NeoNixonian.org

to: watergate and 9/11 crimes

Some reasons to doubt the official explanation of the 9/11 catastrophe


Why it was a controlled demolition

Yes, airplanes flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York on the morning of September 11, 2001, but that event alone could not have caused the collapse of the towers. A controlled demolition brought the buildings down. If there was a controlled demolition, it had to be with the knowledge and consent of the building owner, Larry Silverstein. A “conspiracy” was involved.

What is the evidence for this assertion? Others have produced exhaustive evidence. Some of the main points are these:

* Jet-fuel fires in the upper stories of the World Trade Center towers could not have caused the structural collapse. Open-air hydrocarbon fires of this type produce a maximum temperature of 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit - not hot enough to melt steel. (Steel begins to melt at 2800 degrees Fahrenheit.) Explosives used in demolitions are capable of generating such heat.

* If the buildings fell because of aircraft impact, the damage to the building should have been asymmetrical. The structure would have been weakened on one side rather than another. Instead, the structures gave way simultaneously on all sides of the building, which is characteristic of controlled demolitions. The building collapsed upon its own foundation as if in a free-fall.

*In controlled demolitions, it is customary to slice the core columns in the center of the building first so that the building collapses inward. This is called “crimping.” Videotapes show this happening both in the North Tower and in Building Seven, which came down in the afternoon of 9/11. The antenna on the roof of the North Tower was observed to be moving downward a split second before the building itself collapsed. An airplane crashing into the building would have produced damage on the outside first.

* In controlled demolitions, the exploding columns produce horizontal puffs of dust called “squibs” where the explosives were placed. This phenomenon was observed in the collapse of both World Trade Center towards and building Seven. In fact, heavy pieces of steel were ejected horizontally from the towers to damage buildings 500 feet away. That could only have happened from explosives, not from floors collapsing upon each other from gravity.

* Numerous eyewitnesses and audio recordings report a series of explosions in the twin towers which began shortly before airplanes struck those buildings. There was a “grand finale” of multiple explosions as the towers began to fall. Again, this is characteristic of controlled demolitions.

* In controlled demolitions, it is customary to produce diagonal cuts in the structural beams so that the vertical support will suddenly disappear. Photographs taken shortly after the collapse show such cuts. Authorities quickly removed the steel itself, however.

*A pool of molten steel was found underneath the rubble of the collapsed towers after some of the rubble was removed. Jet-fuel fires in the upper stories could not have produced this pool. First, they are not hot enough to melt steel. Second, the pools would have formed above the main mass of rubble - where the aircraft struck and presumably melted the metal - not below.

* Traces of nano-thermite were found in the rubble of the collapsed tower as reported in a written by nine scientists and published in 2009 in Open Chemical Physics Journal under the title “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” As one of the authors noted, there is no other explanation for the presence of this chemical other than that it was used in a controlled demolition.

* Tenants of the World Trade Center towers report that on a weekend shortly before 9/11 the buildings were ordered evacuated so that maintenance work could be done. It is possible that explosives were placed in the buildings on that occasion to produce a controlled demolition.

* A 47-story skyscraper called Building Seven collapsed at at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, in a manner also consistent with a controlled demolition. This building had not been hit by aircraft. Photographs show only a few small office fires. The official explanation is that these fires - hours after the collapse of the twin towers - caused building Seven to fall. (It came down in 6.5 seconds.) In an unguarded moment, the building owner, Larry Silverstein, admitted that Building Seven had been “pulled” - industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

 

Suspicious circumstances

New York City property owner, Larry Silverstein, who was the original owner of Building Seven, bought the World Trade Center towers from the Port of New York Authority on July 24, 2001 - six weeks before 9/11. The towers were known to have asbestos problems. It would have been expensive to abate those problems. The Port Authority had insured the towers for $1.5 billion. Putting up only $14 million of his own money, Silverstein promptly insured the towers for $3.5 billion, payable in cash if the buildings were destroyed. After the attacks on 9/11. Silverstein demanded double indemnity because there had been two separate attacks. The insurance companies gave him $4.5 billion. Silverstein was then back in court demanding another $12.3 billion from the airlines and security firms. This would have given him $17 billion on a $14 million investment.

Larry Silverstein skipped an important meeting that was to have been held in the World Trade Center on 9/11 because his wife had insisted that he visit a dermatologist at the same time. Two of his children who were supposed to have been at the Windows on the World restaurant on top of the North Tower were late to their appointment there and so, luckily, survived.

 

Other possible foreknowledge

There was heavy trading (and a crash in price) in the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines, and Morgan Stanley (a major tenant in the twin towers) shortly before 9/11.

A former FBI informant, Randy Glass, tried to warn his FBI superiors and U.S. Senator Bob Graham that the World Trade Centers would be destroyed. His calls were referred to a high-ranking State Department counter-terrorism official who told him (before the 9/11 attacks took place): “Randy, listen, you cannot mention any of these things, especially airplanes being used to fly into the World Trade Center.”

