Sunday, August 31, 2008

FAA Records Regarding Onboard Aircraft Phone Services

The following Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records pertain to onboard aircraft air-to-ground phone services. These publically available records include the types of phone models available and the aircraft for which designs were approved by the FAA. Specifically referred to are the "Airfone" air-to-ground phones reportedly used by passengers aboard hijacked airliners on September 11, 2001. It is not known if the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 contained air-to-ground phone services as FAA records for these aircraft are not available for release.

Additional FAA records regarding the airlines that have used such air-to-ground phones are pending.

More information about September 11, 2001 phone calls reportedly placed by onboard "Airfones":

From the FAA website:

Supplemental Type Certificates

A Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) is a document issued by the Federal Aviation Administration approving a product (aircraft, engine, or propeller) modification. The STC defines the product design change, states how the modification affects the existing type design, and lists serial number effectivity. It also identifies the certification basis listing specific regulatory compliance for the design change. Information contained in the certification basis is helpful for those applicants proposing subsequent product modifications and evaluating certification basis compatibility with other STC modifications.

This database is a repository of approved STCs. Within each view, you can sort many of the columns by clicking on the double arrow to the right of the column heading. You can find a copy of the STC certificate under the section titled Full Text of STC. If a full text STC document is not listed, contact the responsible Aircraft Certification Office to request a copy.

The data contained in this website including the attached STC certificate is for information only. Possession of the STC document does not constitute rights to the design data or installation of the modification. The STC and its supporting data (drawings, instructions, specifications, etc.) are the property of the STC holder. You must contact the STC holder to obtain rights for the use of the STC.


Friday, August 29, 2008

NIST's WTC7 collapse models: some observations

A few days ago I posted a graphic from NIST's latest WTC7 report that depicts the exterior buckling after global collapse initiation. In no way does it resemble how the structure actually looks when it imploded. I had not noticed that this was the model for the scenario without debris impact damage. You see, NIST actually has models for the scenario without debris impact damage and for the scenario with their best estimated impact damage (the damage to the south side). They conclude that the building would also have collapsed without any impact damage.

So I checked the report for their modeling of the exterior buckling with the best estimated impact damage; the model of what actually happened. It's there but there is something missing: the top 23 floors are not shown and the north side is not shown; the side that can actually be seen in the videos and photographs of the collapse.

Without damage

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

With damage

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

It would be hard to imagine that the scenario with the asymmetrical damage to the south side would leave the top 23 floors (which are not shown) looking any better than the scenario without damage.Videos show that WTC7's walls remained straight during most of its collapse. Their model is simply not showing what actually happened, and it looks like they are trying to hide it by not showing the top 23 floors and the north side.

There are no models of the core collapse of the top of the building in the scenario with the best estimated damage. They give 12 models of the complete core collapse in the scenario without damage. Apart from a single graphic of the penthouse sinking in the roof, there are no models of the top of the building during the collapse in the scenario with impact damage.

Let's put their model of the core collapse in the no impact damage scenario next to a video of WTC7 imploding.

Clearly this scenario is way too slow. So we look to their model of the scenario with the best estimated impact damage but floors 18 and above are not shown and the last image is of all the core columns buckling at 6,5 seconds. What happens next is a mystery, they do not show a model of the actual visible collapse. Makes you wonder why they would stop at 6,5 seconds, while showing us 15 seconds of the no damage scenario.

NIST's models of the collapse are obviously no good. You only have to look at their model of the exterior buckling to see that.They are also trying to hide it by not showing any modeling of the upper floors collapsing (the floors that can be seen in the video's.) The actual exterior collapse is not shown at all.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Everything discussed can be found in chapter 12 of the new NIST report


Thursday, August 28, 2008

A new 9/11 clue

Recently, an email drifted in about an article I wrote, What were the Mossad with fraudulent New Zealand Passports doing in Iraq?

The writer said, “I’ve known about this for some time — that the Mossad was involved in murdering our troops in a variety of methods to keep them there so we could ‘finish’ the job by destroying Syria and Iran. For years now I’ve suspected and now know for sure the Mossad had a lot to do with the 9/11 attack on the WTC. The attached mp3 is a recording of NYPD radio transmissions on 9/11. Listen from the 3-minute mark almost to the end. This was never reported in the media.”

