The 9/11 debate

[marc]

Hi Orwellian

Good to see you here. I read Part 1 with interest. I look forward to the rest as I enjoy your clarity on the subject.

I suppose I appear to stand in the 'assisted descent/CD" corner because I have posted much WTC-building related information. This doesn't mean I think that WTC is key.

I am not convinced by NORAD's air defense paralysis or Al-Qaeda's supposed capacity to carry out the event from A-Z. [Not to mention the fact that the attack was apparently planned in Germany and the US and carried out by Saudis - not planned or carried out by Afghanis].

But I have followed the "buildings" discussion because I am persuaded that it is not possible that the very rapid, symmetrical descent of the third steel-structured skyscraper, WTC Building # Seven (which was not hit by a plane), can be empirically explained as a 'fire-led' event.

WTC 7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, for example:
- Slow onset of collapse
- Large, visible, organic deformations of structure;
- Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling to the side most damaged by the fires. Nothing complicated here - one does not have to be a woodcutter to grasp this, as Dr Harrit has said)
- Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
- High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed” in this fashion; this was unprecedented. And particularly curious in the case of WTC7, which was not hit by a plane, suffered a relatively small amount of asymmetrical damage and had fires confined to a few floors.

Instead, WTC 7 showed all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives, like:
- rapid onset of collapse;
- symmetrical descent – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration ;
- it fell in less than 7 seconds - watching Usain Bolt set his 9.58 second record I was struck by how quickly this massive steel skyscraper descended into a contained rubble pile;
- several tons of molten metal (reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses);
- chemical signature of high tech incendiary found in solidified molten metal and dust samples;
- FEMA itself found rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples (not consistent with office furnishing fire or jet fuel temperatures, but consistent with extremely high temperatures);
- Expert corroboration from top controlled demolition professional, Danny Jowenko (Netherlands) as well as Professors Hugo Bachman and Jorg Schneider of the ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich; [1]
- Foreknowledge of collapse by media (CNN and BBC reported WTC7's demise 20 minutes before it actually happened - see BBC's own archives - they pointed to Reuters' feed), NYPD, FDNY.
[Note: All the above points are laid out by Architects & Engineers at their site ae911truth.org]

If one reads the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST's) flawed report and watches Shyam Sunder's fumbled defense of it on video [2] - and understands that the NIST report has never been peer-reviewed - one sees that Gage, Jones et al have mounted a 'citizens' peer review' of NIST. Surely this warrants some media attention? Gage, Jones, Harrit, etc are all professional, qualified people (not anonymous). No-one has shown them to be charlatans. No one has yet mounted a proper rebuttal to their findings, some of which have been published in science journals.

This clash (Bush admin vs. independents) makes for good copy, even for the conspiracy buffs: "Nutty Scientists Take on Bush's 911 Theory". Why the resounding media silence on the subject?

The raw facts about Building Seven have either been ignored by the mainstream or wrapped in a one-sided "Conspiracy Theory' package by the BBC, History Channel and National Geographic.

On this subject ("conspiracy theory"), everyone holds a conspiracy theory about 9/11 in the generic sense, because clearly some group or other conspired to attack iconic US targets. People differ only as to the identity of the conspirators.

"Assuming that one of the two conspiracy theories about 9/11 is irrational, because it is contradicted by the facts, is it the official theory or the alternative theory? Once this is acknowledged, the alternative theory about 9/11 cannot be denounced as irrational simply by virtue of being a conspiracy theory. It could validly be called less rational than the official conspiracy theory only by comparing the two theories with the evidence. But journalists typically excuse themselves from this critical task by persisting in the one-sided use of 'conspiracy theory', long after this one-sidedness has been pointed out." [3]

Profs Philips and Huff note in their Project Censored article (linked to on page 13 of this thread) that this issue deserves wider debate and counter-argument. If the 'controlled demolition' crowd - Richard Gage (and the 770 professionals who've linked up with him), Dr Steven Jones, Dr Niels Harrit, Tony Szamboti, Dr Frank Legge, Dr Graeme MacQueen et al - can be shown to be incorrect in their peer-reviewed papers and calculations, so be it. They, in turn, accuse the US Department of Commerce agency NIST of promoting junk science. Let's see a debate in the media.

Orwellian, I agree with you that this discussion is far bigger than building performance and understand that you and others might find this particular issue distracting. Derek Lane has said as much. I choose to pay some attention to the issue, curious to see how it is resolved one way or another.

I have a suggestion. This thread "9/11 Debate" could be used for 'building'-related information. The new thread "Three Davids" could be kept free of the 'building' discussion that some find distracting. What do others think?
All the best.

[1] "In my opinion WTC7 was done with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" - Prof Hugo Bachmann, ETH, Zurich.
"WTC was with the highest probability brought down by explosives" - Prof Jorg Schneider, ETH, Zurich.
"It starts from below. They have blown away columns. A team of experts did this. This is controlled demolition" - Danny Jowenko (leading European demolition expert) on viewing the WTC7 video.

[2] See "WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall"
http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/webcasts/wtc.html

[3] D R Griffin. Debunking 911 Debunking. Olive Branch Press 2007. (p9)

[marc]

This letter from Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers to Dr Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of NIST, is worth reading for its powerful summary of the A&E argument.

Gage concludes: "The official explanations of the destruction of the iconic Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 offered by FEMA and NIST defy the laws of physics. The existing prevalent physical evidence shows that the official explanations offered cannot be true.

"That such serious inconsistencies and unasked questions remain unaddressed is untenable.

"Every licensed architect and engineer agrees to uphold a code of ethics when obtaining licensure. Our A/Es are meeting their ethical obligation by challenging the false assumptions and lies underlying 9/11, without which there would be no “post-9/11 era.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Aug 21, 2009
Letter to Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST
— Richard Gage, AIA

Request for meeting regarding NIST Reports - WTC7 and Twin Towers

Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that it "would not be productive" for you to meet with the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite disappointing – as we now have over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth [815 as of 2/9] calling for a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/E's?

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7 for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth.

