirect the follow-on investigation.

         All the evidence came up pointing to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  You know what happens when the USA does a covert op overseas?  All the evidence comes up looking like Russia did it, or Syria, or Iran.

         Someone in the UAE was wiring them money.  If a CIA officer was going to wire money to an agent, he wouldn’t do it from Atlanta.  He’d do it from a third nation.  And if he wanted to create a legacy for his agent, he would wire it from an adversary’s country under a false and incriminating name.  

         The Bush administration was left to investigate a trail that had been manufactured for them and pointed to all kinds of embarrassing things.  Bandar Bush’s wife had wired money that wound up in the San Diego hijacker’s hands.  Then India leaked out a rumor that the head of ISI had wired $100,000 to Atta.  He was meeting with Goss and Graham when the attacks went off.  Bingo.  Head of ISI loses his job.  You think India was being honest?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.

         You are trying to penetrate a mystery that was designed to be inpenetrable.  You’re being led off on wild goose chases.  

         We will never know who really was behind it.  It could have been the Russians.  It could have been rogue elements with the CIA, or ex-officers.  It could have been rogue members of the Saudi Royal Family.   It could have China or India for all we know.  What it was not likely to be was an operation designed by KSM and authorized by UBL.  It’s not that they didn’t have the motive and most of the means.  It’s that they didn’t have the technical know-how or inside intelligence to know whether it would work, or that Sept.11 would be a particularly good day to try it.  They also did not have the tradecraft skills, IMO, to do it.  

         I’m not sure the government was ever able to really figure out the truth.  But they built a narrative that massaged the available facts in a way that would satisfy people without forcing us to make foreign policy choices we did not want to make.  

         The result is a very unsatisfactory report.

         In my opinion, the controversy over Flight 77 and the collapses are total distractions from the real issues.  The real issue is whether or not we were attacked by cave-dwellers or a sophisticated foreign intelligence agency.  To what extent is the War on Terror a proxy for a new Cold War, and who are the players?  Are the same old players, or does militant Islam now represent a dire threat, unconstrained by mutually assured destruction.

         This is the debate that is not happening.  Concentrating on side issues and wild conspiracies theories that do not conform to good tradecraft, does a disservice to the great debate of our era.

         There are mysteries aplenty to be uncovered.  Your sniffing under the wrong tent.

         • 

           dougr on September 21, 2006 at 3:30 pm

           I can understand why people resist the idea that elements of their own government could do such a thing.
           If you’re willing to think that a foreign intelligence service would be able to accomplish it, what really precludes elements of our own government from having the capability and desire to bring it off as false flag terrorism?
           The technology exists.
           The motives are painfully obvious in the actions of the neocon run ruling inner circle both before and after.  2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon accounting….now not at all an issue…anywhere.  Very much desired wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…publicly documented as desired before 9/11 by these very same people.  WTC7 contained a multitude of records from investigations into large corporations that are no longer viable to pursue…these same corporations have since benefitted greatly from the post-9/11 foreign policy.  There’s an extensive amount of other motives as well that show these people were desiring and pre-prepared to push through agendas like the Patriot Act and further encroachments on our liberty.

           You have to understand that these people really are psychopaths…just go back to the republican national convention in NYC…watch their faces as they feed on the fear they’re preaching.  They’re reveling in it.  They’re truly crazy.
           20 people could have planned and directed it…that’s a small conspiracy.  Compartmentalization is a given.

           That the buildings were thoroughly wired for explosives is a conclusion that can be psychologically resisted but it is a solid conclusion.  Trying to say a foreign intelligence operation could do that is illogical.  Go over the 7 pieces of evidence for demolition.  Together, they establish controlled demolition as the only likely explanation for the demise of the towers.  Then throw in WTC7…which is an obvious case of demolition.

           Here’s the latest video which examines the evidence for demolition.  It was put out just before Professor Jones’ laboratory results that show specific evidence of explosives so it’s not entirely comprehensive but it’s still enough.

           http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871

         • 

           BooMan on September 21, 2006 at 3:45 pm

           nothing precludes rogue agents from doing it.  I didn’t say anything did.  I said that you are chasing geese with your demolition theories.

           Here are the requirements as I see them:

           1. experienced recruiters
           2. experienced forgers and logistics people
           3. experienced operations coordinator, capable of creating sophisticated legacies.
           4. two pilots per plane, willing to commit suicide

           And, preferably, a mole inside the Pentagon that would know what day our planes were being diverted to the northwest.  They could have just got lucky.

           Who has these things?  The Russians (who didn’t need a mole), the CIA and DIA (including retired), perhaps the Saudis, perhaps the Pakistanis, perhaps the Egyptians, perhaps the Chinese.  

           I have no idea who might have done it.

           The problems KSM and UBL would have would be large.  They could get the recruits for muscle but pilots would be harder.  They could send money and issue false documents but they do not have the sophisticated labs and equipment to do this on a level of an intelligence agency.  They would have a lot of difficulty getting access to Pentagon planning.  They would not have an easy time learning about FCC procedures, transponders, likely fighter response times, etc.

           They could pull these things off if they had substantial help from either the Pakistanis or the Saudis.  But not without them, IMO.  

           I keep going back to Zawahiri’s time in Dagestan and that most of the names of the hijackers had been in Chechnya and that the 1998 bombings were coordinated from Azerbaijan.  That’s three former soviet socialist republics.  Accident?

         • 

           dougr on September 21, 2006 at 4:34 pm

           I’m not talking about “rogue agents”.  I’m saying the bush administration and their highest level supporters are the rogues.  

           bush is mostly just a puppet but from cheney across the neocon board they all were put in the positions necessary to carry out the attacks as false flag terrorism.   They took control by stealing the 2000 election…kept it by stealing the 2004 election.

           The rogue element is the neocon leadership.  

           Just like hitler called his party “socialist” when it bore no resemblance to socialism at all, the neocons call themselves “republicans” when they are obviously not.

           Pointing to a few connections of a few hijackers doesn’t carry a minute fraction of the evidence on this diary.  First, you have to assume these hijackers actually did the hijacking.  The pilots of all planes did NOT communicate any hijackings in progress.

           The “hijackers” are merely patsys.  Who developed the stories about these patsys and fed them into the “official” story?  Not the Russians or the Chinese.
           Who held 20 military drills on 9/11.  There has never, ever been nearly that many drills running at the same time.  Who inserted the fake radar blips throughout the system?  Who removed the remains of the buildings before that evidence could be examined?  Not the Russians or the Chinese.  Even though this diary is pretty long with a lot of detail, there are huge areas that I haven’t even touched on yet.  The specific actions of each of the leading neocons in a position of power in relation to 9/11…before during and after 9/11 has been traced and detailed.  Their activity is something that would take a dozen diaries the size of this one.  Check into some of it.  What they were invested in prior to 9/11…who they squeezed out of the loop and why…what they were and are saying and writing etc etc.  If you think what’s in this diary is shocking…you’ll be blown away by some of the things I haven’t touched.

           It took me 3 months to put the information in this diary together.  It’s all checked out for accuracy (only the hijacker list thing slipped past me).
           Maybe 3 months from now, if necessary, I’ll go into this other stuff….if they don’t nuke Iran first.

         • 

           dougr on September 23, 2006 at 8:30 pm

           Just as an intro into what I’m talking about in the above comment:

           James E. Dalton
           General Dalton, USAF (Ret.) was formerly a Vice President of Logicon Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman. Prior to that position, he served as General Manager of Logicon’s Defense Technology Group and President of two of the Group’s units, Logicon RDA and Logicon Geodynamics. General Dalton is a former Director of the Joint Staff, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and served subsequently as the Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. General Dalton is a Director of the Presley Companies.
           http://www.defensegroupinc.com/directors.cfm

           DGI has on its board William Schneider Jr.  who is also connected with
           International Planning Services, Inc.: President
           G2 Satellite Solutions: Advisory board
           Defense Forecasts International: Member, Board of Directors
           Defense Group, Inc.: Member, Board of Directors

           Schneider was a signatory to 7 of the 13 most commonly referenced letters and statements which outline the goals espoused in the Project for a New American Century…the neocon manifesto.

           One of these letters, written within 9 days of 9/11 states, in part,

           “A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

           http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

           Then in Jan 2003,

           “To rebuild, transform, and man our military adequately for its many missions and responsibilities, defense spending will need to be increased by an additional $70 to $100 billion.”

           http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20030123.htm
           That’s money some people wouldn’t hesitate to kill for.
           Especially when they’re in the killing industry.

           The other letters and statements are as follows:
           http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

           http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

           http://www.newamericancentury.org/Taiwandefensestatement.htm

           http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm

           And, of course, the ever infamous
           http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

         • 

           dougr on September 25, 2006 at 8:20 am

           Dr. Schneider, (proud PNAC “New Pearl Harbor” member) also serves on the board of BAE Systems — “an industry leader in flight control systems”

           http://www.na.baesystems.com/board.cfm

           “Dr. William Schneider, Jr.
           former Under Secretary State for Security, Science and Technology

           Prior to serving on the board, Dr. Schneider was formerly Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology (1982-1986). He served as Associate Director for National Security and International Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (198l-2) prior to being nominated as Under Secretary by the President.