Five Israeli nationals posing as delivery men were caught in Bergen, New Jersey, videotaping the World Trade Center destruction from across the river. They appeared to be celebrating that event. One of the men, interviewed on a talk show after being deported to Israel, said: “Our purpose was to document the event.”

It is reported that the Zim Israeli-American Shipping Company broke its lease at the World Trade Center and vacated the premises one week before the 9/11 attacks.

 

Possible motives

Larry Silverstein, the building owner, made a bundle of money from insurance proceeds after 9/11.

The 9/11 attacks, attributed to Islamic terrorists, created a “Pearl Harbor”- type event to justify the subsequent war on Islamic terrorism. The Iraq war, previously demanded by the neo-cons, now became politically feasible. The Israeli government had long been wary of the military threat posed by Iraq. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.” Bush’s invasion of Iraq spared the Israeli government of having to get rid of Saddam Hussein itself.

Another possible motive was that the 9/11 attacks, blaming Al Qaeda, justified U.S. military activity in Afghanistan to protect U.S. oil and gas interests. Around 2000, an investment club supported by George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and other high-profile Republicans, began negotiating with the Taliban government to build a pipeline across Afghanistan to transport oil and gas from the Caspian Basin. The Taliban leadership held out for a better deal. At a meeting in Berlin in July, 2001 - two months before 9/11 - a U.S. official told the Taliban: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”

 

More questions

When commercial aircraft go seriously off course in the United States, the standard procedure is for FAA controllers to notify NORAD which then sends fighter jets to intercept the plane and, if necessary, shoot it down. What happened to America’s air defenses on the morning of 9/11 when two aircraft headed toward the World Trade Center? They were strangely disabled.

What was Dick Cheney doing in the command center on the morning of 9/11 as President Bush sat for seven minutes in an elementary-school class room with a strange look on his face after being informed of the 9/11 attacks? Were they out of the loop?

There are so many unanswered questions. I think there are reasonable grounds to doubt the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. So what’s wrong with being a “conspiracy theorist” who wants answers? Since when was willful ignorance considered a virtue in America?

 

The official version

A government-authorized 9/11 Commission issued a report saying that the two airplanes caused the collapse of the twin towers. This commission was co-chaired by former Gov. Thomas Keane and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Its staff director was Philip Zelikow. Zelikow is a self-described specialist in "the construction and maintenance of public myths." He was also part of a group that advocated a preemptive strike against Iraq during the Clinton administration. Co-chair Thomas Keane now admits that, under Zelikow's direction, the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail." The other co-chair. Rep. Lee Hamilton, concurs in that opinion. Former FBI director Louis Freeh has called the Commission report a cover-up. Former General Wesley Clark said: "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11." A list of notble persons who have criticized the 9/11 Commission report can be found at http://www.patriotsquestion911.com. Why, then, are ordinary citizens who doubt the official version of events on 9/11 demonized as "conspiracy theorists" of questionable sanity? It's an amazing cover-up.

 

Other sources of information

Scholars have done much more extensive investigations of this subject. My information comes mostly from a book by Kevin Barrett titled "Questioning the War on Terror". A video documentary titled "Loose Change" also gives reasons to doubt the official explanations of the 9/11 catastrophe. See this link to arguments advanced by David Ray Griffin. See link to a summary of information by Barbara Ellis. Also see http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/.

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

Finally, there is the following testimony of Richard Gage at the National Press Club in 2010:


“ Good afternoon, my name is Richard Gage, AIA. I’m a member of the American Institute of Architects; I’ve been a licensed architect for 22 years; And I’m the founder of the non-profit organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth).

As a group, we now have more than 1,270 architect and engineer petition signers.  Collectively, we have more than 25,000 years of building and technical experience. This press conference is being given by our petition signers and supporters today in 65 [it turned out to be 67] locations around the world, including 30 states and 4 countries.

Today, we’re here to inform you that we have uncovered evidence that the official investigations into what happened to the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 were deeply flawed, or worse.  The scientific forensic facts we have discovered have very troubling implications.

For example, a technologically advanced, highly energetic material has been discovered in World Trade Center dust from the 9/11 catastrophe.

This follows the discovery, by the United States Geological Survey and others, of high concentrations of unusual previously molten iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. These microspheres can only have been formed during the destruction of the World Trade Center at temperatures far higher than can be explained by the jet fuel and office fires. Those fires, we are told by engineers employed by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, were allegedly the cause of the World Trade Center’s destruction. The discovery of this advanced energetic material, in the form of red/gray chips distributed throughout the dust, both explains the iron-rich microspheres and confirms the inadequacy of the official account of what happened that tragic day.