Yet you do not acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse – that the structure had to have been removed – forcibly – by explosives. (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural steel – because all of its gravitational potential energy has been converted to motion.)
...

Continued at http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

[marc]

New book due out from Interlink Books in November:

Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7:
Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False
- David R Griffin

Reviews:

"In The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, David Ray Griffin provides a definitive study of what happens when political concerns are permitted to override science and the scientific method. With intellectual finesse and rigour worthy of a scientist, Griffin demolishes any claim that NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) has to scientific credibility in its study of the collapse of WTC 7. This book is a must read for ... all who are concerned with the restoration of science to its "rightful place" in our democracy."
—John D. Wyndham (Ph.D., Physics, Cambridge University), former Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology

"Based on my engineering knowledge and experience, I fully agree with Dr. Griffin's conclusion that NIST's report on the collapse of WTC 7 is pseudo-science, containing claims that are misleading and even outright false. Numerous contradictions exposed by outside experts during the public review process were completely ignored, because they did not fit NIST's contrived explanation."
—Jack Keller, Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers; member of the National Academy of Engineering

"During my 33 years as a research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory, it was my great joy to be able to contribute to the advancement of science without the slightest interference by NRL officials. So I was sickened to read in David Ray Griffin's assiduously researched book of unequivocal evidence for massive scientific fraud committed by a politicized NIST. I implore President Obama to end the subversion of science at NIST and open a new, unfettered, investigation of the 9/11 attacks."
—David L. Griscom, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American Physical Society

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

At 5:20 in the afternoon on 9/11, Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed, even though it had not been struck by a plane and had fires on only a few floors. ... In August 2008, NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) issued its report on WTC 7, declaring that "the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery" and that “science is really behind what we have said.” Showing that neither of these claims is true, David Ray Griffin demonstrates that NIST is guilty of the most serious types of scientific fraud: fabricating, falsifying, and ignoring evidence.

D R Griffin has published 35 books in philosophy (including philosophy of science), religion, and politics. His previous book about 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, was a Publishers Weekly “Pick of the Week” in November 2008.

http://www.interlinkbooks.com/product_info.php?products_id=2130&osCsid=77ba582242e931dba1a54c644717e40c

[marc]

Some of those interviewed or approached for the National Geographic's (NG) TV special '911: Science or Conspiracy' (Gage, Jones, Ryan, etc) are sounding the alarm and calling it a hit piece.
Two of their points:
- NG performs a film location 'experiment' with a steel bar and a can of kerosene, that they imply 'proves' the official Osama Bin Laden theory correct. This would perhaps be more accurately described as a pseudo-scientific demonstration or proof by media. It is not forensic science. "The NGC's experiment was moot. Not a single leading 9/11 skeptic would deny that steel that is sufficiently overloaded and heated will twist out of shape and eventually fail entirely," writes Architects & Engineers. (see ae.org link below).
- NG studiously avoids discussion of World Trade Centre Building Seven's 6.8-second descent, though it was not hit by a plane and suffered fires on only a few floors.

British journalist David Aaronivitch serves as a narrator and 'conspiracy expert' in this NG special. He can be heard discussing his participation here: David Aaronivitch with Thom Hartmann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnQPaqdJjBc&NR=1

Aaronivitch says he is "a counterweight to D R Griffin because I am a conspiracy sceptic" - ignoring the fact that Griffin is himself a sceptic who has paid close attention to semantics and the one-sided use of the 'conspiracy theory' label. In any event, Aaronivitch has made a firm choice: he's for the Osama Bin Laden Conspiracy, whereas Griffin stands back from 'conspiracy' groups and rather calls for a new, independent investigation on the grounds that the official theory is inconsistent with observable, scientific fact.

Architects and Engineers' have put together a preliminary response to this NG piece: National Geographic Channel on 9/11: Manipulation vs. Objectivity
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/92

[Peter Cleall]

This is a very well written article by Terry Morrone, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Adelphi University. It concerns how media/government can influence and manipulate a general population through age old techniques of propaganda, and ways to counter such attempts.

Originally posted at Daily Censored http://dailycensored.com/2009/09/07/brain-washing-and-911/