           BAE Systems Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of BAE Systems plc, an international company engaged in the development, delivery and support of advanced defense and aerospace systems in the air, on land, at sea and in space. Headquartered in Rockville, Maryland, BAE Systems, Inc. employs some 45,000 employees in the US, UK, Sweden, Israel and South Africa generating annual sales in excess of $10 billion. BAE Systems Inc. consists of three operating groups that provide support and service solutions for current and future defense, intelligence, and civilian systems; design, develop and manufacture a wide range of electronic systems and subsystems for both military and commercial applications; and design, develop, produce, and provide service support of armored combat vehicles, artillery systems and intelligent munitions.
           http://www.na.baesystems.com/overview.cfm

           BAE Systems Inc.’s products and services include:

           Combat Systems: Electronic identification systems; infrared imaging; mine countermeasures; camouflage systems and signature management; and mobile operations towers.  

           Information & Electronic Warfare Systems: Electronic jammers and acoustic countermeasures; decoys; dispensing systems; radar warning receivers; laser warning systems; passive missile warners, radio frequency and IR countermeasures.  

           Avionics and Navigation: Precision landing systems; Doppler, GPS and inertial navigation systems; flight management systems; head-up displays; information processing; mission planning, acoustic communications, and underwater surveillance.  

           Aeronautics Products: Military and commercial flight controls, aircraft engine controls, avionics and vehicle management systems; unmanned air vehicles and targets; air structure modification and maintenance, threat warning systems, and missile seekers.  

           Systems Technical Support: Integration of shipboard combat systems; command, control and communications engineering; and range systems and support.  

           Information Systems: Mission management and strategic warplanning systems; imagery; mapping systems; test and space systems; information services; training and facilities management.  

           Communications and Data Links: Wide-band spread spectrum, Networking Packet Radio; common and tactical data links; antennas and apertures, and integration of C4I.  

           Reconnaissance and Surveillance: Theatre airborne reconnaissance systems, Advanced tactical air reconnaissance and EO reconnaissance, and Forward-Looking IR navigational system.  

           Space Electronics: Missile and satellite electronics, and radiation-hardened digital components.  

           Technology and Innovation: Future Combat Systems, Intelligent Munitions, Advanced propellant guns, Hybrid Electric Power Supply, and Automation & Robotics.

           Other board members of BAE Systems:
           Richard J. Kerr
             former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
           Mr. Kerr served in the U.S. Intelligence community for 32 years – from September 1960 until March 1992. He started as a country analyst in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and ended his career as the senior professional intelligence officer in the U.S. government serving as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

           Dr. Robert S. Cooper
             former Director, DARPA
           Dr. Cooper is currently President, CEO, Director and co-founder of Atlantic Aerospace Electronics Corporation. From 1981 to 1985, Dr. Cooper was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Technology and simultaneously held the position of Director for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). As Assistant Secretary, he was principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on the allocation of Department resources to research, exploratory development and advanced development projects.

           General Anthony C. Zinni (U.S. Marine Corps, Ret.)
             former Commander-in-Chief, CENTCOM
           Gen. Zinni was formerly Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Central Command. While in the Marine Corps he held numerous command and staff assignments that include platoon, company, battalion, regimental, Marine expeditionary unit, and Marine expeditionary force command. His staff assignments included service on battalion, regimental, division, base, and service staffs in operations, training, special operations, counterterrorism, and manpower billets. Gen. Zinni most recently served as the United States Special Envoy to the Middle East.

           General Kenneth A. Minihan (U.S. Air Force, Ret.)
             former Director National Security Agency; Central Security Service
           LtGen Minihan served more than thirty-three years of active commissioned service to the nation before retiring from the U.S. Air Force in 1999. On his final tour of duty, he served as the 14th Director of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, a combat support agency of the Department of Defense with military and civilian personnel stationed worldwide. As Director, he was the senior uniformed intelligence officer in the Department of Defense. He also served as the Director of The Defense Intelligence Agency.

           General J.H. Binford Peay, III (U.S. Army, Ret.)  
             former Vice Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army and Commander, U.S. Central Command
           General Peay was a career U.S. Army officer who attained the rank of four-star general. His last two assignments were Vice Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army and Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Central Command. Peay currently serves as Superintendent of the Virginia Military Institute.

           Lee H. Hamilton
             former Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
           Lee Hamilton, currently president and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, served 34 years as a member of the U.S. Congress, Ninth District, Indiana. He served as Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Chair of the Joint Economic Committee.

           Admiral Robert Natter (U.S. Navy, Ret.)
             former Commander of Fleet Forces Command and Atlantic Command
           Admiral Natter retired in 2003 after a 41-year Navy career, most recently serving as the commander of Fleet Forces Command and the Atlantic Fleet. In May 2000, he was honored as the fifth recipient of the Naval War College’s annual Distinguished Graduate Leadership Award.
             _______________  

           I can see the advertisement now.

           Hey kids, to put together 4 simultaneous hijackings and run them by remote there’s only ONE call you need to make!!  (703) 907-8200

           Just ask for Dr. Bill!

         • 

           dougr on September 25, 2006 at 9:19 am

           So we have Dr. Schneider (proud PNAC “New Pearl Harbor” member) requesting mega-billions of dollars to be shoveled at the defense industry while he’s on the board of at least 2 companies reaping much of this money.

           DGI, by the way, is a one-stop shop for Homeland Security solutions.
           http://www.defensegroupinc.com/about.cfm
           http://www.defensegroupinc.com/directors.cfm

           BAE is a one-stop shop for everything you’d need to simultaneously hijack 4 jetliners by remote.

           BUT, that requires the electronics of such a system to be worked out on paper…a schematic…or blueprint.
           THAT means some average guy…an electrical engineer would have to do that work.

           You’d think an average guy might think to himself, “Oh…My…God.  The drafting work I did at BAE is all of a sudden suspicious because it was designed to facilitate what I just saw those airplanes do”.
           He’s freaked…he tells his wife.  She tells her hairdresser.  Before you know it, it’s all over the internet and eventually it’s in Time Magazine.
           Schneider goes under the microscope.  He cracks…the jig is up.
           UNLESS:::::

           Robert Penninger was an electrical engineer. He had worked for BAE Systems, a defense contractor in Rancho Bernardo, San Diego. He worked for them for the past 11 years. He enjoyed taking motorcycle trips with his wife.

           He died at age 63 in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack on board American Airlines Flight 77.

           He was survived by his wife Janet, and his daughter Karen.

           http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Penniger

           Nice and tidy.

           Considering some of the other passengers on Flight 77, maybe a little too tidy:

           Dong Lee, Ruben Ornedo, and Chad Keller all worked for Boeing. Lee also worked for the NSA. Stanley Hall, “the dean of electronic warfare,” (along with Peter Gay, David Kolvacin, and Kenneth Waldie on other flights), worked for Raytheon.

           William Caswell was a particle physicist who worked for the Navy. His job was so classified that his family had no clue as to what he did and did not know why he was flying to California.

           Charles Droz, LCDR USN Ret, was a software developer for EM solutions (manufacturer of Wide Area Networks).

           Robert Ploger and his wife were added “late” to the original CNN passenger list. He is the son of Major General Robert R Ploger USA, Ret, another “flag” link.
           (this would require a look at Maj Gen Ploger…maybe he needed some “incentive” to stay quiet)

           John Sammartino and Leonard Taylor worked at Xontech (missile defense), another company connected to the intelligence community, also with ties to Boeing.

           Vicki Yancey worked for Vreedenberg Corp, yet another company connected to the intelligence community. Her father describes her death as a “planned murder.” Her widower works for Northrup-Grumman.

           Mary Jane Booth was in a position to know what was going on at Dulles Airport as secretary for American Airlines general manager.

           John Yamnicky, 71, Capt USN Ret, was a defense contractor for Veridian who had done a number of “black ops,” according to his son.

           “In fairness, Washington, D.C. and it’s suburbs draw a great number of contractors for the military and intelligence communities in their normal course of business. It may be mere coincidence that these passengers were all on the same flight; however; the government refuses to release information which would relieve our concerns.”

           http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm

           The above names came from a FOIA request of the complete autopsy list for Flight 77.  NO Arab names are included.
           http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

         • 

           BooMan on September 25, 2006 at 9:44 am

           dougr.  The reason no Arab names are on lists of people killed is because of sensitivity to the dead.  The hijackers names were listed separately.  You are falling for every crackpot theory that comes along.

           The airplanes were not seized by remote.  While it is theoretically possible for them to do so, it was not done, as can evidenced by the numerous eyewitness accounts, by the several transmissions from the hijackers themselves, by the slit throats of passengers and fight attendants, by the erratic flying of the planes, etc.

           Please don’t fill up the site with baseless and groundless theories of every type.  Use some common sense.  

         • 

           Arminius on September 21, 2006 at 11:12 pm

           That’s one of the more interesting takes I’ve read on this.

           Just one comment for now: I think your assertion that Osama Bin Laden and crew did not have the “tradecraft skills” (a word you, and I, picked up from spy novels and not from experience), and therefore could not have done it, is less plausible–using Occam’s Razor or like logical devides–than dougr’s detailed physical evidence regarding the implausibility of the theory that the planes took down all three towers.

   • 

     afs on September 21, 2006 at 9:35 am

     Reposting… The classical criminal investigation questions – means, motive, and opportunity – carry more weight in the calculus of reasoning out what happened in any criminal investigation than Occam’s Razor does. Occam’s Razor is a good predictor of chaotic natural processes. Occam’s Razor becomes a secondary consideration when human beings get involved.

     Let’s look at human history to see how Occam’s Razor does. Does Occam’s Razor predict many key events in human history? No. Occam’s Razor would fail to predict the rise and spread of Christianity, The US and French Revolutions, Napoleon, The start of WW I, The Russian Revolution, the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, etc.

