by Starman » Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:40 pm
Wolf: Very appropriate, sharp article by Rense pointing-out the suspicious contrarian-logical branch-walking Red Herring provided by Reynolds, further reinforced by ST4's pointing out the seeming sloppy-thinking insistence by Reynolds that the towers were NOT actually struck by airliners, or his apparant refusal to acknowledge the documentary evidence of Boeing engines being found. His purpose seems to be one of distraction and promoting an extreme position that can be readily discreditted. I am kinda leery of putting much weight on him as an admin. critic. Too, while important, I don't see that claims of demolition (despite being almost certainly true) are an effective route to legally challenging the official 911 explanation or holding those responsible to account for their massive treason and betrayal.<br><br>Also, as an aside (I posted this on the other 911/WTC thread too), here's another important Szymanski article re: an ex-Marine who took part in the early unofficial military-pilot study (well-known, ref. by many 911 investigators) that claimed the official 911 explanation of 19 hijackers acting on their own was essentially impossible):<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/17041.htm">www.arcticbeacon.com/arti.../17041.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--excerpt--<br><br>“I’ve personally talked with the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Myers, and he is total agreement, at least privately, that 911 was an inside job,” said the Colonel. “He agrees with my assessment and the assessment of other experts who all say that the “Official Story” is way off base. Of course, he will deny it publicly as will the other higher-ups in both the military and civilian sectors. They will, in fact, publicly deny ever talking to me. That’s the way the game is played.<br><br> “But they can’t deny, if someone would just dig deep enough to push the issue, that I along with a group of civilian and military expert-pilots presented a 24- page report to Gen. Myers after 911, detailing our theory of what really happened. He agrees with our assessment that it was an inside job. He just won’t admit it publicly and, you see, the games continue!”<br><br> The 24-page report given to Gen. Myers was compiled by a group of distinguished commercial, civilian and military pilots after a 72-hour marathon symposium organized by the Colonel just days after 911.<br><br> The results were shocking, but only to those not privy to how the neo-cons and their wealthy supporters operate.<br><br> The report basically warns the American public that the government’s official version does not hold up to scrutiny. It concludes military defense systems were suspended and standard operating procedures ignored, allowing for the airplanes on 911 to strike their targets without interruption. <br><br> Furthermore, the report concludes that flight crews on all four passenger jets involved in 911 had no control over their aircraft and were either remote-controlled into their targets or substituted by military drone look- a-likes. The report ads that Flight 93, flying over Somerset County, Pa., was the only plane that should not have been shot down, but most probably was brought down on specific orders with missiles fired from a fighter squadron called The Happy Hooligans.<br>*********<br>Also of interest:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/27793.htm">www.arcticbeacon.com/arti.../27793.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>Eye Witness Hears Explosions at WTC; Scientific Group SPINE Provides Sophisticated Analysis<br>Most people admit, 9/11 is the 'mother of all stories.' Now from all corners of the globe, conservatives and liberals are mounting a growing campaign to alert the public that the WTC was leveled by a controlled demolition not burning jet fuel like the government contends.<br>--excerpt--<br>Although Reynold's is not an explosives expert or engineer, the scientific community has also weighed in on the controlled demolition theory. <br><br>In June 2004, a large group of distinguished scientific thinkers, including scientists, engineers and other professionals, banned together from around the world to investigate the collapse of the WTC, looking at 9/11 from a scientific point of view.<br><br>After an exhaustive research project still ongoing, the group called the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), provided the following general statement:<br><br>"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cell phone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."<br><br>The panel of scientists then provided a further explanation based on their intensive research:<br><br>"We have found it to be a general principle that the closer one looks at the facts of 9/11, the less certain one becomes that the Bush/Cheney interpretation is true. Take for example the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers. It was claimed by the White House (and subsequently propagated by the major media) that the towers collapsed because the intense heat of the burning jet fuel melted or weakened the steel columns that supported the twin towers. This sounded logical both to reporters and to the average citizen." <br><br>Spine then went on to list numerous observations pointed out by researchers, discrediting the government's jet fuel theory, including: <br><br>-- Jet fuel is basically kerosene and burns in free air at a temperature around 550 degrees celsius, the exact temperature depending on the mixing rate with atmospheric oxygen.<br><br>-- Inside the trade center towers, the burning fuel quickly depleted the available oxygen and became an oxygen-starved fire, which subsequently burned at a lower temperature, below 400 degrees celsius, which is typical for building interior fires.<br><br>--The temperature of the support columns was initially not greater than 30 degrees celsius. (The outside ambient air temperature was probably less than this.) During the relatively brief time that the building was invested with open fires on the floors affected by the impacting aircraft, it is unlikely that the temperatures of the beams rose more than, say 100 degrees. The steel in the World Trade Center twin towers would have had to reach 750 degrees celsius before a catastrophic collapse could have occurred.<br><br>-- When the NY Fire Dept. arrived on the scene, The fire director reported no excessive heat in the vicinity of the floor struck by the incoming aircraft. Fire crews doused the small remaining fires and assisted evacuees. By this time the support columns were probably cooling and not heating. <br><br>-- Building Seven, which was not struck by an aircraft, also collapsed. There was no massive diesel fire, as claimed, only a small office fire on one floor, clearly insufficient to cause the building's collapse.<br><br>Derrick Grimmer of Ames IA, a physics Ph.D. from Washington University and member of SPINE, wrote an extensive technical paper about the WTC collapse, expressing doubt about the government theory but doing it in a scientific manner. For those who may question the cursory approach taken by those who have criticized the government's story, Grimmer's approach is quite different and highly technical. The following are portions of his exhaustive research paper:<br><br>"What immediately struck some observers, this author included, is how much these collapses resembled a controlled demolition. Indeed, this was the first reaction of V. Romero of New Mexico Tech, until he recanted days later.<br><br>"The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition…Measured times are all around 10 seconds, which is close to calculated free-fall time, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air. <br><br>"The theory put forth by T. Eagar of MIT and other "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed, the floor assemblies, bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, did fail. The floor joists attachment bolts were weakened and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial floor to "unzipper" itself all the way round and collapse to the floor below. The remaining floors then pan caked all the way down. Never mind that floor joist cross-members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA calculations and presentations (nor was the inner core collapse mechanism explained at all).<br><br>"Consider the following: if the pan caking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses. <br><br>"A discussion of the melted steel found at the base of the WTC complex, not explained by any official, forms the bulk of the remainder of this paper. The following discussion explores the possibility of whether it is possible to get sufficient volume of a relatively slow-reacting chemical compound, like thermite, either on or inside the inner columns to melt a section of them or otherwise weaken them to allow for the inner core to collapse. <br><br>"As Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc., commenting on the pools of molten steel he observed at the bases of the towers' elevator shafts, said: "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure. Controlled Demolition, Inc., incidentally was the company contracted to remove the debris from both the WTC and from the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in OKC. <br><br>"Also, in Sam Smith's Progressive Review)] there is an excellent discussion of the collapse of the WTC buildings from the perspective of professional firefighters. Included is an excerpt of an article by Jim Malott, a San Francisco architect, in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue of Designer/ Builder magazine. Malott states regarding a WTC tower collapse: "The outside of the building did not fail, it did not get hot enough…It was the core that failed." <br>[more]<br>*****<br><br>The evidence for controlled demolitions is substantial and cumulative, but it's still essentially circumstantial. Nevertheless, it's significant that highly-qualified experts ARE challenging the official story -- so keeping the issue current and ongoing along several fronts.<br><br><br>BTW: The Arctic Beacon is a good reference resource -- don't recall who suggested it here, but good one!<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/">www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