Brainwashing and 9/11, a Personal View

Terry Morrone, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University

Propaganda has been with us since ancient times. All empire-builders have to justify what they do – to themselves, to their own people, and to those they dominate.
The Romans developed a sophisticated world-view which they projected successfully through literature, inscriptions, architecture, art, and elaborate public ceremonial. Their message was that Rome represented peace, good government, and the rule of law. The societies with which Rome was in conflict were caricatured as barbaric, lawless and dangerous.
The Catholic Church claimed that it was the agent of God on earth, charged with crushing paganism and heresy. Through the church eternal salvation in heaven was possible, and the veneration of saints could cure all physical ailments.
Goebbels and Hitler learned much from Madison Avenue and the Catholic Church. Modern propaganda much like modern science and technology has improved over the centuries. Today propagandists make use of applied psychology, focus groups and public opinion polls.
In the US, propaganda for capitalism, not just individual companies, got its start in the great depression. Business interests felt that the New Deal was a dire threat to their existence and responded with a massive propaganda campaign for capitalism under the leadership of the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce, PR firms and PR gurus such as Edward Bernays. It was called a campaign for the “American Way.” Later on the military joined in. Their message was clear. Government regulation and programs were a menace to freedom. The government’s job was to subsidize industry and maintain a massive military to make the world open to free trade and safe for democracy. Sixty years ago this military industrial complex, (or the “establishment”) felt that they had to provide the public with a decent standard of living in order to prevent a socialist takeover. Now they feel that it’s no longer necessary.
A massive propaganda apparatus, including domination of the major TV networks, pervades this country. It was in place long before the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01. Was the official version of the events of September 11, 2001 sold to us by means of a propaganda campaign? I will explore this question in this essay.
On 9/11 we were subjected to hours of propaganda. The TV shows all said over and over again:
This was an “Attack on America.”
To emphasize what a huge event it was, the government had 2 aircraft carriers off the New York coast. The hijackers were Moslem terrorists and their leader was Osama Bin Ladin. Every few minutes videos of the planes hitting the buildings were repeated. Also witnesses, fire fighters, relatives of those killed were continuously interviewed. Intertwined were statements from government sources that they were almost certain that Moslem terrorists were responsible. The US must take action. We never shirked a fight before. It was an act of war, we must retaliate. It was evil. It was an attack on civilization. We were good and courageous and the attackers were evil, over and over again.
There was never any mention of historical context. I had been predicting a terrorist attack on the US for years. When we invaded Panama we killed about 5,000 people. The World Court found us guilty of terrorism in Nicaragua and in our campaign against Nicaraguan democracy in the 1980’s we killed about 30,000 people. In Iraq out sanctions and bombings killed an estimated 1 million people. We killed about 3 million in Vietnam, and we supported the Israeli’s brutal occupation of Palestine. Of course if a newsman mentioned American terrorism, he would have been instantly fired. One was fired, I recall, just for saying that the terrorists were not cowards.
This article is about brain washing. I was brainwashed several times during my lifetime and I don’t rule out the possibility that I am brainwashed today. It started when I was a child in World War 2. I was taught that America was the land of the free and the home of the brave, that we were exceptional, we were humane, we respected life, liberty and democracy. The rest of the world was either evil or not as good as us. Britain and France had large empires. We had practically none. I also firmly believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church. If I committed a mortal sin like missing mass and died before going to confession, I would go to hell for eternity.
Later I drifted away from the Church and the Cold War began. I began to doubt that I could go to hell so easily and that the USSR was poised to invade the world. I also learned that the United States was not so exceptional and that countries had been fighting each other since the beginning of recorded history, each country believing that it was right and its adversary wrong.
Some parts of my Catholic upbringing persisted, such as “Thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal.” By that time I had become a father and I became aware of the huge amount of work and time it took to bring up children. It seemed wrong to sniff out life so easily, e.g. from a B52 with a big bomb, even if the victims were communists. When the war in Vietnam broke out I opposed it and became a peace activist. I became a Professor of Physics and retired early to work in industry.
On 9/11/01 I was taken in along with most others. In retrospect I should have known better. Here’s why:
Shortly after the 1995 bombing of a government building in Oklahoma City, I heard retired Air Force General Benton Parten talking on the Gary Null Show on WBAI. He said that he had looked at the still partially standing building and saw lots of dust. He explained that the dust could not have been produced by an explosion unless the explosives were placed in contact with the concrete columns in the building. I also heard statements by people interviewed by local TV station reporters that they had been warned not to come to work that day. Others said that they had heard two explosions. The official version of events was that the damage to the building had been caused by a truck bomb exploding about 30 feet from the building. The TV interviews never made it to national TV because, according to local station officials, the interviewees would not give their names. Later on I learned local TV stations had reported that 2 or 3 unexploded bombs were removed from the building. General Parten appealed to many members of Congress and state officials, demanding that the building not be demolished until independent experts could examine it. But the building was torn down anyway. By 9/11 my memories of the Oklahoma City bombing inconsistencies had faded, and I began to doubt that I had really heard about them, probably because they were never repeated by anyone in the media.
On 9/11/01 lots of dust was produced, but I accepted the TV version of events without question. I heard several times that the temperature reached 1500 degrees and this melted the steel. Then the top floors crashed down on the ones below causing them to fail and so on all the way down. I looked at the pictures and actually believed that I was seeing this “pancake effect.” When I thought of the collapses months later I saw in my mind’s eye the pancake effect. Months later I started reading articles by the so called “conspiracy theorists.” I watched videos. To my surprise the vision in my memory of the towers collapsing was far from what was in the videos. Now I saw jets of dust shooting out sideways. I had not noticed them on 9/11.Now I saw the buildings exploding. I can only conclude that I saw on 9/11 and recalled what I expected to see. My mind was not working right. More about this later.
The more I read, the more untenable the official explanations seemed. I found a reference to the amount of energy needed to grind up concrete into very small particles. I sent away for a copy of the FEMA report and found out the weight and composition of the towers. I also found a paper on the dust composition and size. Putting it all together, I calculated the amount of energy it would take to produce the 100,000 or so tons of dust observed per tower. The gravitational energy available wasn’t enough. I also read reports about combustion and found that the maximum temperature attained could not have produced the molten metal observed. Now to me, as a physicist, I had proof that the official theory was wrong. I was not the first one to prove it. I will not go into a more detailed explanation here. There are plenty of available references.
I want to discuss instead the reasons I and many others were brainwashed on 9/11. First a little bit about how the brain operates. When a piece of information is noted, the brain (specifically the amygdala) puts a tag on it corresponding to its emotional significance. For example, a child touches a hot frying pan and feels a lot of pain. This gets a very high significance value. It is placed in a special place in memory and never forgotten. When something is life threatening it gets an exceptional high value. For example, a soldier in a war learns to fear explosions. If the significance value is very high it overloads the brain and the reasoning part of the brain gets turned off. A similar stimulus will often invoke a response that may be appropriate in a combat zone, but which is inappropriate anywhere else. An example of this is when a soldier, long after a war, falls to the ground when he hears a car backfire. When a dangerous situation occurs the brain’s first priority is survival, not reasoning.
