Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Michael Hogan]

There is another major problem with the termite hypothesis.

Yes, the 911 Commission confirmed that Larry Silverstein never ordered the contract with Orkin to be pulled.

[Craig Lamson]

There is another major problem with the termite hypothesis.

Yes, the 911 Commission confirmed that Larry Silverstein never ordered the contract with Orkin to be pulled.

Now thats funny!

Edited October 9, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

An Incomplete Investigation

Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"?

BY LOUIS FREEH [Former Director, FBI]

It was interesting to hear from the 9/11 Commission again on Tuesday. This self-perpetuating and privately funded group of lobbyists and lawyers has recently opined on hurricanes, nuclear weapons, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and even the New York subway system. Now it offers yet another "report card" on the progress of the FBI and CIA in the war against terrorism, along with its "back-seat" take and some further unsolicited narrative about how things ought to be on the "front lines."

Yet this is also a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself. Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger" have cast light on a missed opportunity that could have potentially prevented 9/11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and maybe photograph) as an al Qaeda agent operating in the U.S. Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been made to do so. Why?

There are other questions that need answers. Was Able Danger intelligence provided to the 9/11 Commission prior to the finalization of its report, and, if so, why was it not explored? In sum, what did the 9/11 commissioners and their staff know about Able Danger and when did they know it?

The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself.

The facts relating to Able Danger finally started to be reported in mid-August. U.S. Army Col. Anthony Shaffer, a veteran intelligence officer, publicly revealed that the Able Danger team had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers by mid-2000 but were prevented by military lawyers from giving this information to the FBI. One week later, Navy Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command, confirmed "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."

On Aug. 18, 2005, the Pentagon initially stated that "a probe" had found nothing to back up Col. Shaffer's claims. Two weeks later, however, Defense Department officials acknowledged that its "inquiry" had found "three more people who recall seeing an intelligence briefing slide that identified the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks a year before the hijackings and terrorist strikes." These same officials also stated that "documents and electronic files created by . . . Able Danger were destroyed under standing orders that limit the military's use of intelligence gathered about people in the United States." Then in September 2005, the Pentagon doubled back and blocked several military officers from testifying at an open Congressional hearing about the Able Danger program.

Two members of Congress, Curt Weldon and Dan Burton, have also publicly stated that shortly after the 9/11 attacks they provided then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley with a "chart" containing preattack information collected by Able Danger about al Qaeda. A spokesperson for the White House has confirmed that Mr. Hadley "recalled seeing such a chart in that time period but . . . did not recall whether he saw it during a meeting . . . and that a search of National Security Council files had failed to produce such a chart."

Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, reacted to Able Danger with the standard Washington PR approach. He lashed out at the Bush administration and demanded that the Pentagon conduct an "investigation" to evaluate the "credibility" of Col. Shaffer and Capt. Phillpott--rather than demand a substantive investigation into what failed in the first place. This from a former New Jersey governor who, along with other commissioners, routinely appeared in public espousing his own conclusions about 9/11 long before the commission's inquiry was completed and long before all the facts were in! This while dismissing out of hand the major conflicts of interest on the commission itself about obstructions to information-sharing within the intelligence community!

Nevertheless, the final 9/11 Commission report, released on July 22, 2004, concluded that "American intelligence agencies were unaware of Mr. Atta until the day of the attacks." This now looks to be embarrassingly wrong. Yet amazingly, commission leaders acknowledged on Aug. 12 that their staff in fact met with a Navy officer 10 days before releasing the report, who "asserted that a highly classified intelligence operation, Able Danger, had identified Mohammed Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn." (Capt. Phillpott says he briefed them in July 2004.) The commission's statement goes on to say that the staff determined that "the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation," and that the intelligence operation "did not turn out to be historically significant," despite substantial corroboration from other seasoned intelligence officers.

This dismissive and apparently unsupported conclusion would have us believe that a key piece of evidence was summarily rejected in less than 10 days without serious investigation. The commission, at the very least, should have interviewed the 80 members of Able Danger, as the Pentagon did, five of whom say they saw "the chart." But this would have required admitting that the late-breaking news was inconveniently raised. So it was grossly neglected and branded as insignificant. Such a half-baked conclusion, drawn in only 10 days without any real investigation, simply ignores what looks like substantial direct evidence to the contrary coming from our own trained military intelligence officers.