The recording is titled, “The WTC-10-5-the-message-about-the-remote-controlled-plane.” In the mélange of scratchy voices bumping each other off and on, around minute three, the words “remote controlled-plane” bump through clearly, are interrupted, and finally assert quite clearly again that “there’s a big truck on King Street with the mural of an airplane painted on it diving into New York City and exploding.” It was later noted “King Street between 6th and 7th Avenues,” about a mile north of WTC, which was in direct line of sight from King St. and 6th Avenue.

What’s more as the NYPD stopped for a look at the truck, two men were seen fleeing from it and were apprehended by the police. To the writer’s knowledge and mine, no one ever reported this bizarre event. When I wrote back, questioning if he knew anything more about the two men, or how did the police know it was a “remote-controlled” airplane painted on the big truck,” he wrote back . . .

“Unfortunately, I don’t know any more details about the King St. incident, but the radio transmissions don’t lie. When you consider the story of the five dancing Israelis and the truck loaded with explosives caught near the GW bridge, it becomes obvious that this incident was also covered up. By the way, these were police, not firemen who caught these two suspects, in my estimation.

‘Earlier in the transmissions you could hear them speak of ATF agents, sergeant and inspector so and so, and the fact that they requested the Bomb Squad and ESU (Emergency Services Unit) to the scene. It appears that two officers became suspicious of a truck because it was painted with “a plane diving into New York City and exploding.” It must have been apparent to the officers that this plane was of a remote-controlled type which may also be a clue into how this false flag operation was pulled off.

“These captured Israeli Mossad agents [referring to the Five Dancing Israelis which I wrote about it in Happy 2001] had training in electronic intercept, military intelligence andexplosive ordinance units.”

The four explosive Fox Reports

The writer also submitted this link, which contains a four-part series of reports done uncharacteristically by the right-wing Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News on Israel spying on America before and after September 11, 2001. The reports appeared mid-August 2006, just about two years ago. The videos at some point vanished from the Internet with “This story no longer exists.” So I suggest you watch them now, about five minutes each, each a mind-blower . . .

The reports include the famous or infamous Israeli-owned Amdocs Ltd., reported by Fox to be spying for Israel through the telecommunication products it sells and systems and services it operates and offers. Its products are widely used by the US telecommunications industry and government agencies like the NSA and DEA, to mention a few. Amdocs, in fact, stores every phone message or request for information made. Comverse Infosys (also an Israeli company) is one of the companies partnered officially with Amdocs Ltd. in June 2002 that offer CALEA spying services to US ISPs and wireless providers through the use of Verint’s products.

Comverse is alleged to have built a “back door” into the equipment permanently installed into the phone system, which permits instant eavesdropping by law enforcement on any phone in America. This was reported in’s article, “Is Israel Blackmailing America?

The article warns of the danger of permitting Israeli companies such sensitive access to the communications, law enforcement and political infrastructure, which in fact goes back many years. Amdocs was implicated in leaking police phone data in a major Los Angeles bust in 1997, involving Israeli mob drug-dealing of cocaine and ecstasy along with credit card fraud. Comverse “back-door” info-leaks to Israeli criminals resulted in the collapse of the case.

Bottom line, Israel, posing as a friend, has been spying on our most sensitive data, and using it against us when it suits its needs. This is above and beyond operatives like Jonathan Pollard or even the “small networks” like the 140 Israelis arrested by the FBI before 9/11, or the 60 arrested since, including our Jersey pals, the Five Dancing Israelis, subsequently freed by the FBI to return to Israel. These fellows were cheering the falling Towers, flickering cigarette lighters, and video-taping themselves for the folks back home.

Israel has been listening to every phone in America for years and has the technology to monitor and record who any individual is calling, anywhere in America. It subcontracts billing and directory services for phone companies around the world, with 90 percent of American phone companies as clients. But Amdocs is 100 percent Israeli owned. Read the full linked story and listen to the linked Fox videos, and wonder if this tiny nation doesn’t fill the bill to a T as a major conspirator in the 9/11 tragedy, with the Arabs coming off as mere patsies. The kicker is that even the NSA and FBI have complained about Israel’s spying power on them for years with no noticeable result.

Despite all revelations, including the Fox reports, what has come of it all, and the nearly $5 billion in military aid we keep giving Israel? If we seriously consider who profited from 9/11, Israel walks away with the unloving cup hands down. And it still goes to this day, including their arming and militarily advising the Georgians (along with the USA) in their idiotic but brutal attack on South Ossetia. No dirty job is too low for them, so long as they are profiting, feeling more protected, and having gotten a leg up on the US, which seems to be too dumb to know what’s going or how to do its own dirty work or infrastructure building.