Even though the events of 9/11 were not life threatening to the TV audience, they did produce fear, anxiety, anger and disorientation. To a certain extent our reasoning powers were diminished, and in this state it’s very easy to get fooled. If there’s a manual on how to create a crisis to fool the public, I’m sure it would say that it’s very important to plant false ideas when the public is in a vulnerable state. If time passed and we returned to a normal routine, the opportunity for brainwashing would have vanished. Once false ideas are implanted it’s very hard to get rid of them since we tend to reject evidence that contradict our firm beliefs.
There’s more to it, of course. The mind does not like uncertainty. When an authority comes forward and takes charge and explains what happened, we are too happy to accept his message. The authority in this instance was the TV. The TV became a parent figure and the public children. When the false message is repeated over and over again on all the TV channels, it becomes very hard to resist. “When a subject appears to be all around him, a person tends to accept it and take it for granted,” wrote Philip Lesly, a public relations specialist, in 1974.
Now I’d like to look at the media coverage from the point of view of a PR expert. Did the media and the government do a good job in fooling the public on 9/11? First of all, did the government have control of the media? The answer is that they did, but they let some things slip by. Agent Prouty of the FBI stated on TV, “At this point the White House is coordinating all public information on a national level.” So I expect that the information about the terrorists was controlled by the government. The experts and authorities who spoke were all of one voice. I expect that they were all controlled by the government is some way. For example, I heard Larry Goodson, a professor from Bentley College and an expert on Afghanistan, on NBC (in New York). He said that probably Osama Bin Laden was the guilty party. Shortly after 9/11 he became a professor at the National War College.
Was the media and the government successful in instilling fear on 9/11 and afterwards? I think so. We were told that cars were being stopped and searched for explosives, that jets were flying over New York and Washington to protect us from another attack, etc, etc. We were told that terrorists were coming into the country through Canada. There was no evidence of this whatsoever. Then came the Anthrax attacks, adding to the fear. Is it any wonder that a Los Angeles Times poll indicated that 31 percent of respondents felt their person sense of security was still a “great deal” shaken.
However, there were slip ups. There were reports of explosions in the buildings before they collapsed. One reporter even stated that the top of one of the towers had exploded. Mayor Guiliani told he had been warned that the towers were going to collapse before it happened. He later denied this but he is refuted by video tapes. With so many reporters doing live interviews it was impossible to totally control the flow of the information. Truths, detrimental to the official story come out just after an event. After the official line is clear to the media, these truths are never mentioned again. Here are a few examples. After the JFK assassination, major media outlets, including CBS, ABC, and AP, reported that a Secret Service agent had been killed, a threat to the single assassin theory. This was never mentioned after the day of the assassination. After the July 7, 2005 bombings in London, television stations reported that 4 terrorists had been shot by police. (Later the official story was that the terrorists were suicide bombers.) Just after the Oklahoma City bombing, as mentioned above, it was reported that unexploded bombs were removed from the building. If there’s another terrorist event, I suggest recording the TV coverage, or at least writing down relevant facts, before the official story settles in. At any rate I’d give the media and the government a high grade for their 9/11 propaganda.
No discussion of 9/11 would complete without a discussion of why many progressives accept the official conspiracy theory. They’re usually skeptical of the government line on global warming, weapons of mass destruction, the number of civilian dead in Iraq, etc., etc. When it comes to 9/11, however, they accept much of the official version.
One reason is that they trust progressive opinion leaders such as Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Matthew Rothschild (editor, the Progressive), David Corn (editor, the Nation magazine) and many others. Many of them ignore the 9/11truth movement, and if pressed to give an opinion, they will say that they haven’t seen any evidence that’s convincing. The Nation and the Progressive and other liberal magazines (and also Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now) receive grant money from foundations. The foundations in turn get money from the government. If a publication goes over the “line,” I expect that they will be cut off from grant money. Is it any wonder that the most vicious attacks on 9/11 truth seekers comes from liberal magazines. Much has been written about this and I refer the reader to “Towers of Deception” by Barrie Zwicker.
The liberal media can’t talk about 9/11 or assassinations or government involvement in drug smuggling or anything that could put officials in jail. They’re allowed to say that the Bush administration took advantage of 9/11 to further their fascist and imperialistic agendas.
After many arguments with friends and relatives I’ve concluded that many progressives can’t believe that 9/11 is an inside job because they like to believe that the truth lies between 2 extremes, regardless of the evidence. The idea goes back to Aristotle. You can even feel superior to the extremists who hold such outlandish opinions, not backed by anyone of importance. Hitler knew about this tendency and stated that you can make outrageous claims and the populace will always believe that there’s some truth to them.
Others say that while there may be some truth in what the conspiracy theorists say, it’s a waste of time to even think about it and that people will be arguing about 9/11 for centuries. Yet in spite of all the brainwashing, a sizeable fraction of the population believe that some faction in the government staged the 9/11 attack. The reason: the evidence is overwhelming.
False flag operations have been so successful that more will come unless we do something. We should begin by educating ourselves and our families. Start by reading up on 9/11. Reason can overcome brainwashing and the emotions, but it’s not easy. You might not be able to do it alone, so go to a meeting of a 9/11 truth organization, if there’s one in your area, or watch videos available on the internet. Once you’re convinced, start in on your family and then your friends. I’ve tried it. I often get a dirty look when I begin. But I explain that I’ve spent a lot of time researching 9/11 and feel very strongly about it, and unless people stop burying their heads in the sand we’re heading for dictatorship and permanent war. The 9/11 cover up teaches that we can’t trust the media or congress or anyone else in positions of authority in this country.
We have the appearance of democracy on a national level and some local democracy. The current system, which has worked for most people for half a century, is going to lead us to the end of life as we know it. Congress is bought and paid for by big business. The national security state and big business are allies. The corporations are getting greedier and more corrupt by the day. There has to be a change. Here are few suggestions for bringing it about.
Stop voting for democrats or republicans if a third party candidate is on the ballot. (There are a few exceptions such as Dennis Kucinich.) In the 2008 presidential election I voted for Cynthia McKinney. She stands for everything I do, including single payer health care, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and an independent investigation of 9/11. If millions had voted for her, the major parties would have to shift to the left. I know there’s little evidence that Sarah Palin has any integrity at all, but Obama may be just as dangerous in that he can use his popularity to push for more war and fascism. Join and support third parties whenever you can.
Next, put pressure on left wing media to stop their dishonest coverage of 9/11. Write letters and emails.
Next, stop supporting the major media. I stopped getting home delivery of the New York Times after 35 years. I wrote the paper a letter critical of their dishonesty and shoddy news coverage. I’ll still look at the Times in a library, but I’ll never pay for a paper. Stop watching the major TV news programs. Much finer minds can be found on the internet or in books. If you want to learn about a topic, such as the financial crisis, use an internet search engine such as Google. You can get the opinions of Nobel Prize winners and prominent intellectuals instead of establishment lackeys on the TV. If you like to watch videos, just specify video after the topic in your internet search. Unfortunately, you’ll probably need a broadband connection.
Finally get involved. Make some time to join a peace group or a 9/11 group or whatever is available. For those who feel that 9/11 is a dead issue and it’s time to move on, I close with a statement by President Obama, addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix on August 18, 2009.
“Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do it again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense to our people.”