Even before the microspheres and red/gray chips had been identified and brought to our attention, we were deeply concerned about other aspects of the destruction of these iconic buildings, and how they were investigated. More than two dozen firefighters, engineers, and other witnesses reported seeing substantial quantities of molten iron or steel, flowing like lava in the debris under all three World Trade Center high-rises. Office fires and jet fuel cannot possibly reach the temperatures necessary to liquefy iron or steel.  A mixture called thermite, consisting of pulverized iron oxide and aluminum, CAN generate temperatures above 4000°F — far more than is needed to melt iron or steel, which melts at about 2750°F.

The energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark)  was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics. It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11. They have no reason to be in this dust. Given all the horrific costs in human lives, lost civil liberties, and trillions of tax dollars spent in response to the official account of 9/11, there can be no more urgent need than for our country and the world to find out who put those materials in the World Trade Center – and why.

This need makes it all the more disturbing that top engineers in charge of the government’s investigation would avoid dealing straightforwardly with ALL the evidence that AE911Truth and others have repeatedly brought to their attention, much of which has been available in the public record since the beginning. John Gross, NIST co-project leader, has denied the existence of – or even any reports of – molten iron or steel at the World Trade Center.

They stopped their analysis of the towers’ complete and highly energetic destruction at the very point when the destruction began. And they have dismissed or avoided serious analysis of the additional evidence with which we are concerned, such as:

1.  Both Twin Towers were completely dismembered and destroyed in just 10 to 14 seconds – which occurs at near free-fall acceleration. For this to happen, all 47 of their massive core columns as well as a large fraction of their external columns would have to be compromised with explosives beforehand.

2.  More than 100 first responders reported hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light at the onset of destruction.  Light flashes indicate explosive detonations.  These witnesses are documented in NYC’s “Oral Histories” by City Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen

3.  Multi-ton steel perimeter wall sections were ejected laterally at 60 mph to a distance of 600 ft.  That speed and distance indicates that a high-pressure explosion initiated the ejection.

4.  90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking was pulverized in mid-air, again indicating explosions.

5.  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building which was not hit by an aircraft, fell at free-fall acceleration for more than 100 feet – a significant fact that NIST’s Shyam Sunder was forced to admit after being presented with our research. Yet NIST has failed to review or acknowledge the obvious implications of this fact, which is that the columns must have been explosively severed within fractions of a second of each other.

6.   The complete destruction and dismemberment of Building 7, collapsing in just 6 1⁄2 seconds—which is near freefall acceleration—through the path of what was greatest resistance, symmetrically vertical, including 2 1⁄2 seconds of pure free-fall (zero resistance), is an occurrence only possible with expertly-placed explosives.

There are other falsehoods and omissions in NIST’s official report:

1.   NIST overstated the severity and duration of the fires in all three skyscrapers, apparently in order to more credibly attribute the destruction to the fires, yet without exaggerating them enough to account for molten iron or steel.

2.   NIST and FEMA did not follow the National Fire Protection Association’s standard procedures for fire and explosion investigations and test building debris for explosive residues.

3.   NIST did not test for explosives when explosive demolition was the most likely hypothesis.

4.   NIST’s animated computer model of Building 7’s destruction, showing the outer walls crumpling inward like a piece of foil, bears no resemblance to the actual collapse as seen in the videos.

5.   NIST claims that the falling section of each of the Twin Towers, above the jetliner impact zones, crushed the much larger and more massive intact lower section. But [in the case of the North tower,] video analysis reveals clearly that the upper [section] disintegrated in waves of explosions prior to any crushing of the lower [section]. This indicates that the top sections could not have been the cause of the destruction of the lower [section].

6.   NIST’s technical analysis into the twin towers’ collapses stops at the “initiation of collapse.” There is no technical analysis of the structural behavior of the building during the collapse itself. In response to our Request for Correction on this matter, NIST acknowledged that they were “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”

In short, NIST’s official technical explanation is fraudulent and inconsistent with the basic laws of physics.  By contrast, the hypothesis of controlled demolition is consistent with all of the available technical evidence.

This week, here in Washington, DC, we personally delivered our DVD “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The SF Press Conference Edition,” which included highlights of the forensic evidence, into the hands of staffers for the science advisors of every elected representative on Capitol Hill.  In addition, we have sat down with over a dozen of them and presented in detail the overwhelming evidence of explosive controlled demolition.  We have personally invited over 400 of them to today’s event.  How many Congressional science advisors are here today?  [None].

I urge you to go to our website AE911Truth.org for more information, including comments by our members on the problems with the official investigation.  At this point, we are calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to ask a federal grand jury to investigate those responsible for the NIST report, including Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder and Co-Project Leader John Gross.

We’d like any and all reporters who will be covering this story to know that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are here to give you any technical support you need.

Finally, I’d like to thank the thousands of scientists, senior level members of the military, intelligence and other government officials, pilots and aviation professionals, firefighters, scholars and university professionals, 9/11 survivors and their family members and concerned citizens here and around the world for their continuing support.”

 

COPYRIGHT 2014 Thistlerose Publications - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
http:/www.neonixonian.org/the911argument.html