If this isn’t the self-fulfilling prophecy for another boot in the Zionist rear, I don’t know what is, short of total nuclear conflagration on the rest of the world if Israel is threatened. Thus, Israel’s modus operandi amounts not just to blackmail but terrorism as well. Are you listening Mr. Chertoff, Czar of Homeland Security? Ah, but then you’re a dual Israeli/American citizen, too. What a coincidence.



Tuesday, August 26, 2008

FBI Records Chief Describes Unsuccessful Search For Identifying Records Of 9/11 Aircraft Wrecka

The following is a statement by the Section Chief of the Record/lnformation Dissemination Section ("RlDS") of the FBI regarding the unsuccessful search for records or facsimiles of records, pertaining the 4 aircraft identified by the FBI and NTSB as being used during terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 or wreckage generated by them, including 2 flight data recorders. This statement is a defense exhibit for use in an upcoming oral arguments hearing pertaining to a federal court case for records for the 4 aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.


Plaintiff's original FOIA request sought "documentation pertaining to any formally and positively identified debris" from the aircraft used in the September 11th attacks. In response to this request, RIDS personnel at FBIHQ understood that any potentially responsive records would have been compiled for law enforcement purposes and would be located in a pending file because of an ongoing law enforcement investigation. RIDS personnel therefore determined that any records would be withheld in their entirety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). The FBI then received a copy of plaintiff's complaint for injunctive relief, later amended, wherein plaintiff requested the FBI to "produce agency records, concerning documentation revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National Transportation Safety Board) as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably through the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft wreckage, that was collected by defendant and which defendant has improperly withheld from plaintiff." In response to this request, RlDS conducted a search for potentially responsive records at FBIHQ on February 11, 2008. A search of the CRS was conducted using the following subjects: "Airline Debris," "Debris Identification," "Commercial Aircraft," "Aircraft Identification," "Aircraft Debris," "Aircraft Wreckage," "Aircraft," "Recovered Debris," "National Transportation and Safety Bureau," "National Transportation Safety Board," "NTSB," "American Airlines," "American Airlines Flight," "American Airlines Flight Eleven," "American Airlines Flight Number 11," "American Airlines Flight 77," "N334AA," "N612UA," "N644AA," "N591UA," "Flight 175," "Flight 11," "Flight 77," "Flight 93," "Identifying Aircraft Parts," "Factual Report Aviation," "Federal Aviation Administration," "Pentbomb," "Ground Zero," "Freshkills Landfill," and "Fresh Kills Landfill."

Despite this extensive and detailed search effort, RlDS has been unable to locate any FBI records responsive to plaintiffs request. RIDS' search efforts included a verification by the case agent for the investigation. The case agent stated that since the identities of the four hijacked aircraft have never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA (evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked), no records would have been generated responsive to plaintiffs request for documents.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that Exhibits A-J attached hereto are true and correct copies.

Executed this 8th day of August, 2008

David M. HARDY
Section Chief
Records/Information Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of lnvestigation Washington, D.C.



9/11 Truth Takes Over MSNBC Hardball at the Denver DNC

Watch as Chris Matthews' MSNBC Hardball at the Denver DNC is taken over by Alex Jones and We Are Change Colorado, whose "9/11 Was an Inside Job" chants can be heard as loud as the program's hosts thanks to Jones' bullhorn:


Questions asked at NIST's WTC 7 briefing

NIST'S WTC 7 technical briefing took place this morning. A number of good questions were asked, it seemed they came mostly from the 9/11-truth-seeking community. I asked (and these got through but were somewhat re-worded by the fellow "reading" the questions):

1. Did NIST have available to it samples of dust from the WTC catastrophe, and if so, did NIST examine the dust for red/gray chips as described by Dr. Steven Jones (physicist)? Note that over a dozen WTC-dust samples were examined by the US Geological Survey, and these were presumably available to NIST.

2. NIST discusses the fall time for WTC 7 on page 40 of their summary, where we find the significant assumption: "Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant..." However, observations by Dr. Frank Legge and others of the descent speed shows that it is accelerating, not constant at all. Why did NIST assume "that the descent speed was approximately constant" when observation shows otherwise?