References

1. PR! A Social History of Spin, by Stuart Ewen.
2. The PARANOIA SWITCH, How Terror Rewires our Brains and Reshapes our Behavior – and How we can Reclaim our Courage, by Martha Stout.
3. Towers of Deception, The Media Cover-Up of 9/11, by Barrie Zwicker.
4. The Propaganda of Saints in the Middle Ages, by Esther Cohen, Journal of Communication, Autumn 1981.
5. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency 403, September 2002.
6. The Dead Secret Service Saga and the Agent(s) on the Knoll, Vince Palamara, Deep Politics Quarterly, 10/97.
7. 7/7 Ripple Effect, a video by Muad Dib

[OrwellianUK]

Hi Marc, Peter

Wasn't aware that posts relating to the 'RHG' thread were being made on this one.

Just for the record, I'm as sure as you are Marc, that the evidence concerning the collapse of the towers, particularly WTC7 is conclusive, it's just that I am no longer of the opinion that this is the best way to 'prove' 9/11.

More importantly, as I said in the other thread, I have come to subscribe to the view of Mike Ruppert that the window of opportunity for bringing 9/11 into the open is probably closed and that the reasons for it are what is now important. By understanding 9/11, and why it was perpetrated, we can have a better idea of what is coming.

If you haven't already seen them I recommend the talk by Mike Ruppert in two parts posted on the RHG thread.

Eventually I'll get around to formulating the rest of that 'Great Game' article.

Regards,

OUK

[Spike]

A new pilot multimedia program called The September 11th Education Program was unveiled today in Downtown Manhattan for students in sixth through 12th grades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24RC_ZOcYeA&
_________________
We don't want the looneys taking over...

[marc]

OUK - I agree with much of what you say, with a key difference: I don’t accept Ruppert’s parameters for the debate.

I don’t see that the “window of opportunity” needs to be prematurely ‘closed’ before it’s been properly opened. The core debate about the Sept 2001 events has been conflated with nonsense (intentionally or not) and locked out of mainstream and alternative media. Paying attention to how the likes of Gage and Harrit are shut out of mainstream media is as important as focussing on historical context and future outcomes, imo. Even if nothing definite is ever "proven", the process of examination is instructive.

As Professor Morrone points out (linked above by Peter Cleall), government leaders have not closed *their* particular window of opportunity or moved on: they are still wielding “9/11” to justify policy:

[marc]

OUK, leaving aside the WTC focus, historical context is vital. Take the way Al Qaeda is described as a faded force in today's Guardian.
Astonishing to think that this group, essentially an "elusive idea... hard to grasp", was able to launch such a highly sophisticated, under-the-radar, multi-pronged, precision attack with a handful of men, deep in enemy territory, co-ordinating it exactly with a highly unusual 90-minute air defence standdown linked with in-house war games - only eight short years ago.

"Twenty years after it was formed, Al Qaeda remains an elusive idea.. its essence hard to grasp..." See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/sep/10/al-qaida-five-ages-terror-attacks
" ...the ability of al-Qaida's central leadership to commission or execute spectacular attacks looks weaker than sometimes thought, experts say. The reality in the Pakistani tribal areas is certainly different from the popular image. The European volunteers told of crossed wires and confusion."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/10/al-qaida-terrorism-bin-laden

[marc]

The Canadian Charger
September 8, 2009

The Sacred Mysteries of 9/11
- Dr. Graeme MacQueen

September 11, 2009 will not be a simple anniversary of an extraordinary day but the mythic return of a day that is now in the calendar of American civil religion.

American citizens will be urged to re-achieve the levels of patriotic fervour stimulated by the original event by flying the nation’s flag.[1] Pilgrimage to “Ground Zero” will thrive.

No one familiar with war and nationalism will be surprised by the religious aspects of these memorials and revisitings.[2]

The homeland was violated. Blood sacrifice and murder were accomplished. The nation, after reeling from the blow, found a sense of meaning and direction only by setting off on its own path of blood sacrifice.

I will not discuss here the well known aspects of the path chosen--the illegal invasions and torture abroad, the degrading of civil rights at home, and the parallel developments in other states, including Canada.

My concerns in this essay are different. I am troubled by something else. I am troubled by the role the political parties, the corporate media and the universities have played, and are still playing, in the construction of the cult of 9/11.

I am bothered by the way they continue to set this day aside as if some sacredness protects it from all rational scrutiny and examination of evidence. Those of us who want to treat 9/11 like a historically important but otherwise ordinary day--who want to examine the crime scene and found out who did it and how—are treated like heretics. We profane the elements of the cult. We must be “conspiracy nuts'..../

Continued at Sacred Mysteries at http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=127

Graeme MacQueen taught at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, for 30 years, where he helped found McMaster's Centre for Peace Studies, of which he was director from 1989 until 1996. He was also a founder and co director of the Centre's War and Health programme committee, which has carried out research and activities on behalf of victims of war in several zones of armed conflict (Croatia, Gaza, Sri Lanka, north India, Afghanistan).

Some of MacQueen's other writing can be found here:

Canadian Professor disputes official representation on 9/11 in The Canadian.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/03/23/01417.html

and here:

The Journal of 911 Studies http://www.journalof911studies.com

See: "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories" - G. MacQueen

Graeme MacQueen Lecture at Waterloo University
Forensic Analysis of 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPWUbHUAqZE

[Peter Cleall]

Please listen to Webster Tarpley here. He has some very interesting things to say about 9/11 and the Peace Movement -http://podcast.gcnlive.com/podcast//world_crisis/0912092.mp3

[marc]

If you listen to nothing else by Dr Graeme MacQueen, listen to this series of lectures he presented to students in Ontario during May 2009. I guess he can be excused the sardonic humour.