No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a "new" commission to investigate. "I'm angry that my son's death could have been prevented," seethed Diane Horning, whose son Matthew was killed at the World Trade Center. On Aug. 17, 2005, a coalition of family members known as the September 11 Advocates rightly blasted 9/11 Commission leaders Mr. Kean and Lee Hamilton for pooh-poohing Able Danger's findings as not "historically significant." Advocate Mindy Kleinberg aptly notes, "They [the 9/11 Commission] somehow made a determination that this was not important enough. To me, that says somebody there is not using good judgment. And if I'm questioning the judgment of this one case, what other things might they have missed?" This is a stinging indictment of the commission by the 9/11 families.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, has led the way in cleaning up the 9/11 Commission's unfinished business. Amid a very full plate of responsibilities, he conducted a hearing after noting that Col. Shaffer and Capt. Phillpott "appear to have credibility." Himself a former prosecutor, Mr. Specter noted: "If Mr. Atta and other 9/11 terrorists were identified before the attacks, it would be a very serious breach not to have that information passed along . . . we ought to get to the bottom of it." Indeed we should. The 9/11 Commission gets an "I" grade--incomplete--for its dereliction regarding Able Danger. The Joint Intelligence Committees should reconvene and, in addition to Able Danger team members, we should have the 9/11 commissioners appear as witnesses so the families can hear their explanation why this doesn't matter.

Mr. Freeh, a former FBI director, is the author of "My FBI" (St. Martin's, 2005).

[William Kelly]

Jack,

When and where was that published?

How can this guy write this entire Able Danger commentary without mentioning Phillip Zelikow, the Miller Center director behind the flawed Presiential Transcript project, who Schafer personally told about Able Danger while in Afghanistan?

Zelikow failed to mention this report on Able Danger to any of the commissioners, and kept it out of the Final Report, which wasn't so final after all, having been ammended a dozen times.

It was Zelikow who made the deal with the publishers, which leads you directly to some deep seated Mockingbird machinations and corporate shennigans.

Of course Freeh knew all this when he wrote his provocative piece, it just makes me wonder why he's now asking the same questions we were asking years ago.

And Philly Congressman Curt Weldon, BTW, the guy who got the government to bankroll Able Danger and made such a fuss about it, became the subject of a federal probe a few weeks before the election, which Weldon then lost.

BK

[Ron Ecker]

Louis Freeh is one of the last people on earth who should question the integrity of an investigation. O the gall and hypocrisy.

[Charles Drago]

Opus Dei is a far from done.

In more ways than one.

[Jack White]

I have been testing how long an INNOCUOUS posting takes to clear "censorship".

...postings in which THERE IS NOTHING TO CENSOR.

So far the average seems to be a minimum of about eight hours.

And some older have not yet appeared. Hardly worth the effort, is it?

Jack

PS...this message had to be redone because the forum logged me out

before it could be posted.

Another off-topic post. Please post according to topic. Last off topic post I will allow. Antti Hynonen

Edited October 12, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Jack White]

New Evidence that the Official Story about 9/11 is Indefensible

David Ray Griffin

Early in 2007, Interlink Books published my Debunking 9/11

Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other

Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. The stimulus

for my writing this book was the appearance in August 2006 just

before the fifth anniversary of 9/11 of four publications

intended to bolster the official account by debunking the alternative

view, according to which 9/11 was an inside job. The most

explicit and well-known of these publications was a book by Popular

Mechanics entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths.

My book's introduction and conclusion dealt with the

irresponsible way the press, including the left-leaning press, has dealt

with this issue. One of their failings, I showed, was simply

to accept the official reports--especially The 9/11 Commission

Report and the report on the World Trade Center put out by

the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST)--as

neutral, scientific reports. They thereby ignored the fact

that the 9/11 Commission was run by Philip Zelikow, who was virtually

a member of the US. Bush administration, and that NIST is an

agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce and hence of the

Bush administration (which has distorted science for

political purposes to an unprecedented extent).

The book's four chapters then demonstrated that none of the

documents of August 2006 actually served to debunk the claims

of the 9/11 truth movement. The first two chapters dealt

with two documentsâ including a new book by Thomas Kean and Lee

Hamilton, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission that

tried, by creating a completely new story, to debunk the claim that the

U.S. military's failure to intercept four hijacked

airliners could have occurred only if there had been a stand-down order. I

argued that this new story was too inherently implausible,

as well as too contradictory of previous statements by the military, to

be worthy of belief.

The third chapter dealt with NIST's reports on the Twin

Towers, showing that they are political, not scientific, documents,

because they ignore all evidence not consistent with NIST's

theory, such as testimony showing that massive explosions had

occurred and that steel had melted even though the fires

could not have gotten even close to the temperature needed to melt

steel (which means that there had to have been another

source of energy).