On 1, Shyam Sundar did not answer my questions at all -- he simply replied that they found some hypotheses "not credible," without doing the relevant experiments. Not a very scientific answer, IMO. PS -- they didn't look...
The NIST report disappointingly ignores our papers published in established, peer-reviewed journals:
The Open Civil Engineering Journal:
But by so doing, NIST loses credibility, in not dealing with the issues raised and published in peer-reviewed venues.
I have heard from a number of scientists and engineers who are swayed by our arguments...

On question 2, Sundar and John Gross hemmed and hawed a bit, admitted that acceleration was probable and finally said the report probably needed to be corrected. If they make the needed correction, it should of course change their calculated fall time which was evidently based on the assumption that the descent SPEED was approximately constant... We will be watching.

My third question, about the high-temperature corrosion and sulfidation of a WTC 7 steel member-- reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report -- was not read...
AFAIK -- I say this because, after my second question was read and answered, the feed of the Briefing to my computer failed, and I could not get re-connected... Sundar spoke about this beam briefly in remarks, but I found he represented Barnett's explanation that gypsum COULD possibly have caused sulifdation as a given, rather than an untested hypothesis.
In other words, THAT hypothesis was taken as completely credible without experimental tests, no problem... What has happened to science and critical thinking?

Note that my paper with colleagues on the red-gray chips found in the WTC dust has been submitted to an established journal (a couple of weeks ago) and is going through the peer-review process prior to possible publication.


Sunday, August 24, 2008

Obama’s VP Needs to Come Clean On 9/11 Bagman Mahmood Ahmed

Now that Joe Biden is Obama’s running mate and may soon be the vice president of the United States, he needs to answer a few questions.

In Jason Bermas’ documentary Fabled Enemies, We Are Change activist Luke Rudkowski confronts Biden on his relationship to ISI director Mahmood Ahmed, who wired $100,000 to alleged hijacker Mohamed Atta through MI6 asset Saeed Sheikh.

As 9/11 Truth movement member Jon Gold notes, the following questions were asked by the Family Steering Committee, an independent, nonpartisan group of individuals who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001.

  • Why did Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan’s secret service, the ISI, order Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to hijacker Mohamed Atta?
  • What was Mahmood Ahmed’s relationship with Al Qaeda?
  • Where did the money come from?
  • Did officials in Pakistan know in advance about the terrorist attack?
  • On September 11th, Mahmood Ahmed had a breakfast meeting in Washington, D.C., with House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham. What were they discussing?

  • The 9/11 Commission also presumably heard about Lt. Gen. Ahmed from FBI Whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds during her 3 1/2 hours of testimony. At the insistence of the families. They may have also heard of Lt. Gen. Ahmed during a meeting with the Pakistani ISI. The 9/11 Commission did not answer the families’ question, and did not mention Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed in their report even though they were mandated to give a “full and complete accounting” of the 9/11 attacks.

    As the New York Times reported September 13, 2001, Joe Biden, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, met with Mahmood. Ahmed also met with George Tenet, CIA head, senators Bob Graham and John Kyl, Rep. Porter Goss, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

    It is common knowledge that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, going under the name Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad, sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta, a fact confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI’s financial crimes unit. Former Pakistani president Purvez Musharraf told the London Times Sheikh was recruited by MI6, took an active part in demonstrations against the Serbs in relation to their role in Bosnia, was sent Kosovo to join the jihad alongside Harkat ul-Ansar, later Harkat ul-Mujahedeen, and attended ISI training camps. Muslim convert Aukai Collins, who fought with Islamic Chechen irregulars, claims Harkat ul-Ansar received support from Osama bin Laden, the documented CIA asset.

    It is highly unlikely Biden, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, is ignorant of these facts. Biden needs to come clean on his meetings with Mahmood Ahmed. Considering Biden’s reticence, his harsh words for Pakistan, documented in Jason Bermas’ Fabled Enemies documentary, certainly ring hollow and his exchange with truth activist Luke Rudkowski on the subject raises more questions than it answers.

    Get Jason’s Bermas’ Fabled Enemies at Alex Jones’ Infowars Store today.



    Friday, August 22, 2008

    NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely Flawed

    NIST Claims “New Phenomenon” Occurred For First Time Ever In Collapse Of WTC 7

    Yet fails to address why ground zero workers and media outlets had prior knowledge of an “extraordinary event” never before observed an hour in advance, plus myriad of other ignored issues

    We are actually being asked to believe the impossible - that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.