Myth and Foreign Policy: Canada Goes To War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp2bFe6vi4g&feature=related

[OrwellianUK]

[marc]

Cheers Orwellian. I'll reply to some of your points when I have more time at hand.

In the meantime, it seems the Guardian's technology editor Charles Arthur uncritically embraces Proof By National Geographic in "Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat". (Guardian, Technology Blog, Sept 10, 2009)

He fails to point out that NatGeog basically ignores WTC Bldg 7, like the US Department of Commerce's NIST before it.

He seems incurious about the Purdue simulation, developed only to create a visualization of the 767 colliding with the Tower, not to assess structural damage or model how it supposedly led to the total destruction of the building 102 minutes later.

He asks no questions. One good question might be: Who funded the Purdue project? [Read the informative "Open Letter to Purdue President Frances Cordova" at http://www.911blogger.com/node/9823 ]

Easy to avoid engagement when you've pre-emptively written off those people holding opposing views as 'wingnuts'.

[marc]

Here's an interview that doesn't mention the WTC.

"911 Changed Everything"

The Canadian Charger interviews Dr Graeme MacQueen.

YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNWUE-hGwYU

MacQueen takes a closer look at what exactly *did* change in the wake of 911.

- "911 moved the world's Muslim populations into the crosshairs of the US military. Not that they hadn't been there before, but now they were central."

- Al-Qaeda became the new designated enemy. "The Soviets [with fixed state resources] did pose an existential threat to the US. But they never attacked the US."

- "On 911, a small, non-state actor with no navy, no air force, no ICBM's to lob, gains credibility because it *does* attack the US mainland. It does so through what US military now calls 'asymmetrical warfare' ... the fascinating notion that somehow the weak - if they are underhand and clever and wily enough - can achieve victories over the strong... this allow the US, by far the world's biggest military, to portray itself as weak, as a victim."

- "Who did it and why does that matter?... If [this] fooled some of our finest journals and universities, how will we recognise ... the next fraudulent trigger for war?"

[marc]

Re: so-called '911 truthers' insulting Chomsky.
Chomsky correctly describes what he has been subjected to as 'abusive'. Given Chomsky's contribution, this abuse (from unknown persons) is ugly. No-one should be bullied into taking up a position on any subject. Abusive behaviour includes name-calling and failure to respect opinion.

Like you, I stay clear of 'organised' movements. I avoid loaded words. I pay attention to semantics. Why 'self-styled truther' or 'troofer', rather than 'questioner' or 'researcher'? I don't claim to know 'the truth'. I see anomalies, changing official stories and a need to establish facts. Who/what is "the truth movement"? I have never met it. It seems to me it is a handy media categorisation for an amorphous bunch of unidentified people, ranging apparently from pink-knickered girls to nasty dudes yelling at the BBC's Mike Rudin on a New York pavement.

[marc]

If you have the time and interest, cross-check the facts. Perhaps the BBC has a valid explanation for the following anomalies?


Observation: The BBC and ‘911’-related science

Four science professionals have analysed significant aspects of the “911” event. The BBC has covered the work of two of the scientists and ignored the work of two others.

The scientists in question are:

1. Dr Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the US Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST).
2. Dr Keith Seffen, engineer, Cambridge University
3. David Chandler, physicist, Association of American Physics Teachers
4. Dr Niels Harrit, chemist, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen

1. Dr Shyam Sunder is afforded an article to explain his long-delayed final report on World Trade Centre Building 7: “No Mystery” (16/9/2008) [1]. The journalist does not challenge Sunder’s claim that the total, rapid, vertical implosion of this steel-framed skyscraper - which was not hit by a plane - was 'due to fires', though this phenomenon has not been observed before or since in high-rises more extensively engulfed by fire. [2]. No other scientist’s opinion is sought.

The journalist does not balance Sunder’s assertions in this article by noting that:
- NIST's 911 analyses have relied in part on tweaked computer simulations [3], rather than physical tests, to support their conclusions;
- two papers, throwing NIST’s narrow remit into stark relief, have been published in mainstream journals [4];
- NIST's reports are criticised by hundreds of building and science professionals, willing to be named. "In my opinion, WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts." - Hugo Bachmann (September 2006) Professor Emeritus for Structural Design and Construction at The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich; former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, ETH.
**[see: D Ganser in Notes]

Finally, the BBC bolsters Sunder’s assertion by failing to add a question mark to the headline: “No Mystery”.

2. Dr Seffen’s paper is covered on the sixth anniversary of '911', seemingly from a press release, in an article entitled "911 Demolition Theory Challenged" (11/9/2007) [5]. It appears the BBC was obliged to correct its wording when it turned out the article was premature; the paper had not yet been published and appeared in The Journal of Engineering Mechanics in 2008. [6] No other opinion on Seffen’s work is sought.

Seffen supports the controversial Zdenek Bazant paper released two days after the '9/11' event, as well as the NIST position, by suggesting that the Twin Tower collapses were "a very ordinary thing to happen".

Seffen's mathematical paper is critiqued by University of Iowa Department of Physics research scientist Crocket Grabbe, among others. Grabbe writes: “Seffen ignores conservation of momentum in all his uses of the word "free-fall...However, one cannot ignore conservation of energy and momentum, and the …”free-fall” cavalierly referred to cannot happen in the gravitational collapse of the Towers analyzed in Seffen’s model...

"His 1-D model and analysis is inadequate because it ignores fundamental 3-D aspects of the stability of the Towers, it disagrees with known physical principles such as the conservation of energy, momentum, and mass. Conservation laws that show that the collapsing WTC Towers could not reach the virtual free-fall states observed by the gravitational force as claimed, and it substantially disagrees with several observations of how the Towers collapsed..”[7]

3. David Chandler (and others) produced a significant challenge to NIST’s report on WTC Building 7. In its August 2008 draft report, NIST attempted to side-step evidence that WTC7 fell at near freefall acceleration for at least 2.25 seconds of its 6.5 second descent. Chandler publicly grilled NIST on this, producing calculations showing that NIST needed to acknowledge 100 feet of free-fall acceleration.