The fourth and longest chapter dealt with the Popular

Mechanics book, which discusses all the issues (the failures to intercept,

the WTC, the Pentagon, and United 93). My critique showed

this book to be filled with distortions and outright lies. Although

the Popular Mechanics book has been used as the basis for

two TV specials intended to bolster the official storyâ one on the

BBC and one on the History Channel in the USA (which is

partially owned by the Hearst Corporation, which puts out Popular

Mechanics) the fact that the public is increasingly

seeing through this book's deceptions is shown by recent reviews on

Amazon.com.

My book, although it has yet to be reviewed by a single

mainstream publication in the United States, has been supported by

well-respected political commentators from the left and the

right. Howard Zinn wrote: â Considering how the 9-11 tragedy has

been used by the Bush administration to propel us into

immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffinâ s

provocative questions about 9-11 deserve to be investigated

and addressed. Paul Craig Roberts, who was the assistant secretary

of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration, wrote:

Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new

book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular

Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics.

My book was even endorsed by a former senior official of the

CIA, Bill Christison, who had for the first five years after 9/11, he

admitted, studiously avoided looking at the evidence that it

might have been an inside job. He called my book “a superb

compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the

official US government story of what happened on September 11,

2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.

Book reviewers in mainstream publications were evidently not

moved even by Publishers Weekly. Although it had dismissed

my first two books about 9/11 as ridiculous and pure

speculation, it said of Debunking 9/11 Debunking: All but the

most dogmatic readers will find Griffinâ s evidence from

the inconsistencies between NORAD tapes and the 9/11

Commission Report to rigorous exploration into the physics

of the collapse detailed and deeply unnerving.

Another source widely used to determine whether a book is

worthy of review is Choice, put out by the American Library

Association. It has recently spoken, saying: Griffin

exhibits exceptional skill in detailed scholarly analysis. He concludes with

a call to the reader, and all of us, to bring these issues

into full public discussion and to expose the truth about 9/11, whatever it

may be. Indeed, such truth has certainly not yet been

revealed due to extensive gaps and contradictions in official theories

that he documents in detail. Whether this endorsement will

lead to any reviews remains to be seen.

In any case, I was motivated to put out the Revised and

Updated Edition primarily because of new information about the

alleged phone calls from passengers on the flights to

relatives, through which reports of hijackers on the airplanes reached the

public.

In the first edition, I presented extensive evidence that

reported cell phone calls from the airliners, including the approximately

10 reported cell phone calls from United 93 (which crashed

in Pennsylvania), could not have occurred, because the cell phone

technology at the time did not allow calls to be made from

airliners flying at a high altitude (Flight 93 was at 34,300 to 40,700

feet when the calls were reportedly made). I argued not that

the relatives of the passengers had lied about receiving the calls but

that they had been dupedâ by means of voice morphing, which

is now perfected to the point that, advertisers brag, you can

fool your spouse.

Even after my book appeared, Popular Mechanics continued to

claim, on the basis of very weak evidence, that high-altitude cell

phone calls were indeed possible (see the History Channel

special, “9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fictionâ ). However, as I

reported in the Revised and Updated Edition of my book, the

FBI had in 2006 presented, as evidence in the trial of Zacarias

Moussaoui (sometimes called â the 20th hijackerâ ), a report

on phone calls from the four airliners. According to this report,

there were only two cell phone calls from United 93, and

they were made at 9:58, shortly before the plane crashed, when it was

down to 5,000 feet. When the FBI had to present evidence in

a court of law, therefore, it would not claim that any high-altitude

cell phone calls had occurred. (These two low-altitude calls

from Flight 93 were, according to the FBI report, the only two cell

phone calls made from all four flights).

The most well known of the reported cell phone calls from

Flight 93 were four calls that Deena Burnett reported receiving from

her husband, Tom Burnett. She knew that he had used his cell

phone, she reported on several TV shows and later in her book,

because she saw his Caller ID number. However, as I

reported, there are now devices, such as FoneFaker,

that will produce the person's Caller ID as well as his or her voice.

DeenaBurnett and the others, I believe, were not lying; they

were duped.

The most famous of the reported calls from the flights

supposedly came from Barbara Olson, the well-known commentator on

CNN who was married to Ted Olson, who was then the US

solicitor general. Olson reported that his wife had called him twice

from American Airlines Flight 77, stating that hijackers

with knives and boxcutters had taken over the plane. Besides providing

evidence of hijackers, this call also provided the only

evidence that Flight 77 was still aloft (it had disappeared from radar and

there had been reports of an airliner crash nearby).

Although Olson went back and forth on the question of whether his wife

had used a cell phone or an onboard phone, he finally

settled on the latter.

In the first edition, I challenged this claim on the basis

of evidence from American Airlines that their Boeing 757 (which is what

Flight 77 was) had no onboard phones. After publishing the

book, however, I became worried, because of some new evidence,

that that statement from American Airlines, made in 2004,

had referred only to their 757s at that time — that their 757s in

2001 may well have had onboard phones. So I published a

retraction, saying that the claim was uncertain.