    In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.

    NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”

    If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?

    This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST’s assertion that a “new phenomenon” was responsible for the collapse.

    Which is the more likely scenario - that ground zero officials and media outlets got word that the building was going to be “pulled” - or that they employed clairvoyant powers of deduction that enabled them to foresee an event that had never happened before in history to a building that was structurally reinforced and had suffered limited fires?

    NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.

    We are actually being asked to believe the impossible - that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.

    The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:

    Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

    Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.

    “Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”

    “There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,” he added, citing NIST’s claim that no evidence suggested loud explosive booms accompanied the collapse of the building by reminding that Thermite, a steel cutting agent, makes no explosive sound.

    Even aside from this argument, there were numerous close proximity eyewitnesses who reported loud explosions, including NYPD officer Craig Bartmer and ground zero first responder Kevin McPadden (who also experienced the countdown before the building fell), but this fact was again simply ignored by NIST.

    “FEMA found it,” said Gage. “Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers].”

    The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of the building is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across a handful of floors.

    NIST also claims that the building only fell at 40% free fall speed, as if this isn’t suspicious in itself. Remember that this 47-story behemoth took just 7 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.

    As the George Washington blog points out, “NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than free fall speed. But it collapsed a lot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.”

    The George Washington blog has compiled a list of experts in structural engineering and demolition who have all questioned NIST’s conclusion. None of these individuals were approached by NIST to partake in their final report.

    • The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

    • Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here).

    • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:

    “Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”

    • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:

    “Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”

    • Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:

    “WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”

    • A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

    • A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

    To claim that the collapse of WTC 7 is “no longer a mystery,” as chief NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder stated yesterday smacks of a desperate attempt to proclaim the authority of the official story by mere words alone, when in reality NIST’s laughable “new phenomenon” claim, the latest in a long line of changing explanations for the obvious demolition of Building 7, only heaps more embarrassment on NIST and makes the official 9/11 story look more untrustworthy than ever before.


    Tuesday, August 19, 2008

    NIST to Release Report on B7 via Public Webcast - Thurs, Aug 21st

    It seems odd to be using a webcast format for this, but I guess they’re expecting all the “internet conspiracy theorists” to tune in.

    Aug. 18, 2008 CONTACT:
    Ben Stein
    (301) 975-3097
    NIST to Release Report and Recommendations from Investigation of World
    Trade Center Building 7

    *** Agency Will Hold Public Webcast on August 21 ***

    Gaithersburg, Md. — The Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will hold a media briefing and live public webcast on Aug. 21, 2008, in Gaithersburg, Md., on the findings and recommendations from its building and fire safety investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). WTC 7 was a 47-story building that fell nearly seven hours after the World Trade Center (WTC) towers collapsed following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    The NIST WTC 7 report will present the probable collapse sequence for the building and will provide recommendations for improving building and fire safety in other buildings similar to WTC 7. The draft WTC 7 investigation report released at the briefing will be open for public comment through noon Eastern Daylight Time on Sept. 15, 2008.

    Shyam Sunder, director of the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory and lead investigator for the federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, will present the report and answer questions from reporters at the briefing. The public will be able to view the briefing through a live webcast that will be accessible from NIST’s WTC Web site at

    What: A media briefing and public webcast on the findings and recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7).

    When: Thursday, Aug. 21, 2008 11 a.m. - Noon Eastern Daylight Time

    Web Info : The WTC investigation Web site at will contain links to the webcast as well as accompanying materials such as the full report, news release, and accompanying visuals at the time of the briefing.

    Reporters: Credentialed journalists who wish to register for the media briefing should contact Ben Stein, (301) 975-3097,


    Insiders love bragging to one another about being on the inside– perhaps that’s one explanation for an abundance of illuminati symbolism in mainstream media and corporate logos.

    Among the interesting references to 9/11 that have been uncovered in media released before 9/11 is a passport for ‘Neo’ in blockbuster film The Matrix, released in 1999.

    The passport– in Neo’s file– shows an expiration date of ‘11 SEP 01,’ seemingly now an eerie coincidence found in the smallest of details.


    Further, the 10-year passport shows an issue date of ‘12 SEP 91′– only one day after George H.W. Bush’s haunting September 11, 1991 speech before Congress where he called for, in no uncertain terms, a New World Order (and before that on Sept. 11, 1990). Indeed, September 11 proves to be an important occultic date/number to the elites.