Significantly, NIST was forced to acknowledge a period of near-freefall in its final report in November 2008. They couched the admission in a framework that ‘continues to deny its clear significance’, according to Richard Gage, AIA, of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. [8] The significance of the building falling with any acceleration of gravity is that this implies that the structure below was offering no more resistance than air. This would be consistent with the simultaneous severing of all columns - i.e. about eight floors of the building being moved out of the way, rapidly and efficiently - and not consistent with partial, asymmetrical fire-led collapse.

See NIST Admits Freefall Parts 1, 11 and 111. [9]

David Chandler’s work has not been covered by the BBC.

4. Dr Niels Harrit’s work has not been covered by the BBC. This University of Copenhagen professor, who specialises in nano-chemistry, is first author of a peer-reviewed paper entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered In Dust After 911 World Trade Centre Catastrophe" at The Open Chemical Physics Journal Vol 2 [10] This paper, supported by physical testing, provides forensic analysis of high-tech incendiary residues in WTC dust.

According to Dr Harrit: "These new findings confirm and extend the earlier finding of previously molten, iron-rich micro spheres in the World Trade Centre dust. They provide strong forensic evidence that the official explanation of the WTC's destruction is wrong. Office fires and jet fuel cannot produce these highly engineered particles." [11]

The Harrit findings certainly seem to fit the available evidence [thermal hot-spots photographed by NASA and iron micro spheres reported by the US Geographical Society and the RJ Lee Company] in a way the official ‘fire-led’ theory does not. See "Extremely High Temperatures During WTC Destruction" by Jones, Farrer, Farnsworth, Jenkins, Legge, Grabbe et al [12]

This paper has not been scientifically rebutted to date. It sheds new light on NIST’s refusal to look for evidence of incendiaries at the WTC, though US fire protection codes call for it.

The Harrit paper has been ignored by the BBC, even though the BBC previously found ‘911’ issues newsworthy enough to produce three versions of a documentary dedicated to the subject, albeit under the value-laden ‘Conspiracy Files’ label. “We’ve done two UK versions and one international version which is a lot for a documentary seeing as most just get one version”, according to the BBC’s Conspiracy Files: 911 series producer Mike Rudin. [13]

Aspects of the “911” story - prior to Harrit and Chandler's work - were considered newsworthy. Since Harrit's discovery of incendiary residue and Chandler's prompting NIST to admit to a period of freefall, a “roaring silence” [14] has ensued. Is there a good reason for this?

In summary:

1. The findings of two NIST-supporting scientists are timeously covered by the BBC.
(Sunder and Seffen)

2. The findings of two NIST-challenging scientists are ignored by the BBC. (Chandler and Harrit)


Should one conclude that the BBC favours scientists who support the NIST-led Official Theory? Why are opposing findings not covered?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Notes

[1] No Mystery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/09/no_mystery.html

[2] Mandarin Oriental Hotel Compared to WTC7: Dramatic Differences
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/47
Other Skyscraper Fires
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

[3] “To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports…the [NIST] investigators adjusted the input…Thus, for instance, … the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted. How fun to tweak the model like that, until one gets the desired result! But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is, of course, not compelling.” –
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html

[4] Environmental Anomalies At The WTC: Evidence for Energetic Materials (The Environmentalist) August 2008
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the WTC Destruction (Open Civil Engineering Journal) Volume 2 (1)

**[D.Ganser] - Swiss Professors: WTC 7 Collapse Most
Likely Controlled Demolition - The Bitter Debate Over September 11th:
Penetrating questions are repeatedly asked in the United States, and also in
Switzerland, about the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) and the resulting
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. By Dr Daniele Ganser, University of Zurich.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserSwissProfs.pdf

[5] 911 Demolition Theory Challenged

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

[6] Press Release

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2007091001

Bad Science: Keith Seffen and WTC

http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-science-keith-seffen-and-wtc.html


[7] “Discussion of Progression of Collapse of World Trade Centre: A Simple Analysis” by K.A. Seffen - Dr Crocket Grabbe.

http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf

"Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage." - Dr Crocket Grabbe.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

"Dr Greg Jenkins interviews Dr Judy Wood": Jenkins reveals Wood's fantastical "space beam weapons" theory to be wholly unscientific.

http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Wood-JenkinsInterview.pdf

[8] Open Letter to Dr Shyam Sunder of NIST

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

[9] NIST Finally Admits Freefall

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1F271C700C5A9C1A
http://stj911.org also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=PlayList&p=1F271C700C5A9C1A&index=3

WTC7 in Freefall - No Longer Controversial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8&feature=PlayList&p=1F271C700C5A9C1A&index=1

[10] ‘Active Thermitics…’ by Harrit et al

http://www.bentham-pen.org/pages/context.php?TOCPJ/2009/0000000200000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

[11] Dr Harrit statement. http://www.ae911truth.org/info/57

[12] Extremely High Temperatures During WTC Destruction - Jones, Farrer, Legge, Grabbe et al.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

[13] Comment number 3135 posted at 11.57am. Caught Up In A Conspiracy Theory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7#comments

[14] Dr Niels Harrit's words in an interview with Russia Today TV

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bel9UeqnHi4


Re-Edited 10/10

[Peter Cleall]

The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this...

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah...

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes...

And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip...

Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely...

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two... and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically - through their own mass - at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground... only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI...

…Meanwhile down in Washington...

Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing...

Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little...

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building...

...all without a single shot being fired.... or ruining the nicely mowed lawn... and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video...

...Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania...

So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later...

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana...

...Further south in Florida...

President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children... shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger...

...In New York...

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously...

While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination...

And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports...

[Peter Cleall]

Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11
by Chaim Kupferber - an essay written in October 2003 and exceedingly well-researched.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html

[OrwellianUK]

It's the 'Great Game' essay I promised and which you all probably thought I was never going to deliver!