     Humanity has a clear history of going about things in most complicated ways.

9. 

   Poeschek on September 21, 2006 at 2:08 am

   I don’t understand how the time difference is significant. It would be a lot more meaningful if there were two separate seismic events recorded 14 and 17 seconds apart, rather than just a time difference between the 9/11 commission and the earth observatory. A quick Google search came up with a quote from one of the scientists from the observatory saying that the evidence doesn’t support the bomb theory in any way.

   Incidentally, how is it remotely possible that a bomb powerful enough to severely damage the foundations of the World Trade Center could be detonated without being captured on video. When the second plane struck the South Tower, there had to be hundreds, if not thousands of video cameras focused on the World Trade Center, not to mention thousands of people clustered in and around the tower. To claim that a bomb that powerful could be detonated in the sub-basement without attracting the attention of everyone watching is frankly laughable.

   • 

     dougr on September 21, 2006 at 9:19 am

     First, the impact from the planes would NOT cause  measurable seismic activity.  Note the way they pretty much slice into the building.  The buildings were reported to have swayed on the impact.  Most of the force was absorbed by the swaying and, of course, the the plane itelf in being mashed.

     Second, the explosions were reported in the sub-basements…50 feet or more below street level.  They weren’t something you would expect to be caught on camera even if someone on the street happened to be pointing a camera directly at the towers at that exact moment.  In the basements, several witnesses reported these explosions.

     Third, the quote you referenced (which I already made a reference to in the main body of the diary) was ONLY made in reference to the seismic activity during collapse…not the pre-impact seismic activity.

     • 

       Poeschek on September 21, 2006 at 11:03 am

       The airliners weigh about 250,000 pounds and were travelling at 500 miles per hour. The kinetic energy released on impact has been estimated at 480,000 pounds of TNT. An explosion/impact of that magnitude would undoubtedly register as a seismic impact. In contrast, the bomb set off in the WTC basement in 1993 had about 1500 pounds of explosives and that caused one hell of an explosion. Also, I thought you said that the foundations were rooted to the bedrock? An impact strong enough to shake the building and cause it to sway would transfer that energy into the ground as well.

       If you set off a bomb 50 feet beneath the surface with enough power to trigger a seismograph, more than just some people in the basement would notice. For a bomb that powerful to not be caught on camera isn’t remotely possible. The planes hitting the tower caused enough force to shake the building, but you say that impact wasn’t powerful enough to be caught by a seismograph. However, this mystery explosion in the basement is powerful enough to cripple the WTC, but it wasn’t powerful enough to visibly shake the building enough to be seen even ONCE on the hundreds or thousands of video cameras pointed at WTC?  

       • 

         dougr on September 21, 2006 at 11:32 am

         I’d like to see a link for your numbers.

         The swaying of the building absorbed the impact.  That’s exactly why very little of it was transferred to the ground 800 feet below.
         The energy supplied by impact can only be spent ONCE.
         It was spent.
         If you care to do even a modicum of research, you will find that there are hundreds of witnesses reporting explosions in the towers.
         I used the reports from those in the basements because they also reported the effects of those explosions…the significant damage that they observed.

         If you care to click the following link, which I also provided above in the comments, you can hear some of the many explosions heard that day emanating from the towers, being filmed in the video, before they collapsed:
         http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603

         Starting at 44 minutes 27 seconds in.  The sounds are also analyzed to fix their time relative to collapse and other characterisitics.

         • 

           Poeschek on September 21, 2006 at 12:21 pm

           http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

           [blockquote]Despite shocks and explosions estimated to be equivalent to that of the 1995 truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (about 400 tons of TNT), the towers remained upright. “The buildings displayed a tremendous capacity to stand there despite the damage to a major portion of the gravity system, and for an hour or so they did stand there,” McNamara said. “The lateral truss systems redistributed the load when other critical members were lost. It’s a testament to the system that they lasted so long.”[/quote]

           The 1993 explosion in the WTC basement registered on the Columbia observatory’s seismographs. Do you honestly believe that 400 tons of explosives hitting the WTC wouldn’t show up on seismographs as well? Come on…

           And yeah, hundreds of people did report explosions but all of the ones I can find indicate that they were reported after the planes hit and in a randon fashion. I have never heard any witnesses describing a large-scale demolition effort with multiple charges. Instead, the reports sound like individual explosion like the ones that would be caused by exploding transformers, steam pipes bursting and other mechanical failures as the building was starting to fail. In fact, it would be a surprise if there weren’t secondary explosions in the towers with all the combustibles and electronics equipment.

           Furthermore, if YOU cared to do a modicum of research, you would find that these witnesses have been misquoted by conspiracy theorists. Many who were named in reports (as opposed to the many anonymous voices heard in radio calls or rushed interviews at the site) have subsequently stated that they never meant to imply that the WTC was brought down with explosives, just that they heard explosions in the tower.

         • 

           dougr on September 21, 2006 at 12:58 pm

           I’ll have to ask you again to provide linked documentation to your assertions as I have done with mine.

           The 1993 blast was ALSO in the basement.  It’s impact was fed directly into the ground…it was NOT absorbed by causing the building to sway from 800 feet above.  It was nothing like the impact of a jetliner 800 feet above.  It’s an historical fact that supports the evidence of explosives in the basements going off on 9/11.

           It’s very easy to understand that the crushing of the plane and the swaying of the building absorbed most…if not all…the energy of impact leaving little to none available to pass through 800 feet of core columns, into the bedrock and through the earth to seismic stations dozens of miles away.  And, I might add, be received by the seismic stations BEFORE THE PLANES HIT.

           The extent of damage to the basements and the lobby level is well documented as occurring long before collapse.  The seismic evidence is irrefutable.  No amount of footstomping and tantrum throwing will change that.
           And don’t start with the “jet fuel in the elevator shafts” piece of disinfo.  No elevator shaft reached the bottom of the towers from above the 40th floor.  The shafts were offset.  That feature was designed into the buildings.
           Firefighter who had gone up stairways and brought people down heard explosions below them while they were on upper floors and reported that damage to the lobby upon their return was GREATER than it had been before they went up.  There was a nearly constant deluge of large, highly destructive explosions that could not possibly be attributed to transformers and other various equipment in areas that were not affected by fire or plane impact.

           Go over the seven pieces of strong evidence I have presented that all come to the conclusion that explosives were placed in the buildings.  All 7 are independently corroborative.

           Go to the video I provided a link for and listen to some of the explosions for yourself.

         • 

           Poeschek on September 21, 2006 at 1:19 pm

           Frankly, I am done wating my time. Trying to talk to a conspiracy nut is like trying to challenge the faith of a fundamentalist Christian. You ignore piles of scientific evidence and expert testimony in favor of cherry picked sources and wild speculation. Your claim your sources are irrefutable, whereas counter-evidence proves nothing.

           I’ll trust the mountain of experts who assert that the impact of the flights brought down the WTC towers, just I trust the mountains of experts who assert that global warming is real, evolution is responsible for shaping life on earth, aliens have not visited the earth and smoking causes cancer. When you have some real evidence, write it up in an academic journal or take it to a court of law and prove your case, then we can talk.

         • 

           dougr on September 21, 2006 at 1:34 pm

           You have shown no counter-evidence.

           You are going entirely on the faith of what the bush administration tells you.
           The same administration that has done nothing but lie for 5 years on everything they’ve said from WMDs to global warming, to the air quality in lower Manhattan, to their non-response to Katrina, to health care, to the war in Iraq “going well”, to seeing the first plane hit on tv on 9/11…”terrible pilot”, to saddam/al qaeda connections, and on and on.
           They’re a bunch of psychopaths…but go ahead and believe them.

         • 

           afs on September 21, 2006 at 1:36 pm

           There is one full scientific report backing the “mainsteam version” of 9/11 events. The NIST report.

           The NIST report is riddled with errors and holes.

           One of the people responsible for doing investigative work that went into the NIST report has gone public challenging the way the NIST report was done, and that person was fired for raising those questions.

           Anyone who claims there are mountains of data hasn’t done step one of research to find out what data does and does not exist.

           Anyone that believes that mountains of experts/data back up the “mainstream version” is displaying a BELIEF that is not supported by facts.

       • 

         Arminius on September 21, 2006 at 11:14 pm

         I don’t think any of those numbers are plausible.

10. 

    dougr on September 21, 2006 at 10:57 am

    A story in yesterday’s LA times provides us with some information that allows the next step into the truth about 9/11.
    That step takes us into a discussion of False Flag Terrorism.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-terror20sep20,1,2188283.story?track=crosspromo&a
    mp;coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

    Terrorism Defendant Cites Fear of Pakistan
    A suspect on trial in Britain in a bomb plot halts his testimony about the South Asian nation’s spy agency and says relatives are at risk.
    By Sebastian Rotella and Janet Stobart, Times Staff Writers
    September 20, 2006

    LONDON — A major terrorism trial here was interrupted Tuesday when a defendant accused Pakistan’s intelligence service of threatening his relatives in the South Asian nation after he testified that the spy agency played a role in training Islamic militants.

    Omar Khyam, an accused leader among seven men charged in 2004 with stockpiling half a ton of explosives in an Al Qaeda-linked bombing plot, took the stand Tuesday long enough to refuse to continue his testimony. The judge temporarily adjourned the trial, which began in March.