That retraction, however, evoked new evidence, including a

statement made by American Airlines in 2006 that their 757s in

2001 had had no onboard phones, so that anyone calling out

from Flight 77 had needed to use a cell phone. Barbara Olson,

therefore, could not have used a passenger-seat phone. That

left open, of course, the possibility that Ted Olson was correct

when he said that his wife had used her cell phone.

However, the evidence from the Moussaoui trial ruled out

this possibility. In its report on AA 77, it listed one attempted call

from Barbara Olson, which was unconnected and hence

lasted 0 seconds.

This was an astounding discovery. The FBI is part of the

Department of Justice. And yet it had undercut the testimony of the

DOJ's former solicitor general, saying in effect that the

two calls that he reported had never happened. The implication is that

unless Ted Olson had, like Deena Burnett, been duped, he had

lied. Although this should have produced front-page headlines,

it has thus far not been reported by any mainstream publication.

The Revised and Updated Edition of Debunking 9/11

Debunking provides the documentation for these reports from

American Airlines and the FBI, which pretty thoroughly

undermine the idea that any of the reported calls were genuine: If the

cell phone calls were faked, why should we believe that the

reported calls from onboard phones were genuine?

This new edition also contains more quotations from former

military officers calling the official conspiracy theory impossible.

It also contains a report on Rudy Giulianiâ problematic

response to a group of activists who asked him, with camera running,

how he knew that the Twin Towers were going to collapse. (He

had told Peter Jennings on ABC News on 9/11 itself that he had

been warned.) Given the fact that he Giuliani is currently

the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, evidence

that he had inside information on the collapse of the

towersâ an event for which there was no historical precedentâ should

certainly be investigated.

This new edition has garnered some further endorsements. I

was especially pleased to get one from former CIA case officer

Robert Baer (the author of See No Evil, which inspired the

movie Syriana), because he had written a critical review of my first

book, The New Pearl Harbor. Having more recently, like Bill

Christison, become convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, he

wrote: Until we get a complete, honest, transparent

investigationâ not one based on confession extracted by torture we

will never know what happened on 9/11. David Griffin will

never let this go until we get the truth.

Also, hoping that my new book would be found even more

convincing than my earlier ones, I was very pleased to see that John

Whitbeck, an international law specialist, had written:

After reading David Ray Griffinâ s previous books on the subject, I was

over 90% convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. Now, after

reading Debunking 9/11 Debunking, I am, I regret to say, 100%

convinced.

The implications of this conclusion are, of course,

enormous. But will you see the evidence for this conclusion discussed in the

mainstream press? Don't hold your breath.

[Jack White]

Posted by  SID on February 14, 2003 at 15:50:03:

In Reply to:  Re: WTC 7 posted by Patrick J. McNierney on May 12, 2002 at 19:23:03:

But, upon viewing this, you may wonder why these photos seem a bit odd, for a building that was damaged by fire, trusses collapsing causing collateral damage, as the way/reason it collapsed.

First - an explosion that occurred BEFORE the WTC1 or WTC2 came down. How is that plausible given your description of events?

It is very possible there were explosives in that building which caused it to come down. And not just diesel fuel, either. We also have technology that would explain why the buildings were so hot, but only if the unthinkable is really what happened. Is that possible?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html < why does a building with an unevenly burning fire collapse evenly, as if demolished?

An alternative viewpoint:

http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/mslp_i.htm

http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/wtc_other.htm

The building collapses evenly upon itself? Is that the expected physics from building-fires where entire buildings collapse?

http://www.rense.com/general18/cmdd.htm < this link says "structural damage from falling debris," too, but building 7 wasn't really that close to building 1 or 2... not enough to make it fall evenly.

Is it odd that all of the WTC building collapsed in on themselves, leaving metal that burned 4 - 5 times hotter than diesel fuel can normally burn, in a fire that lasts for 2 months (despite fire retardents), leaving no human body remains (not possible unless other heat sources were used to create the fire), and also no black boxes were recovered from the scenes -- oh, and leaves only concrete powder trace evidence behind from 450,000 tons of concrete? Robert Schuller, who visited the site, said "there was not one block of concrete as big as one foot left"... I've studied the photos and can't see a lot of concrete, either. Huge concrete blocks would normally be left behind, right?