    Coincidence or not, the Wachowski brothers, the film’s directors, have proven to be obviously knowledgeable about a number of esoteric meanings– not only do both The Matrix trilogy and V for Vendetta contain plotlines laden with occult symbolism, but its imagery is also textured throughout these films.

    The Simpsons, "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson" Orig. airdate September 21, 1997 [wiki]

    Such pre-9/11 coincidences are prevalent elsewhere in the media as well. For instance, a 1997 episode of the Simpsons shows Lisa holding an ad for a $9 bus trip to New York with the towers interestingly juxtaposed next to the 9, portraying the image of 9/11.

    The pilot episode for ‘The Lone Gunmen‘ (an X-Files spin off) featured an extremely eerie plot where a government faction posing as terrorists hijack a 727 by remote control and attempt to fly it into the World Trade Center– the episode aired on March 4, 2001– some 6 months before the 9/11 attacks.

    From the pilot for ‘The Lone Gunmen’ - Orig. airdate March 4, 2001

    The series’ star, Dean Haglund, has previously appeared on the Alex Jones Show to discuss the odd coincidence.

    "Part of the plot, as it said in the script was that this event would be used to start an international war on terror." Haglund commented.

    Interestingly, Haglund also revealedthat representatives of the FBI and NASA would frequently approach X-Files series creator Chris Carter with plots for stories and noted also that CIA and other government officials frequented Hollywood parties to plant script ideas.

    It is well-known that the Pentagon has a heavy influence in most big budget military films– trading access to bases, planes and other equipment for heavily influence and control of the message in scripts– and it is clear that such government forces meddle in other areas of media as well.

    Obscure 9/11 references before the fact: File it under ‘things that make you go hmmm’ because it certainly wasn’t bin Laden who put those references there.


    Monday, August 18, 2008

    Dan Rather announces Giuliani has “flight data recorder” from WTC


    - Rather’s language suggests he has knowledge of a news clip in custody of CBS in which Giuliani “holds up” what he claims is a “flight data recorder” from the WTC wreckage.

    - Rather introduces this clip, but immediately a BBC-style “technical problem” prevents its being aired.

    - Giuliani would not make such an announcement to the national media casually–much less “hold up” the object in question–without confirmation that what had been found was indeed a “flight data recorder” and not the remains of some other electronic appliance from the debris.

    This episode supports claims by FDNY personnel and an NTSB “insider” that the WTC “black boxes” were in fact found, and suggests the actual moment the blackout curtain descends on this matter in the corporate media.

    Like his brief echo of the George Washington Bridge “bomb van”, this appears to be another telling, quickly muted, never-corrected departure from the official narrative by Rather, giving further context to his ominous comments about the “flaming necklace” of “lack of patriotism” inflicted upon free-thinking journalists after 9/11.

    Does anyone, anywhere have video or a transcript of Giuliani making such an announcement?

    Is there any follow-up to Rather’s intro in the archives?



    Thursday, August 14, 2008

    WeAreChange LA Interviews Esai Morales

    Esai Morales was born in Brooklyn, New York and began his pursuit of an acting career by attending the School of Performing Arts in Manhattan and went on to perform in films such as La Bamba, Miami Vice, In the Amry Now, Bloodhounds of Broadway and others. He also appeared on TV shows such as Showtime's Resurrection Blvd., Jericho by CBS, NYPD Blue and 24. Morales is one of the founders of the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts and was an organizer for the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.

    The Truth Movement is proud to have Esai Morales' support.

    Friday, August 8, 2008

    “…that decision to pull…” Six Years Later

    WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein’s reference to ‘pulling’ Building 7 on a PBS documentary in 2002 remains in the spotlight in 2008.

    by Jeremy Baker

    Mis-uttered words, ill-chosen and fleeting, no matter where they appear, make lousy courtroom evidence. When Larry Silverstein first recounted a joint decision he is alleged to have made with “the [FDNY] department commander” to ‘pull’ World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11—citing safety concerns and the “inevitability” of its forthcoming collapse—those who felt that there was always something fishy about the attacks took notice.

    Recently, Silverstein did it again commenting in a speech given earlier this year that the North Tower’s antenna caused the enormous gash on the south face of WTC 7. This perfectly straight, narrow hollowed out shaft runs from the building’s lower floors all the way up to its roofline. NIST scientists describe the gash in their “current working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7” but don’t include a single word about the North Tower’s antenna.