    On Monday, Khyam stunned his own lawyer when he declared that his relatives in Pakistan had been intimidated in recent days by agents of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which has a shadowy history of contacts with Islamic extremist networks.

    “The ISI has had words with my family in Pakistan regarding what I have been saying” about the agency, Khyam, 24, said on the stand Monday. “I think they are worried I might end up revealing more about them, and right now the priority has to be the safety of my family there.”

    “I am not going to discuss anything related to the ISI anymore or my evidence,” he said.

    Despite longtime allegations that Pakistani agents have trained Islamic militants and protected fugitive Al Qaeda leaders, Khyam’s testimony provided a rare account in a Western courtroom about the ISI’s role in militant training camps. His accusation also raised concerns that Pakistani intelligence officials might be seeking to disrupt a significant prosecution of alleged Islamic extremism in Europe.

    There was no evidence presented to suggest that the ISI had links to preparations in Pakistan for the alleged plan to bomb a nightclub and shopping center in the London area. But Khyam’s allegation raises the possibility that he had been on the verge of revelations related to the case, which has parallels and suspected links to last year’s bombings on the London transportation system and a recent alleged plot to attack transatlantic airliners, observers said.

    “We are in uncharted territory here,” said Sajjan Gohel of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a counter-terrorism think tank here. “It hasn’t happened before. The ISI has always been a murky organization. There have always been suspicions of a nexus between them, terror groups in Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But here you have a guy from the UK giving testimony that is very relevant because the ISI is supposed to be the key ally in the hunt for [Osama] bin Laden. And it’s concerning that a country that is supposed to be an ally in the war on terror is intimidating witnesses, almost ‘Godfather’-style.”

    Pakistani diplomats in London did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    If the allegations about intimidation are true, they raise troubling implications for the trial and the other pending cases involving British suspects of Pakistani origin with alleged connections to terrorist networks in Pakistan — as well as family ties there.

    It is almost unprecedented in a British court for a defendant to cite fear of a foreign government as an obstacle to testifying, said Rhiannon Talbot, a professor at Newcastle University and an expert on terrorism law.

    “It’s not unusual for a witness to refuse to give testimony in cases of organized crime, but it is unusual for a defendant to do so,” Talbot said.

    Talbot and court officials said the trial was likely to continue Thursday with a new defendant testifying.

    Khyam’s defense appears to be over, however.

    Khyam is a central figure in the case. In 2003, he led defendants on a trip to a Pakistani training camp near Afghanistan and met with a top Al Qaeda figure who told him to carry out attacks in Britain, according to prosecution witnesses. Wiretaps played in court documented his conversations about scenarios, including the possible bombing of London’s biggest nightclub to massacre patrons.

    Khyam readily admitted during testimony last week that, as he became radicalized, he had set off for Pakistan in 2000 to become a holy warrior. “A lot of my family were officers in the military and the ISI” and encouraged his aspirations, he testified.

    After telling his family here that he was going to France to study, he made his way to a training camp in the mountains above the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi. He spent three months learning firearms skills and guerrilla tactics for combat, according to his testimony. He said ISI operatives had provided explosives training at the camp but that he did not learn those skills.

    “People there were selected by the ISI,” Khyam testified. “The ISI works with Islamic groups. The group I was with, they wouldn’t let us train with the local Pakistanis. There would be a separate camp for the foreigners.”

    The Islamic militants were being prepared for combat in Kashmir, where Pakistani security forces deploy them in “a proxy war” with India over the contested region, he testified.

    “The ISI was setting up training camps in what we call Free Kashmir, funding it with money and weapons, and people that would train people, and logistical supplies, everything,” he told the court.

    Kashmir, along with Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Russian republic of Chechnya, is one of the battlegrounds that has provided a multinational flow of aspiring Islamic militants to Al Qaeda and its allies.

    Khyam testified that he did not reach Kashmir. His Pakistani relatives, alerted by his worried parents here, used intelligence service connections to track him down, he said.

    He returned to Britain, where prosecutors allege the cell came together. His group made trips to Pakistan in 2003 for training, logistical support and direction from Al Qaeda-connected networks, prosecutors said.

    Khyam denies any role in a bomb plot. But the abrupt halt to his defense has raised new questions.

    “Khyam has revealed more information than was expected,” said Gohel of the Asia-Pacific Foundation. “He has given a lot of insight into how very many British Muslims have been recruited…. I think everyone was shocked. The question now is whether the whole truth will come out.”

    Here we see deep connections between Pakistan’s ISI and Al Qaeda.

    There are also deep connections between the ISI and the CIA and British intelligence.

    And, of course, there were very close ties between Al Qaeda and the CIA throughout the 1990s.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

    The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo. More recently in Macedonia, barely a few months before September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries financed by Al Qaeda. Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation.

    MI6 was highly instrumental in the creation of the ISI.
    British intelligence, according to whistleblower and former agent David Shaylor, contracted an Al Qaeda linked group for an assasination attempt on Libya’s Gaddafi which failed.
    http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2006/david_shaylor.html

    Shayler stated that MI6 had been involved in a failed assassination attack on Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi in February 1996 without the permission of the then foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind (required under British and international law). The plot involved paying a London based Libyan opposition group with links to Al-Qaeda £100,000 to carry out the attack. The group was paid to plant a bomb underneath Gaddafi’s motorcade. The attack happened in March 1996 in the coastal city of Sirte. The bomb was planted under the wrong car and failed to kill Gaddafi but did result in the deaths of several innocent civilians. In November 1999 he sent a dossier of detailed evidence of this including the names of those involved to then home secretary Jack Straw who stated that he was looking into the matter as well as parliament’s security and intelligence committee and the police.

    The head of the ISI, Mahmoud Ahmad, was in the United States before, during and after 9/11 holding meetings with the top US intelligence officials and members of the both Intelligence Subcomittees.  
    There are credible reports that Ahmad ordered money to be wired to Atta from pakistan just prior to 9/11.
    After these reports surfaced, Ahmad resigned and melted away.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

    The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been “wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad].” According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):

    “The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism.”

    For details of previous false flag events perpetrated by Western Governments in recent history.
    watch:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3710767957407328313

    • 

      dougr on September 22, 2006 at 1:12 am

      How false flag terrorism is used to perpetuate conflict.
      And what happens to the conflict when this tactic is thoroughly exposed?  It ends.  Think back on when The Troubles in Northern Ireland faded.

      Does anyone remember the shock with which the British public greeted the revelation four years ago that one of the members of the Real IRA unit whose bombing attack in Omagh on August 15, 1998 killed twenty-nine civilians had been a double agent, a British army soldier?

      That soldier was not Britain’s only terrorist double agent. A second British soldier planted within the IRA claimed he had given forty-eight hours advance notice of the Omagh car-bomb attack to his handlers within the Royal Ulster Constabulary, including “details of one of the bombing team and the man’s car registration.” Although the agent had made an audio tape of his tip-off call, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, chief constable of the RUC, declared that “no such information was received” (http://www.sundayherald.com/17827).

      This second double agent went public in June 2002 with the claim that from 1981 to 1994, while on full British army pay, he had worked for “the Force Research Unit, an ultra-secret wing of British military intelligence,” as an IRA mole. With the full knowledge and consent of his FRU and MI5 handlers, he became a bombing specialist who “mixed explosive and … helped to develop new types of bombs,” including “light-sensitive bombs, activated by photographic flashes, to overcome the problem of IRA remote-control devices having their signal jammed by army radio units.” He went on to become “a member of the Provisional IRA’s `internal security squad’–also known as the `torture unit’–which interrogated and executed suspected informers” (http://www.sundayherald.com/print25646).

      The much-feared commander of that same “torture unit” was likewise a mole, who had previously served in the Royal Marines’ Special Boat Squadron (an elite special forces unit, the Marines’ equivalent to the better-known SAS). A fourth mole, a soldier code-named “Stakeknife” whose military handlers “allowed him to carry out large numbers of terrorist murders in order to protect his cover within the IRA,” was still active in December 2002 as “one of Belfast’s leading Provisionals” (http://www.sundayherald.com/29997).

      Reliable evidence also emerged in late 2002 that the British army had been using its double agents in terrorist organizations “to carry out proxy assassinations for the British state”–most notoriously in the case of Belfast solicitor and human rights activist Pat Finucane, who was murdered in 1989 by the Protestant Ulster Defence Association. It appears that the FRU passed on details about Finucane to a British soldier who had infiltrated the UDA; he in turn “supplied UDA murder teams with the information” (http://www.sundayherald.com/29997).

      Start at 1:27:14 of this audio for an interview of these two agents:
      http://nw0.info/files/Radio/Alex%20Jones%20Radio%20Archive/2006/September/21/aj_2006-09-21.mp3

      Do you ever wonder about some of the highly inflammatory bombings in Iraq?