And, to even debate this, we must be able to accept that guys with 600 hours flight experience, described as "dumb and dumber" by their flight instructor, could fly military-trained aggressive flight routes with meticulous curves just feet above the ground (at Pentagon) - this, of course, after taking over a plane with plastic knives. Not sure about you, but I'd probably kick some crazy's ass with my laptop if he came after me with a drywall knife. Yep, let 'em try to take me! They'd get nowhere. We must also assume that the buildings were demolished, by the same crew that demolished OKC, in such short time not a single piece of metal was analyzed. Also, the same families who built their empires on oil (Rockefeller, Bush, Walker) all built the buildings and likely capitalized on the $15B + insurance policies NY taxpayers cashed in. We must also assume that our President had a TV in a hallway of a school where he watched the first building get hit on TV - yet with no TV station broadcast that signal at that time -- Hmmm. But, if we "buy" the official story, this is what he said happened. We must assume that flight 93 was overcome by heroes, even in the facts that wreckage spewed across 8 miles with only a 10 mph wind, and witnesses of the plane exploding in the sky first. We must assume all of these things, in order to say that this really happened the way CNN and NOVA reported it.

I'm trying to rediscover my faith. And you?

Perhaps you can answer these questions:

In view of the $30 billion given annually to the FBI, the CIA and other U.S. "intelligence" agencies, why were these agencies completely unaware (or so they say) of this conspiracy before they saw its results on CNN? And why has this (apparent) incompetence been rewarded with yet more billions?

The four AA and UA jets took off with an average occupancy rate of 27%. That four airliners from major airlines leaving from the East Coast around 9 a.m. on a weekday for the West Coast would all have such low occupancy rates is highly unlikely. Was the booking system tampered with in order to ensure such low occupancy rates (so that the passengers from all four planes could eventually be loaded onto UA Flight 93 for elimination)?

Why would hijackers intending to crash planes into the WTC hijack jets taking off from Boston rather than from someplace closer such as JFK Airport in New York?

Why would hijackers intending to crash a plane into the Pentagon hijack a jet from Dulles Airport near Washington DC (and thus close to the Pentagon) and allow it to fly for 40 minutes away from its target before turning around and flying another 40 minutes back to it (knowing that interception by military jets during this time would in normal circumstances have been very likely)?

AA Flight 77 (the jet which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon) was allegedly hijacked at about 9 a.m., at about the same time as the Twin Tower impacts, and its change of course back toward Washington, or its transponder having been turned off, would have been known to flight controllers, who were aware of the impacts; why, then, were U.S. Air Force jets not scrambled to intercept AA Flight 77 forty minutes before it (allegedly) hit the Pentagon, when there were U.S. Air Force jets at seven locations normally ready to take off at ten minutes' notice?

Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?

Where are the black boxes (the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders) from all four jets?

These black boxes are designed to survive any crash. Have they been examined by experts from the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency which normally investigates airplane crashes? If not, why not?

In particular, what is on the FDR and the CVR from UA Flight 93, the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania? Why, exactly, did this jet crash? Was it shot down?

"Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? (For wind-borne debris to travel six miles in, say, six minutes requires a 60 mph wind.)

Were the conversations between the pilots of the other three hijacked planes and air traffic controllers recorded? If so, what did those pilots say? Were those recordings siezed by the FBI? Were (alleged) transcripts given by the FBI to the mainstream media? Were those transcripts fabricated to provide false evidence in support of the "Arab hijackers" story?

Does the Fireman's Video show that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to the wings and thus was not a Boeing 767? Does it reveal that missiles were fired from this plane just before it hit?

Since no public TV cameras were trained on the North Tower at the time of impact, what was the source of the transmission of the North Tower impact which George W. Bush says he saw before he went into the classroom in Florida? Why did he do nothing (except continue listening to a little girl's story about a goat) for half an hour after he was informed that the second jet hit the South Tower (and that America was "under attack")? Did Bush have prior knowledge of the WTC attack?

Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? Did the FBI prepare in advance a list of the names (and aliases) of the (alleged) "Arab hijackers" on those flights?

Why did the South Tower collapse first, 56 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense?

If the outer perimeter walls of the Twin Towers were connected to the central cores only by lightweight trusses, how was wind load on the towers transmitted to the central core (as it must have been because the floors did not buckle in a strong wind)?

What exactly was the nature of the structural connections between the outer perimeter wall and the central core of the two towers? Is it not false that this consisted only of lightweight flimsy trusses? Is it not the case that the connection was actually made with 32,000 tons of steel beams?

Why are the architect's plans of the Twin Towers not publicly available?

Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 56 minutes? If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, and toppled over onto the surrounding buildings in the Lower Manhattan financial district, rather than collapsing neatly upon themselves in the manner of a controlled demolition?

Were the Twin Towers re-engineered in the mid-1990s to make possible a collapse-on-demand if that were judged necessary? Was FEMA aware of this? Do blueprints of the Twin Towers in the possession of the past owners reveal any evidence of this?

Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced? How could fire convert concrete into dust? Has the ash been chemically analysed to determine what it really is and how it might have been produced?

Were any tests done on the debris for the presence of radioactivity?

Is it not the case that the Twin Towers collapsed, not because of airliner impacts and fires, but because they were expertly demolished (even though we do not yet know exactly how this was accomplished)?

Who stood to benefit from the complete destruction of the Twin Towers?

What was the actual size of the entrance hole made by the object which hit the Pentagon? Is it not the case that photographic evidence reveals that it was in fact at most just a few meters in diameter, much too small to have been made by a Boeing 757 jet, but just the right size for a missile?

Why were no aircraft fragments, identifiable as coming from a Boeing 757, recovered from the Pentagon crash site?

Why were no remains of the approximately sixty passengers and crew on the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon returned to relatives for burial?

Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?

In September the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an inquiry to establish who benefited from the unusually high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options. Why has this inquiry stalled? Why have those who benefited from the purchases of these put options not been identified (or at least, not publicly)?

Is it not the case that this atrocity was planned and carried out by elements at high levels of command in the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, the Justice Department and FEMA (possibly with the involvement of well-placed civilians outside the government), acting under orders from, or with the approval of, high officials within the U.S. Administration, and that those same elements are now directing a propaganda campaign against the American people to justify a war of aggression in Asia and the Middle East aimed at controlling the oil and mineral wealth of those regions?

Is it possible that floors 9 and 10, which housed the US Secret Service and Securities Exchange Commission (and related stock-insider trade investigation files) that maybe they were destroying something on those floors that the present administration wanted gone? Perhaps related to Worldcom, Enron and other debacles surrounding black money financing, heroin trade in Afghanistan, and other energy-gouging deals?

Why is the U.S. mainstream media ignoring questions like these?

Good luck and I hope you figure it out!

 

[Steve Ulman]

Posted by SID on February 14, 2003 at 15:50:03:

In Reply to: Re: WTC 7 posted by Patrick J. McNierney on May 12, 2002 at 19:23:03:

But, upon viewing this, you may wonder why these photos seem a bit odd, for a building that was damaged by fire, trusses collapsing causing collateral damage, as the way/reason it collapsed.

First - an explosion that occurred BEFORE the WTC1 or WTC2 came down. How is that plausible given your description of events?

It is very possible there were explosives in that building which caused it to come down. And not just diesel fuel, either. We also have technology that would explain why the buildings were so hot, but only if the unthinkable is really what happened. Is that possible?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html < why does a building with an unevenly burning fire collapse evenly, as if demolished?

An alternative viewpoint:

http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/mslp_i.htm

http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/wtc_other.htm

The building collapses evenly upon itself? Is that the expected physics from building-fires where entire buildings collapse?

http://www.rense.com/general18/cmdd.htm < this link says "structural damage from falling debris," too, but building 7 wasn't really that close to building 1 or 2... not enough to make it fall evenly.

Is it odd that all of the WTC building collapsed in on themselves, leaving metal that burned 4 - 5 times hotter than diesel fuel can normally burn, in a fire that lasts for 2 months (despite fire retardents), leaving no human body remains (not possible unless other heat sources were used to create the fire), and also no black boxes were recovered from the scenes -- oh, and leaves only concrete powder trace evidence behind from 450,000 tons of concrete? Robert Schuller, who visited the site, said "there was not one block of concrete as big as one foot left"... I've studied the photos and can't see a lot of concrete, either. Huge concrete blocks would normally be left behind, right?

And, to even debate this, we must be able to accept that guys with 600 hours flight experience, described as "dumb and dumber" by their flight instructor, could fly military-trained aggressive flight routes with meticulous curves just feet above the ground (at Pentagon) - this, of course, after taking over a plane with plastic knives. Not sure about you, but I'd probably kick some crazy's ass with my laptop if he came after me with a drywall knife. Yep, let 'em try to take me! They'd get nowhere. We must also assume that the buildings were demolished, by the same crew that demolished OKC, in such short time not a single piece of metal was analyzed. Also, the same families who built their empires on oil (Rockefeller, Bush, Walker) all built the buildings and likely capitalized on the $15B + insurance policies NY taxpayers cashed in. We must also assume that our President had a TV in a hallway of a school where he watched the first building get hit on TV - yet with no TV station broadcast that signal at that time -- Hmmm. But, if we "buy" the official story, this is what he said happened. We must assume that flight 93 was overcome by heroes, even in the facts that wreckage spewed across 8 miles with only a 10 mph wind, and witnesses of the plane exploding in the sky first. We must assume all of these things, in order to say that this really happened the way CNN and NOVA reported it.