Have to say, I don't blame you

but here it is finally:

http://orwellianuk.blogspot.com/2009/10/peak-oil-great-game-and-meaning-of-911.html

[Peter Cleall]

Hi Orwellian

A very fine piece of work and extremely thought-provoking. It should of course be on the MB rather than stuck in this backwater (although this 9/11 thread has had over 110000 views during the past eighteen months or so!). You mention Crossing the Rubicon quite frequently, which I've read, and which I greatly admire along with most of Mike Ruppert's work. However, Rubicon was published in 2004 and doesn't take note of developments since, obviously. I'm thinking of the work of Richard Gage, Steven Jones and others, paricularly in getting NIST to admit to the freefall collapse of WTC7. There are now close on a thousand architects & engineers who doubt the official tale and are demanding a proper enquiry. (Remember Chomsky saying a while back - 'Name me one, ONE, engineer who questions the official account'.?) Well there are quite a few now and it's becoming increasing ludicrous that they're being ignored, especially by 'left' publications.

[OrwellianUK]

Hi Peter

Thanks. I also found your thread above detailing the 'Official Conspiracy Theory' excellent and darkly funny.

As for the WTC evidence, again, Mike Ruppert would not go down that path even if he were still involved in 9/11 activism due to his experience with 'Physical Evidence' as an LA Detective in Court cases.

The truth is, it doesn't matter how good the evidence is for CD - there will always be a large number who do not accept it either by refusing to do so or by allowing themselves to be convinced that the 'Official' version of events from NIST (or some 'Discovery Channel' Documentary) 'refutes' such evidence.

The other problem is who to charge with this crime? Even if Stephen Jones et al were able to prove this in court, there are no readily identifiable suspects available who don't have several layers of plausible deniability (imo).

To summarise, the issues are as follows:

No legal 'Chain of Evidence' with recognised Law Enforcement Authorities
No links to suspects
'Conspiracy Theory' knee-jerk reaction to the hypothesis
Problems of proving 'Science' in court to a layman jury (the other side brings in their own set of 'experts' too)

I don't know if you have seen Michael Ruppert's 'Truth and Lies' video, but he shows the famous Zapruder film which, especially if you have watched the 'JFK II' documentary linked in my article, you will likely agree demonstrates an undeniable shot from the front. This 'Back and to the left' of the JFK assassination has got us no closer to the truth being investigated and admitted and perpetrators rounded up than 46 years ago when the crime took place.

You will also have read my quote from Vincent Salandria in which he describes the investigation of such evidence and how it wore him down. My guess is that the Elite deliberately encouraged the 9/11 movement to go down this path of the WTC collapses knowing they would spend years, fruitlessly researching and pressing for credibility and investigation, which even if they achieve they still have no-one to tie it to*.

I have made this same point in more or less words, several times on both these threads yet I feel as though I am not penetrating the entrenched view that this evidence is the most important, since people keep coming back to me with more WTC stuff (which isn't to say I don't find the subject interesting - that is part of the problem).

My view, is that it doesn't matter how good the evidence is for this aspect of 9/11 - it will never make the slightest difference**, in the same way that the Zapruder film has not changed almost 50 years of 'Official Story' in the case of JFK.

It's possible that a similar thing will happen as did in the 70's where a further 'investigation' takes place, and finds a 'probable conspiracy' but which is never taken any further and buried beyond sight, including by those (sadly) such as Noam Chomsky.

The Establishment are never going to let a genuine investigation take place, so perhaps the best approach is simply to persuade the public of this salient fact and the available evidence as much as possible.

Cheers

*Whereas on the other hand, there is a paper trail of evidence tying Dick Cheney to the Wargames.

**Which is not to say I don't hope that both Ruppert and myself are wrong!

[marc]

I guess this ...

Passports linked to 911 Found on Afghan border
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114303182&ft=1&f=1001http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3a784a6c-a6fc-490e-bccd-62cefb82cbad

... firms up this sort of statement:

Canadian Defence Minister: "When the Taliban or al-Qaeda came out of Afghanistan, they attacked the Twin Towers and in those Twin Towers, 25 Canadians were killed. The previous government and this government will not allow Canadians to be killed without retribution."

Canadian Troops in Afghanistan for 911 Retribution
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3a784a6c-a6fc-490e-bccd-62cefb82cbad

[OrwellianUK]

...on why why he left the 9/11 Truth Movement and why he doesn't entertain physical evidence (for instance the WTC collapses) no matter how compelling.

http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2009/11/dont-paint-me-with-9-11-truth-brush.html

It's pretty unequivocal and I have to say I think he is probably right.

I keep 9/11 on the back-burner personally - you never know! The WTC collapse research might actually break the mold!

In the meantime though, much more immediate matters are worthy of most of our attention.

[marc]

Our Terrorists - Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, New Internationalist

"Are Islamic terrorists enemies of the West?"

"The history outlined here throws into doubt our entire understanding of the ‘war on terror’. How can we fight a war against an enemy that our own governments are covertly financing for short-sighted geopolitical interests? "

http://www.newint.org/features/2009/10/01/blowback/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There are long-term benefits to financing wars that facilitate your ongoing physical presence in a strategic territory. George Bush reckoned "Iraq will be worth it".

President Bush Says Iraq will Be Worth It
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/236-com/president-bush-says-iraq-_b_61491.html

The Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were implemented as pre-planned. '911' served up public consent and an instant mandate for war. The insertion of Western forces into these strategic, oil-rich areas - as an end in itself - was a military success. Perhaps there never was a valid exit strategy because a full exit is not what's wanted.

The Iraq/Afghan occupations have often been painted by journalists as examples of bumbling, American incompetence. In the main, journalists have failed to dig deeper. On a purely military level - building bases and getting boots on to the ground to oversee resources - the operations have been competently implemented.


“To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.” — Tony Blair, 17 July, 2002, ‘This war on terrorism is bogus’, Michael Meacher, The Guardian, 6 September, 2003

“CentGas can not begin construction [of an oil pipeline] until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.” — "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 February, 1998