      Recent events in Basra have raised suspicions that the British army may have reactivated these same tactics in Iraq.
      Articles published by Michel Chossudovsky, Larry Chin and Mike Whitney at the Centre for Research on Globalization’s website on September 20, 2005 have offered preliminary assessments of the claims of Iraqi authorities that two British soldiers in civilian clothes who were arrested by Iraqi police in Basra on September 19–and in short order released by a British tank and helicopter assault on the prison where they were being held–had been engaged in planting bombs in the city

      See:
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con…0&articleId=972
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con…0&articleId=982
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con…0&articleId=981

      The American journalist Dahr Jamail wrote in April 20, 2004 that the recent spate of car bombings in Baghdad was widely rumoured to have been the work of the CIA:

      “The word on the street in Baghdad is that the cessation of suicide car bombings is proof that the CIA was behind them. Why? Because as one man states, `[CIA agents are] too busy fighting now, and the unrest they wanted to cause by the bombings is now upon them.’ True or not, it doesn’t bode well for the occupiers’ image in Iraq.” (http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jamail200404.htm)

      Two days later, on April 22, 2004, Agence France-Presse reported that five car-bombings in Basra–three near-simultaneous attacks outside police stations in Basra that killed sixty-eight people, including twenty children, and two follow-up bombings–were being blamed by supporters of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on the British. While eight hundred supporters demonstrated outside Sadr’s offices, a Sadr spokesman claimed to have “evidence that the British were involved in these attacks” (http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2004/apr/23/wnw_3_1.htm).

      An anonymous senior military officer said on April 22, 2004 of these Basra attacks that “It looks like Al-Qaeda. It’s got all the hallmarks: it was suicidal, it was spectacular and it was symbolic.” Brigadier General Nick Carter, commander of the British garrison in Basra, stated more ambiguously that Al Qaeda was not necessarily to blame for the five bombings, but that those responsible came from outside Basra and “quite possibly” from outside Iraq: “‘All that we can be certain of is that this is something that came from outside,’ Carter said” (http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2004/apr/23/wnw_4_1.htm). Moqtada al-Sadr’s supporters of course believed exactly the same thing–differing only in their identification of the criminal outsiders as British agents rather than as Islamist mujaheddin from other Arab countries.

      In May 2005 `Riverbend’, the Baghdad author of the widely-read blog Baghdad Burning, reported that what the international press was reporting as suicide bombings were often in fact “car bombs that are either being remotely detonated or maybe time bombs.” After one of the larger recent blasts, which occurred in the middle-class Ma’moun area of west Baghdad, a man living in a house in front of the blast site was reportedly arrested for having sniped an Iraqi National Guardsman. But according to `Riverbend’, his neighbours had a different story:

      “People from the area claim that the man was taken away not because he shot anyone, but because he knew too much about the bomb. Rumor has it that he saw an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away.”

      (http://riverbendblog.blogspit.com/2005_05_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#111636281930496496)

      Also in May 2005, Imad Khadduri, the Iraqi-exile physicist whose writings helped to discredit American and British fabrications about weapons of mass destruction, reported a story that in Baghdad a driver whose license had been confiscated at an American check-point was told “to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license.” After being questioned for half an hour, he was informed that there was nothing against him, but that his license had been forwarded to the Iraqi police at the al-Khadimiya station “for processing”–and that he should get there quickly before the lieutenant whose name he was given went off his shift.

      “The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors. The only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated `hideous attack by foreign elements’.”

      (http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/0505/Combat-terrorism_160505.htm)

      According to Khadduri, “The same scenario was repeated in Mosul, in the north of Iraq.” On this occasion, the driver’s life was saved when his car broke down on the way to the police station where he was supposed to reclaim his license, and when the mechanic to whom he had recourse “discovered that the spare tire was fully laden with explosives.”

      Khadduri mentions, as deserving of investigation, a “perhaps unrelated incident” in Baghdad on April 28, 2005 in which a Canadian truck-driver with dual Canadian-Iraqi citizenship was killed. He quotes a CBC report according to which “Some media cited unidentified sources who said he may have died after U.S. forces `tracked’ a target, using a helicopter gunship, but Foreign Affairs said it’s still investigating conflicting reports of the death. U. S. officials have denied any involvement.”

      Another incident, also from April 2005, calls more urgently for investigation, since one of its victims remains alive. Abdul Amir Younes, a CBS cameraman, was lightly wounded by U.S. forces on April 5 “while filming the aftermath of a car bombing in Mosul.” American military authorities were initially apologetic about his injuries, but three days later arrested him on the grounds that he had been “engaged in anti-coalition activity”
      (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/Kafka-does-iraq-the-dist_b_7796.html).

      Arianna Huffington, in her detailed account of this case, quite rightly emphasizes its Kafkaesque qualities: Younes has now been detained, in Abu Graib and elsewhere, for more than five months–without charges, without any hint of what evidence the Pentagon may hold against him, and without any indication that he will ever be permitted to stand trial, challenge that evidence, and disprove the charges that might at some future moment be laid. But in addition to confirming, yet again, the Pentagon’s willingness to violate the most fundamental principles of humane and democratic jurisprudence, this case also raises a further question. Was Younes perhaps arrested, like the Iraqi whose rumoured fate was mentioned by `Riverbend’, because he had seen–and in Younes’ case photographed–more than was good for him?

      Agents provocateurs?

      Spokesmen for the American and British occupation of Iraq, together with newspapers like the Daily Telegraph, have of course rejected with indignation any suggestion that their forces could have been involved in false-flag terrorist operations in Iraq.

      It may be remembered that during the 1980s spokesmen for the government of Ronald Reagan likewise heaped ridicule on Nicaraguan accusations that the U.S. was illegally supplying weapons to the `Contras’–until, that is, a CIA-operated C-123 cargo aircraft full of weaponry was shot down over Nicaragua, and Eugene Hasenfus, a cargo handler who survived the crash, testified that his supervisors (one of whom was Luis Posada Carriles, the CIA agent responsible for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner) were working for then-Vice-President George H. W. Bush.

      The arrest–and the urgent liberation–of the two undercover British soldiers in Iraq might in a similar manner be interpreted as casting a retrospective light on previously unsubstantiated claims about the involvement of members of the occupying armies in terrorist bombing attacks on civilians.

      The parallel is far from exact: in this case there has been no dramatic confession like that of Hasenfus, and there are no directly incriminating documents like the pilot’s log of the downed C-123. There is, moreover, a marked lack of consensus as to what actually happened in Basra. Should we therefore, with Juan Cole, dismiss the possibility British soldiers were acting as agents provocateurs as a “theory [that] has almost no facts behind it” (http://www.juancole.com)?

      Members of Britain’s Elite SAS Forces

      It appears that when on September 19 suspicious Iraqi police stopped the Toyota Cressida the undercover British soldiers were driving, the two men opened fire, killing one policeman and wounding another. But the soldiers, identified by the BBC as “members of the SAS elite special forces” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm), were subdued by the police and arrested. A report published by The Guardian on September 24 adds the further detail that the SAS men “are thought to have been on a surveillance mission outside a police station in Basra when they were challenged by an Iraqi police patrol” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iraq/Story/0,2763,1577575,00.html).

      As Justin Raimondo has observed in an article published on September 23 at Antiwar.com, nearly every other aspect of this episode is disputed.

      The Washington Post dismissively remarked, in the eighteenth paragraph of its report on these events, that “Iraqi security officials variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives” (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/20/MNGSSEQNGN1.DTL). Iraqi officials in fact accused them not of one or the other act, but of both.

      Fattah al-Shaykh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly, told Al-Jazeera TV on September 19 that the soldiers opened fire when the police sought to arrest them, and that their car was booby-trapped “and was meant to explode in the centre of the city of Basra in the popular market” (quoted by Chossudovsky). A deliberately inflammatory press release sent out on the same day by the office of Moqtada al-Sadr (and posted in English translation at Juan Cole’s Informed Comment blog on September 20) states that the soldiers’ arrest was prompted by their having “opened fire on passers-by” near a Basra mosque, and that they were found to have “in their possession explosives and remote-control devices, as well as light and medium weapons and other accessories” (http://www.juancole.com).

      What credence can be given to the claim about explosives? Justin Raimondo writes that while initial BBC Radio reports acknowledged that the two men indeed had explosives in their car, subsequent reports from the same source indicated that the Iraqi police found nothing beyond “assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear, and medical kit. This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theater of operations” (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7366).

      One might well wonder, with Raimondo, whether an anti-tank weapon is “standard operating equipment”–or what use SAS men on “a surveillance mission outside a police station” intended to make of it. But more importantly, a photograph published by the Iraqi police and distributed by Reuters  shows that–unless the equipment is a plant–the SAS men were carrying a good deal more than just the items acknowledged by the BBC. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050923&articleid=989)

      I would want the opinion of an arms expert before risking a definitive judgment about the objects shown, which could easily have filled the trunk and much of the back seat of a Cressida. But this photograph makes plausible the statement of Sheik Hassan al-Zarqani, a spokesman for Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia:

      “What our police found in their car was very disturbing–weapons, explosives, and a remote control detonator. These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets…” (quoted by Raimondo)

      The fierce determination of the British army to remove these men from any danger of interrogation by their own supposed allies in the government the British are propping up–even when their rescue entailed the destruction of an Iraqi prison and the release of a large number of prisoners, gun-battles with Iraqi police and with Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia, a large popular mobilization against the British occupying force, and a subsequent withdrawal of any cooperation on the part of the regional government–tends, if anything, to support the view that this episode involved something much darker and more serious than a mere flare-up of bad tempers at a check-point.

      US-UK Sponsored Civil War

      There is reason to believe, moreover, that the open civil war which car-bomb attacks on civilians seem intended to produce would not be an unwelcome development in the eyes of the occupation forces.