I'm trying to rediscover my faith. And you?

Perhaps you can answer these questions:

In view of the $30 billion given annually to the FBI, the CIA and other U.S. "intelligence" agencies, why were these agencies completely unaware (or so they say) of this conspiracy before they saw its results on CNN? And why has this (apparent) incompetence been rewarded with yet more billions?

The four AA and UA jets took off with an average occupancy rate of 27%. That four airliners from major airlines leaving from the East Coast around 9 a.m. on a weekday for the West Coast would all have such low occupancy rates is highly unlikely. Was the booking system tampered with in order to ensure such low occupancy rates (so that the passengers from all four planes could eventually be loaded onto UA Flight 93 for elimination)?

Why would hijackers intending to crash planes into the WTC hijack jets taking off from Boston rather than from someplace closer such as JFK Airport in New York?

Why would hijackers intending to crash a plane into the Pentagon hijack a jet from Dulles Airport near Washington DC (and thus close to the Pentagon) and allow it to fly for 40 minutes away from its target before turning around and flying another 40 minutes back to it (knowing that interception by military jets during this time would in normal circumstances have been very likely)?

AA Flight 77 (the jet which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon) was allegedly hijacked at about 9 a.m., at about the same time as the Twin Tower impacts, and its change of course back toward Washington, or its transponder having been turned off, would have been known to flight controllers, who were aware of the impacts; why, then, were U.S. Air Force jets not scrambled to intercept AA Flight 77 forty minutes before it (allegedly) hit the Pentagon, when there were U.S. Air Force jets at seven locations normally ready to take off at ten minutes' notice?

Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?

Where are the black boxes (the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders) from all four jets?

These black boxes are designed to survive any crash. Have they been examined by experts from the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency which normally investigates airplane crashes? If not, why not?

In particular, what is on the FDR and the CVR from UA Flight 93, the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania? Why, exactly, did this jet crash? Was it shot down?

"Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? (For wind-borne debris to travel six miles in, say, six minutes requires a 60 mph wind.)

Were the conversations between the pilots of the other three hijacked planes and air traffic controllers recorded? If so, what did those pilots say? Were those recordings siezed by the FBI? Were (alleged) transcripts given by the FBI to the mainstream media? Were those transcripts fabricated to provide false evidence in support of the "Arab hijackers" story?

Does the Fireman's Video show that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to the wings and thus was not a Boeing 767? Does it reveal that missiles were fired from this plane just before it hit?

Since no public TV cameras were trained on the North Tower at the time of impact, what was the source of the transmission of the North Tower impact which George W. Bush says he saw before he went into the classroom in Florida? Why did he do nothing (except continue listening to a little girl's story about a goat) for half an hour after he was informed that the second jet hit the South Tower (and that America was "under attack")? Did Bush have prior knowledge of the WTC attack?

Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? Did the FBI prepare in advance a list of the names (and aliases) of the (alleged) "Arab hijackers" on those flights?

Why did the South Tower collapse first, 56 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense?

If the outer perimeter walls of the Twin Towers were connected to the central cores only by lightweight trusses, how was wind load on the towers transmitted to the central core (as it must have been because the floors did not buckle in a strong wind)?

What exactly was the nature of the structural connections between the outer perimeter wall and the central core of the two towers? Is it not false that this consisted only of lightweight flimsy trusses? Is it not the case that the connection was actually made with 32,000 tons of steel beams?

Why are the architect's plans of the Twin Towers not publicly available?

Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 56 minutes? If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, and toppled over onto the surrounding buildings in the Lower Manhattan financial district, rather than collapsing neatly upon themselves in the manner of a controlled demolition?

Were the Twin Towers re-engineered in the mid-1990s to make possible a collapse-on-demand if that were judged necessary? Was FEMA aware of this? Do blueprints of the Twin Towers in the possession of the past owners reveal any evidence of this?

Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced? How could fire convert concrete into dust? Has the ash been chemically analysed to determine what it really is and how it might have been produced?

Were any tests done on the debris for the presence of radioactivity?

Is it not the case that the Twin Towers collapsed, not because of airliner impacts and fires, but because they were expertly demolished (even though we do not yet know exactly how this was accomplished)?

Who stood to benefit from the complete destruction of the Twin Towers?

What was the actual size of the entrance hole made by the object which hit the Pentagon? Is it not the case that photographic evidence reveals that it was in fact at most just a few meters in diameter, much too small to have been made by a Boeing 757 jet, but just the right size for a missile?

Why were no aircraft fragments, identifiable as coming from a Boeing 757, recovered from the Pentagon crash site?

Why were no remains of the approximately sixty passengers and crew on the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon returned to relatives for burial?

Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?