      Writers in the English-language corporate media have repeatedly noted that recent terror-bomb attacks which have caused massive casualties among civilians appear to be pushing Iraq towards a civil war of Sunnis against Shiites, and of Kurds against both. For example, on September 18, 2005 Peter Beaumont proposed in The Observer that the slaughter of civilians, which he ascribes to Al Qaeda alone, “has one aim: civil war” (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1572936,00.html). But H. D. S. Greenway had already suggested on June 17, 2005 in the Boston Globe that “Given the large number of Sunni-led attacks against Shia targets, the emerging Shia-led attacks against Sunnis, and the extralegal abductions of Arabs by Kurdish authorities in Kirkut, one has to wonder whether the long-feared Iraqi civil war hasn’t already begun” (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/17/facing_factsin_iraq?mode
      =PF). And on September 21, 2005 Nancy Youssef and Mohammed al Dulaimy of the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau wrote that the ethnic cleansing of Shiites in predominantly Sunni Baghdad neighbourhoods “is proceeding at an alarming and potentially destabilizing pace,” and quoted the despairing view of an Iraqi expert:

      “‘Civil war today is closer than any time before,’ said Hazim Abdel Hamid al Nuaimi, a professor of politics at al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. `All of these explosions, the efforts by police and purging of neighbourhoods is a battle to control Baghdad.'”

      (http://www.realcities.com/mid/krwashington/12704935.htm)

      Whether or not it has already begun or will occur, the eruption of a full-blown civil war, leading to the fragmentation of the country, would clearly be welcomed in some circles.

      http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=8344d32af5d5e50dd1d17041cdcaba98&showtopic=354&
      st=20&p=130189&

11. 

    afs on September 21, 2006 at 11:24 am

    It’s the largest privately owned engineering corporation in the US, and the 6th largest private corporation in the US. Privately held means no oversight. Bechtel Corp has been commected at the hip to the CIA for a LONG time…

    “…Bechtel’s close relationship with the CIA helped influence overthrows of several foreign governments perceived as unfriendly to American business goals; and allowed the company to be at the right place at the right time to take advantage of new business opportunities with puppet regimes. Bechtel’s relationship with the CIA began in the 1940’s. Bechtel built a major pipeline though Saudi Arabia, which assisted the Saudis in their emergence as a major oil producing country. Bechtel eventually established a heavy influence in Saudi, which eventually throughout the Middle East. The CIA utilized Bechtel’s intelligence of the region. The company collaborated with the CIA to influence political and economic developments.

    The first coup Bechtel was involved with was the 1948 Syrian coup spurred by Syrian hostility towards the U.S. for supporting Israel, the Syrian government cancelled a Bechtel sponsored pipeline across its boarders and became increasingly hostile to the U.S. State Department documents form 1948 state that an unidentified, “multinational corporation had indeed had a hand in overthrowing the Syrian government notably by supplying arms and funding to the rebels according to J. Rivers Childs, U.S. minister to Saudi Arabia, the multinational corporation was most likely Bechtel” (20). Close ties between Alan Dulles the CIA deputy Director and Steve Bechtel’s financial advisor, John Simpson, facilitated the relationship between Bechtel and the CIA. Steve Bechtel served as the CIA’s liaison with the Business Council and several other organizations directly linked with the CIA (21). The ties between Bechtel and the CIA led to collaborations in intelligence gathering that helped overthrow Iran’s Mossadeq in 1953 and Indonesia’s Sukarno and replace them with the Reza Shah Pahlavi and Suharto respectively, pro-Western, pro-business allies.

    Bechtel’s operations increasingly mimicked those of the CIA. The company drew up its plans and plotted its business operations with the same devotion to secrecy and clandestine intelligence gathering as its governmental associate, much of them based on reports furnished by friends at the CIA and the Departments of State, Commerce and Defense. These reports in turn were compiled into confidential weekly summaries broken into political, military, economic and technical categories. Typical of the intelligence flavor of the documents was an October 1, 1976 report on Africa entitled, “Objective: Develop new and expanded business throughout the African continent.” These reports provided a battle plan for the company’s operations and at least partly explained why Bechtel seemed to have a knack for being in so many places at exactly the right time” (22).

    “In this business, you get to know people, sit on their boards and one day when something comes up, they ask you to take on a project. One thing leads to another”((23) Steve Bechtel). Such personal connections were essential to Bechtel, particularly during the emergence of the nuclear age, friends within various U.S. presidential administrations ensured Bechtel’s dominance in the construction of nuclear power plants.

    Bechtel’s success in the nuclear industry was fostered by the close relationship between Steve Bechtel and John McCone. McCone, a former partner of Steve Bechtel and U.C. Berkeley classmate, became Eisenhower’s chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, which allowed Bechtel to be at the forefront of the nuclear revolution. McCone became CIA director for both Kennedy and Johnson. Even before McCone became apart of Eisenhower’s administration Bechtel had several key dealings in the nuclear industry. Bechtel built storage plants for the Manhattan Project. Bechtel also built the `doomsday town’ in the Nevada desert. A town specifically built to measure the damage a nuclear weapon would have on a typical American town. Bechtel also constructed the facility that housed the Material Testing Accelerator project; what would eventually become Lawrence Livermore Laboratory….”

    http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/corporate/dd/bechtel2.html

    “LOS ALAMOS, N.M., July 9, 2003 — Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory have captured eight of R&D Magazine’s 2003 R&D 100 Awards, more than any other Department of Energy laboratory. The University of California managed National Laboratories, Los Alamos, Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore combined for a total of 16 awards….

    …Super-Thermite Electric Matches

    Super-Thermite electric matches are designed to replace the conventional electric matches used in pyrotechnics applications. Unlike conventional electric matches, Super-Thermite matches produce no toxic lead smoke and are safer to use because they resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge, thereby minimizing accidental ignition. Secondary applications include uses for triggering explosives for the mining, demolition, and defense industries, setting off vehicle air bags, and igniting rocket motors…”

    “…Los Alamos National Laboratory is a multidisciplinary research institution engaged in strategic science on behalf of national security. The Laboratory is operated by a team composed of Bechtel National, the University of California, BWX Technologies, and Washington Group International for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration….”

    http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?fuseaction=home.story&story_id=1457

    “…The anti-governent-explanation movement hangs its collective hat on experiments conducted by Jones at BYU. He declared that dust and molten metal from ground zero contain elements of thermate, a variation of thermite, a compound used in military explosive charges strong enough to cut through steel.
          Jones said it took him a while to warm up to the idea of investigating the collapses. He was hooked when he saw footage of the collapse of a third, smaller tower, Building Seven. WTC 7 is a football field away from the Twin Towers, with another building and a street between them. No plane struck the 47-story WTC 7, but it fell later on Sept. 11, and it fell the way the WTC 1 and WTC 2 did, fast and straight down.
          Jones believes a team as small as 19 people could have set 1,000 pounds of charges to bring down the building, which the “truth” movement believes was the nerve center of a government conspiracy to create a new Pearl Harbor that would propel the United States to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and later, Iran….”

    http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645200098,00.html

    • 

      dougr on September 21, 2006 at 11:49 am

      Thanks for those details.
      One correction is necessary though.  The 9/11 truth movement does not “hang its collective hat” on Jones’s work.
      His work is significant but as is plainly seen in this diary, it’s only one of dozens of aspects.
      Also…the “anti-government” phrasing is misleading hyperbole.

      The matches described in the article can be seen in Jones’ slide presentation of the results of his analyses showing that high explosives were used in the towers…also linked above in the main body of this diary:

      http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/link.asp?ID=5175&URL=http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200
      609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf

      • 

        afs on September 21, 2006 at 12:30 pm

        My position on both 9/11 and voting irrregularities is that we are still very early in the investigation process of both.

        I always fall back on basic scientific method here…

        “…The scientific method has four steps

        1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
        2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
        3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
        4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments….”

        http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

        The scientific method applies as much to social sciences as physical sciences.

        We are primarily in step one. A few people are a little bit into step 2. Nobody is making serious claims they are at a point of “proving” anything on either issue.

12. 

    KlatooBaradaNikto on September 21, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    Dougr: Thank you for your excellent post ehere at the Tribune and previously at Kos.I wanted to post my own observations on the 9/11 tragedy because as a person witha Ph.D. in materials science and as a practicing structural engineer with many years experience in the type of large structures like WTC, I had already formed a strong suspicion that whatever was being sold to us by the Bush administration defied physical principles.Your neat summary of facts has put a credible face on that suspicion.

    For those who are on this board, let me state some things that may not be apparent to laymen:

    1. There was no probability that the impact of the planes and the heat from the avfuel resulted in the failure of the beams holding up the towers.

    2.The presence of molten steel documented by Prof.Steven Jones and by eyewitnesses at Ground Zero
    clearly points to the real mechanism by which the Towers were brought down in the manner shown in the many excellent photographs and videos now available. That mechanism is simply the wearing away of the steel columns at strategic points by a Thermate reaction with or without additional explosives simply to disrupt the integrity of the structure.

    These two facts form the backbone of the argument that the Towers did not collapse in the manner described by NIST or the Bush agencies.

    Apart from these observations, which I won’t delve into because Dougr has done such a great job, I will add only two more confirming observations which I have not seen anywhere in the many excellent publications pertaining to this event.

    First, I was struck by what a small number of deaths resulted from the collapse of the Towers.Although we may not think 3000 deaths is any small number in our usual experience,it helps to remember that at their busiest, the Twoers can hold nearly hundred times that number.Any foreign terrorist worth his salt would have organized his hit in such a way that the casulaties would be maximized.That they did do so could lead one to think that either the terrorists were extraordinarily stupid or they intentionally chose a time at which the casualties would be low.

    Now discarding the first hypothesis, why would terrorists want to minimze the casulaties of their sworn enemy? That has led me to one inescapable conclusion.That the terrorists were only interested in producing a spectacular “event” and wanted to minimize any political fallout from that event, especially lengthy and detailed investigations.The low casualty number would allow the perpetrators to stonewall any
    calls for investigations.Further because fully 40% of the dead were foreigners like Indian IT professionals, British engineers or financial executives and Germans,political clamor would be muted and could be handled by powerful men in our midst.That is why I have come to the conclusion that the low casualty figures when the possibility of creating a much larger death toll was as easy as waiting for another half an hour and hijacking a later aircraft in the eastern skies which are crawling with flights between 9 and 10AM,clearly gives us a clue as to the nature of the perpetrators.

    Another observation that has struck me is why Christie Whitman was so eager to certify the air’s cleanliness even before all the air quality sampling was completed and why Bush, after receiving the report,contemptuously dismissed it but refused to release it.At that time all of us were led to believe that the administration was concerned that if the health hazards from the effusions at the Tower became well known panic might ensue and New York might become a ghost town.Although that is a reasonable hypothesis, I believe that the administration had an even stronger motive for suppressing the EPA’s air quality report.

    I am certain that given the state of the art in NMR spectroscopy (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance),a good monitoring program would have clearly detected the presence of compounds unique to Thermate formulations.That would have sounded the deathknell of the Cheney administration.That could not be allowed for any reason whatsoever.

    If we continue to chip away at the rotten skeleton of the 9/11 story,sooner or later we are likely to arrive at Bush’s Macaca moment.

    Our own history is a good guide to 9/11.The Gulf of Tonkin “incident” which never happened and the WMD story in Iraq which never existed, tell us that our rulers are not above carrying out acts designed to further their political agendas.9/11 will join that pantheon when the entire facts are laid out for all to see.

    I must also say I am struck by how many people, ignorant of science and engineering continue to berate people like Prof.Jones, when they could not tell the difference between Thermate and a Thermometer.

    Faith based reasoning is in full bloom in Twentyfirst century America.

    • 

      technopolitical on September 22, 2006 at 12:24 am

      For those who are on this board, let me state some things that may not be apparent to laymen:a

      1. There was no probability that the impact of the planes and the heat from the avfuel resulted in the failure of the beams holding up the towers.

      Here is a fact that even laymen know well: Fires make steel soft. That’s why blacksmiths use fire to heat steel before hammering it.  Softened steel won’t hold up a building.

      The above argument comes from a subculture that uses claimed credentials to intimidate “laymen” into accepting crap. Their level of critical thinking and genuine concern for the truth apparently hovers near zero.

      Accordingly, my trust of their interpretations of video images, etc., also hovers near zero

      Rove must love these people — they help do his work.

      • 

        dougr on September 22, 2006 at 1:20 am

        How hot does steel have to get before it becomes “soft”?
        What exactly do you mean by “soft”?

        How hot did the steel in the towers get?

        Learn the information in this interview before you start with a foot-stomping temper tantrum.

        http://gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=141

        This is a reasoned discussion here…not a Florida elections office where staged mini-riots can stop the process.

        Thank you.

      • 

        sidewinder on September 22, 2006 at 1:42 am

        technopolitical – the emphasis is on the political, not on the technical.

        You are quite simply a “know-nothing”. Didn’t you once have a political party named after you?

        I propose an experiment for you:

        Go buy 55 gallons of avgas – no, go ahead & splurge – buy 110 galons of avgas. Just go to any medium sized airport with a couple of 55 gallon drums & a gold card.

        Now, go to a junkyard somewhere and obtain three equal-sized steel beams, or tubes, of about four foot length & about one-half inch wall thickness.

        While you’re at it, pick up a steel plate about four feet on a side and about 1000lbs of cinder blocks. If you pay $75 for this stuff, you’ve spent too much.

        Now go to a wlding shop & have the guy weld your three steel beams to the steel plate so that you’ve made a large, crude three legged stool.

        Take the whole mess out to some desolate area where you can dig a shallow pit. Place the stool in the pit & load your 1/2 ton of cinder blocks on it.

        Dump your avgas in the pit & light it on fire.

        Once the smoky, smelly mess burns out report back on whether the steel legs of your stool buckled. Or if they even got cherry red.

        They wont – even if you do this experiment on a windy day – and even tho’ your ratio of fuel to steel is much greater than the ratio of fuel to steel was in the towers.

        Remember, in the towers, the beams that had to be buckled were 2-4″ thick, 36″ long & 12″ wide & 15 FEET high (on each floor). And there were 47 of them. That is a whole lot of steel to heat up. Even if you could concentrate the heat on one specific beam, you’d be freakishly lucky to heat it enough to cause it to buckle. ANd you’d have to more than one beam – the Tower was design to hold up six times it’s standard load.

        Check out this site for a good analysis of the numbers:

        http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:UDfF1HMP_NMJ:thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm+W
        TC+beam+dimensions&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7

        and leave the politics to the Bushies.

      • 

        KlatooBaradaNikto on September 22, 2006 at 3:50 am

        I know something about steels and their metallurgy too.The kind of structural steels used in the WTC Towers would require getting upto 600 degrees Fahrenheit before what is called its recrystallization tempertaure at which it loses half its strength at room temperature.In fact the design of such structures is based on maintaining the integrity of the structures at half or evn less of the rated strength at room temperature.

        Given that philosophy, the WTC Towers were correctly deemed impossible to bring down by a direct hit with a commercial aircraft.

        As for the aviation fuel that created the fireball on impact,looking at the flame temperatures,one can clearly see it is a low temperature flame with temperatures no greater than 750 deg.F.If one takes the radiant heat losses and the heat sink effects of the massive structures,there is simply no way the steel would have reached a temperature anywhere close to its recrystallization temperature.

        If you know anything about the melting and heat treatment of steels, the amount of insulation and the time it takes to bring a mass of steel to the temperatures required would make it obvious to any trained eye that neither of these conditions existed at the Towers.

        Let us simply put it this way.The version you are supporting is a fantasy.In the scientific world there are no two sides to each story.There is one observed truth.Nothing else.The Towers did not collapse from the impact of the planes and the heat from the avfuel.

13. 

    mythmother on September 21, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    Add to all this controversy the bizarre behavior of our jackass unelected usurping “president” after being told that the U.S. was under attack.  

    Reminds me of that Sherlock Holmes mystery that hinged on why the dog didn’t bark in the night.

    • 

      dougr on September 22, 2006 at 2:03 am

      Webster Tarpley has an interesting take on bush’s pet goat moment.
      From an earlier comment:

      http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-3390733082467388648&q=TARPLEY&hl=nl

      • 

        mythmother on September 24, 2006 at 2:16 am

        Just watched the whole thing.  Incredible!

14. 

    Arminius on September 21, 2006 at 10:52 pm

    Cool. This diary descended into hell, and then was resurrected to the Recommended List. Never noticed that before. I hope my Open Thread post last night asking for recs had some small part in that!

15. 

    fourtytwo on September 22, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    I’m very impressed Dougr with your stamina on display here.

    To the people not impressed with your time lapse argument you can say this.

    For the sake of argument let’s assume that the discrepancy is 15 seconds, the speed of sound in rock is about 3X the speed in air say 1000 m/s, the speed of the airpplanes before impact was 1/3 the speed of sound or 100 m/s.

    A 15 second timing error by the geologists amounts to 15 X 1000 meters = 15 km =10 miles.  I have to believe they can pinpoint the source of an explosion to within a few hundred meters, a fraction of a mile, a few percent of 10 miles.

    A 15 second timing error by radar technologists amounts to 15 x 100 m = 1.5 km = 1 mile.  Their spacial resolution must be better then 10 m, 1/150th of a mile.

     

    • 

      dougr on September 22, 2006 at 3:29 pm

      I’m just trying to help booman become famous for having the first political blog to bring the best 9/11 truth evidence forward on one (large) page.

      😉

      • 

        fourtytwo on September 23, 2006 at 6:13 pm

        Maybe BooMan makes this possible because he himself is rather confused about 911.  He can’t seem to accept plain scientific results.  I think I have an idea why that is and wish I could prod him along.

        Since I’m here let me make two points

        BooMan’s contribution is putting together the ‘hijacker’s’ timeline.  It would be interesting to put together the ‘dancing Israeli’s’ timeline and compare the two timelines.

        The biggest unresolved question to me is how there could have been molten metal in the ‘pile’ weeks after 911.  There must have been a powerful source of energy.  I’m at a loss about what that could have been.  I even went so far as looking into the critical mass of unstable elements lighter then U.  But the levels of exposure to radiation must have killed many WTC workers.

        • 

          dougr on September 23, 2006 at 6:40 pm

          There are two more-or-less plausible explanations that I’ve come across for the molten metal.

          The first is Prof. Jones’ finding that thermate played a role in the destruction of the towers and bldg. 7.
          I haven’t seen anything that estimates the amount of thermate necessary to produce the molten metal effects over the time period observed but I assume it would be a rather large amount.  Perhaps too large to consider it as the likely driver behind the amount molten metal and the duration it was there.

          The second, which is probably too scary to entertain for even 99% of people who realize the basic truth of 9/11 as a false flag op planned and committed by elements in our own government, is that highly advanced, low-radiation “pure fusion” devices may have been employed.  For example:

          http://www.ieer.org/latest/fusn-pr.html
          July 15, 1998
          “Pure fusion weapons have long been a dream for nuclear weapons designers. Present-day thermonuclear weapons need plutonium or highly enriched uranium to set off the hydrogen-bomb part,” said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, principal author of the report and president of IEER. “But pure fusion weapons would not need either of these fissile materials. They would produce little fallout. They could be made very small or very huge. And the research involves interesting scientific challenges.”