In September the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an inquiry to establish who benefited from the unusually high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options. Why has this inquiry stalled? Why have those who benefited from the purchases of these put options not been identified (or at least, not publicly)?

Is it not the case that this atrocity was planned and carried out by elements at high levels of command in the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, the Justice Department and FEMA (possibly with the involvement of well-placed civilians outside the government), acting under orders from, or with the approval of, high officials within the U.S. Administration, and that those same elements are now directing a propaganda campaign against the American people to justify a war of aggression in Asia and the Middle East aimed at controlling the oil and mineral wealth of those regions?

Is it possible that floors 9 and 10, which housed the US Secret Service and Securities Exchange Commission (and related stock-insider trade investigation files) that maybe they were destroying something on those floors that the present administration wanted gone? Perhaps related to Worldcom, Enron and other debacles surrounding black money financing, heroin trade in Afghanistan, and other energy-gouging deals?

Why is the U.S. mainstream media ignoring questions like these?

Good luck and I hope you figure it out!

Jack-

The title of the thread states "Architectural Forum" - Please provide a link to the forum.

[Evan Burton]

There are a number of problems with Griffin's claims.

Firstly, the comments about the 'FoneFaker'. There is a big - and I believe incorrect - assumption made there. It says it can "...change your voice...". I have no problem with that; there are a multitude of ways to do this. It also says it can make your voice sound like a male or female. Again, no problems. Griffin says, though, that it "...will produce the person's Caller ID as well as his or her voice...". That is NOT what the device / service claims, and I do not believe it would be capable of doing so. It is one thing to use a device to alter your voice; it is quite another to use it to mimic someone else's voice. I am wondering if he actually purchased one of these devices / services and attempted to use it in the manner in which he claims it would have been used? I think not.

Also, Griffin has said:

When the FBI had to present evidence in a court of law, therefore, it would not claim that any high-altitude cell phone calls had occurred. (These two low-altitude calls from Flight 93 were, according to the FBI report, the only two cell phone calls made from all four flights).

That's not correct. What was said was:

Q. Would you tell us who that caller was.

A. Yes, sir, this is Thomas Burnett, Jr. Records, airphone records indicate that Mr. Burnett made three phone calls from rows

24 A, B, and C and 25 A, B, and C. However, Thomas's wife, Deena, reported that there may have been additional cell phone calls made to her.

Q. So, she spoke to her husband repeatedly that day, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

(Source: Moussaoui trial transcript, page 3473, http://www.911myths.com/images/f/f8/Moussa...ril_11_2006.pdf )

Another problem is regarding the AirFones aboard the aircraft. There is evidence from AA employees (in the form of Engineering Change Orders) that they were not removed until sometime in 2002.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Airfones

[Evan Burton]

It would seem to have probably come from this forum somewhere:

http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/

or possibly here:

http://arch.designcommunity.com/

[Evan Burton]

Here we go:

http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/25522.html

[Evan Burton]

So, the actual sequence of questions and replies was this:

Posted by Dammon on April 21, 2002 at 08:31:25:

How did the World Trade Center Tower 7 collapse when it was kind of far away from ground zero when other nearby buildings managed to survive?

***********************************

Then

Posted by Patrick J. McNierney on May 12, 2002 at 19:23:03:

In Reply to: WTC 7 posted by Dammon on April 21, 2002 at 08:31:25:

Dammon,

Excellent question !!! Within 7 WTC, there were transfer trusses at the 4th and 11th floors. These trusses were supporting the columns up above ( to floor 48). Due to fire damage from debris falling on top of and adjacent to 7 WTC, these trusses gave way, thus resulting in a collapse of the upper floors.

Also, my article in the November 11 edition of Architecture discuss collateral damage to perimeter buildings and the condition of these buildings shortly after the disaster.

PMcN

***************************************

Then came the reply which Jack has shown above, followed by (after a joke post of some type):

Posted by Kevin Matthews on February 15, 2003 at 11:44:55:

In Reply to: Re: WTC 7 posted by SID on February 14, 2003 at 15:50:03:

Certainly the official story is not always the most accurate, especially shortly after events which, however horrible, are still being exploited mercilessly for the gain of particular political factions.

But this particular set of questions amounts to much less than it might seem. Many of them are based on badly ill-informed speculations. Many of them have been addressed directly and definitively already in the press, including ArchitectureWeek. Some of the questions are still rather interesting, but mixed in as they are here with such a load of unanchored suspicion and ungrounded speculation, one can hardly begin to constructively address them.

(my bolding)

Edited October 12, 2007 by Evan Burton
Reformatted for clarity

[Evan Burton]

Here is a link for Patrick J. McNierney's experiences at the WTC

Early Days at the Disaster