          However, pure fusion weapons would present far greater nuclear proliferation dangers since the acquisition of highly enriched uranium or plutonium is currently the main obstacle to proliferation. By contrast, deuterium and tritium, the forms of hydrogen used in fusion research and weapons, are less difficult to make. Verification would also be more difficult. Most importantly, fusion weapons would likely lower the threshold for nuclear weapons use, because of their smaller size and lack of fall-out, the report said.

          “Major advances in substituting the fission trigger by non-nuclear components need to be made before the scientific feasibility of pure fusion weapons can be established,” said Hisham Zerriffi, a physicist and co-author of the report. “Until now, the hurdles have been too huge to overcome. But experiments are now being conducted and devices are now under construction that may achieve explosive thermonuclear ignition without fissile materials.”

          Two of the facilities discussed in the report are huge laser fusion machines — the National Ignition Facility (NIF) under construction at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in Livermore California, as well as a similar facility near Bordeaux in France, called Laser Mégajoule (LMJ). They are both designed to use powerful lasers to achieve thermonuclear explosions in the laboratory.

          The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which has been signed by over 150 countries including the United States and France, prohibits all nuclear explosions. The report states that the negotiating history shows that fission explosion of even a few pounds of TNT equivalent are banned under the CTBT.

          “We conclude that laboratory fusion explosions are also banned under the CTBT,” said Makhijani “That makes the National Ignition Facility and the Laser Mégajoule project illegal under that treaty. It is really provocative for the United States and France to be building these facilities at the same time they are lecturing countries like India and Pakistan to stop their nuclear weapons programs. IEER calls for a moratorium on explosive fusion projects and experiments designed to achieve thermonuclear ignition. Far more public debate on this crucial issue is needed.”

          The report points out that there is as yet no public negotiating record of the CTBT that explicitly deals with laboratory fusion explosions. It argues, however, that since these are clearly nuclear explosions, they are prohibited by the CTBT. The fact that some of these experiments would be for energy research does not change the reality that they would be nuclear explosions.

          Makhijani pointed out that once the scientific feasibility of pure fusion weapons is proven there would be inexorable pressures to actually develop them. “The time to stop is now, before the feasibility is established. Once feasibility is demonstrated, the pressures from the nuclear weapons laboratories as well as the military establishment to actually design and build weapons would be immense,” he said.

          The report discusses several different devices and experiments that relate to the potential development of pure fusion weapons. Besides the laser fusion machines NIF and LMJ, it describes joint US-Russian experiments at Los Alamos National Laboratory, near Santa Fe, New Mexico and a device called the wire-array z-pinch at the Sandia National Laboratory, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

          “These machines are complementary,” Zerriffi pointed out. “Lasers cannot be miniaturized into deliverable weapons. But NIF could be more easily used to design the thermonuclear fuel targets than the other two devices. The Magnetized Target Fusion experiments at Los Alamos could be used to perfect the use of chemical explosives in fusion weapons, while the wire-array z-pinch can generate intense x-rays, similar to those that are produced by the fission portion of present-day thermonuclear warheads.”

          The report recommended that questionable research and construction be stopped and that the next official meeting to review the CTBT, which may take place as early as September 1999, provide an official interpretation of what activities are banned. It also pointed out the most fusion research, including all non-explosive magnetic fusion research for energy generation, as well as laser fusion experiments in machines that that cannot achieve ignition, would be permitted under the CTBT and could continue unaffected by the proposed bans.

          MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
          Summary of Findings:

          The scientific feasibility of pure fusion weapons has not yet been established. Until recently, there were no devices that could establish such feasibility.

          Major advances in the last decade in plasma physics and in various manufacturing technologies have opened up new possibilities for pure fusion weapons.

          Three major technologies could contribute to the establishment of the scientific feasibility of pure fusion weapons, and other weapons that do not require fission triggers: (i) inertial confinement fusion programs designed to achieve ignition (ii) the joint Magnetized Target Fusion program at Los Alamos (US) and Arzamas-16 (Russia), and (iii) non-fission methods of generating intense x-rays, such as the wire array z-pinch program at Sandia Lab.

          Once ignition has been demonstrated at a laboratory level, it will be difficult to contain the development of pure fusion weapons. Fusion weapon proliferation controls will be far more difficult than with fission weapons because the materials are not currently under the same level of international control and because more of the relevant literature is non-classified.

          Devices that use high explosives as part of the driver pose special dangers because they could be converted to practical weapons with less difficulty once feasibility is established.

          There is no technical basis on which laboratory thermonuclear explosions can be excluded from the ban on all nuclear explosions under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

          The US and French laser fusion facilities known as NIF and LMJ are designed to create fusion explosions. Therefore, these facilities and all others so designed appear to be illegal under the CTBT.

          • 

            fourtytwo on September 24, 2006 at 12:39 am

            Thanks.  The advances in explosive fusion were new to me.  To explain the molten metal a heat source is needed that works for weeks at least.  A fusion explosion releases all its energy once.  So I’m still looking for a suitable -low ionizing radiation- fission reaction in a pool of metal that is in a more or less stable subcritical state.

16. 

    dougr on September 22, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    Frank Cruthers — Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
    .. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

    From:
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.h
    tml

    12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.

    The oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed verbatim. They have have not been edited to omit coarse language.

    Some examples:

    Rich Banaciski — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
    … and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.
    (Perimeter columns being blown floor by floor)

    Ed Cachia — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
    we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.  (explosions PRIOR to collapse)

    Craig Carlsen — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
    … you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn’t realize what it was.

    Kevin Darnowski — Paramedic (E.M.S.)
    I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

    Joseph Meola–Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91]
    As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides.We actually heard the pops. Didn’t realize it was the falling — you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.

    Jay Swithers — Captain (E.M.S.)
    I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn’t see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

    Albert Turi — Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
    And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.

    Brian Becker — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
    The collapse hadn’t begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like — it was like that — like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.

    Kevin Gorman–Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
    … I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes.

    Frank Campagna — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
    You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.

    Timothy Burke — Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
    But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

    Dominick Derubbio — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
    It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion …

    Brian Dixon — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
    … the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see — I could see two sides of it and the other side — it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.

    Daniel Rivera — Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
    At first I thought it was — do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear “Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop”? That’s exactly what — because I thought it was that.

    Kennith Rogers — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
    I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in ’93.

    • 

      dougr on September 22, 2006 at 7:53 pm

      William Rodriguez witnesses basement level explosions in the North Tower.

      His account:
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294

    • 

      dougr on September 22, 2006 at 8:39 pm

      Phillip Morelli witnesses basement level explosions in both towers.  Two in Tower 1.  He crossed underground to Tower 2 and was met there by another explosion.

      http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/morelli.jpg

    • 

      dougr on September 22, 2006 at 9:15 pm

      Joe Shearin on the 38th floor heard a loud explosion and was thrown through the air then witnesses effects of explosions on the 43rd floor and at the lobby level:

      On the 38th floor, Joe Shearin exited the elevator and began his walk down the hallway to meet with the tenant who had requested to see him. About 50 feet down the hallway, he heard a loud explosion and was lifted into the air. “I can’t even tell you how far I traveled,” he recalled. When he landed, people were already coming out of their offices into the hallway. “They were screaming, hollering,” he said. “They were asking what they should do and where they should go”. Joe directed them down the stairwells and out of the building.

      What Joe first believed was that an equipment room on the 43rd floor, which had an electrical substation, had blown up. He proceeded up the 5 floors to that level. Upon reaching the 43rd floor, “there were patches of ceiling that was just down on the floor, water pipes were broken, water was gushing like a brook or river that was just running down the corridor of the machine room”. He began yelling to see if anyone was in the room and received no reply.
      He made his way to one of the tower’s stairways and began the walk down to the lobby. “When I came down the stairwell (to the lobby level) and I looked toward West Street, I just couldn’t believe what I saw,” he recalled. “There was glass and people cut, covered in blood”.

      http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

    • 

      dougr on September 22, 2006 at 10:24 pm

      Further audio evidence is found on this page which has links to high quality audio files:
      http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html

      Hearing this audio is VERY wrenching:
      http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/southtower-tinity1.aif

      This is the audio recording simultaneously matched to 2 different video angles of the tower’s collapse:
      http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/southtower.woolworth-trinity.comp.02.mov

      There’s visual evidence of explosions in the various videos.  
      Ejected material following trajectories that trace upward and outward.

      Blast squibs are seen.  The clearest are 20 or more floors below the demolition wave.

      Entire floors are seen to blow out well ahead of the demolition wave.  The clearest is that seen in the video titled “9/11 Mysteries” that shows the entire “sky lobby” completely blown out…ahead of the demolition wave.

      There’s eyewitness evidence.

      There’s the seismic evidence.

      Gravitational evidence.  10 seconds…even 20 seconds is simply impossibly fast for a gravity-only collapse.

      There’s the observed scattering of debris…100+ ton pieces thrown up to 600 feet.

      There’s the evidence of the finite amount of potential energy available in the towers being less than 1/10 that necessary to produce the observed results.

      There’s the chemical and other laboratory analyses evidence.

      And the audio evidence in the video titled “911 Eyewitness.