    This patently absurd claim is also easily refuted by video evidence that shows the antenna falling off in the exact opposite direction from Building 7. And since this claim is so easily refuted, it’s hard to interpret it as anything but obfuscation; yet another outrageous and, some would say, desperate attempt on Silverstein’s part to cover up something that might cause him some inconvenience.

    But it’s the word ‘pull’ and its disorienting use by Silverstein six years ago that we’re reminiscing about here. Anyone who’s seen the short video segment snipped from the 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds finds it hard to interpret Silverstein’s comments any other way; he and the FDNY made a decision, pushed a button and brought the building down. They had to. It was going to collapse anyway, possibly onto neighboring structures. It was also surrounded by firefighters and rescue workers.

    When this attempt by Silverstein to explain the bizarre collapse of his building created more suspicion that it dispelled, he later claimed that he used the word ‘pull’ as a synonym for evacuation which, for a number of reasons, has only added to the confusion. If this convoluted scheme worked to Silverstein’s advantage, it’s hard to see how. Six years later, the story has appeared in books, articles and documentaries by the score. It’s also become a web sensation. Evidence that Silverstein’s little scheme actually backfired badly is everywhere.

    I’ve always felt an affinity towards this story, but not just because it’s such a hoot to watch these guys trip over themselves after perpetrating a dirty trick like 9/11. It’s for an entirely different reason. The story began in my living room.


    So much has been said over the years about this word and its meaning (as it relates to the building demolition trade) that we do well to take a look back and see exactly how Ill-chosen and mis-uttered these words may actually have been. Just because we’ve had a hard time making sense of them, doesn’t necessarily mean they were not very carefully chosen. Just because they may never appear as evidence in a trial doesn’t mean that they might not do quite well in other more meta-physical courtrooms (i.e. the court of public opinion).

    Much of what theorists claim connects the word ‘pull’ to the act of demolition has to do with the subtleties of its use in the two sentences that Silverstein growled that day six years ago. Inflection, cadence, even body language have all been analyzed and evaluated. Since there is no dictionary for demolition euphemisms and slang, it’s been difficult to formally define the term. But then again, a dictionary may not be necessary. All we need do is take a quick look back.

    America Rebuilds

    After I first heard Silverstein say what he said, I videotaped America Rebuilds, the documentary in which Silverstein’s comments appeared, and carefully reviewed every scene with purpose. Those who are unfamiliar with the details of this story mustn’t forget that Silverstein wasn’t the only one who used the word ‘pull’ in the program. About three quarters of the way through, a clean up worker on a cell phone says to a caller “Oh, we’re gettin’ ready to pull Buildin’ 6” just before we see the burnt out carcass of the nine story building come crashing to the ground.

    On its face, the comment seems fairly self-explanatory. Let’s go over this short scene in detail. Here’s a transcript:

    Narrator Kevin Spacey: “By mid-December, the Department of Design and Construction had leveled World Trade Center Buildings Four and Five.” Cell phone rings; unidentified demolition worker answers: “Hello? Oh, we’re gettin’ ready to pull Buildin’ 6.” Luis Mendes, Dept of Design and Construction: “We were worried about the Building 6 [sic] coming down and then damaging the slurry wall so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.” Different DDC worker: “There’s a certain excitement in the air about bringing the last structure down at the World Trade Center.” Video shows WTC 6 being demolished.

    Spacey’s lead in, “By mid-December, the Department of Design and Construction had leveled World Trade Center Buildings Four and Five,” frames the scene very clearly. The subject of the segment is the demolition of the remaining low rise buildings. WTC’s 4 and 5 are specifically mentioned. The comment by the demo worker, “…we’re gettin’ ready to pull Buildin’ 6” adds WTC 6 to the clearly defined thought stream. When DDC man Luis Mendes follows up with “We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6...”, the word ‘pull,’ as it’s used in this segment, is completely surrounded by the subject of demolition; not even a slight implication that ‘pull’ might mean evacuation is present anywhere in the scene.

    The comment preceding the video of the demolition of WTC 6’s carcass— “There’s a certain excitement in the air about bringing the last structure down at the World Trade Center”—ends the scene with not just demolition related commentary but with an actual video clip of WTC 6 being demolished.

    Although some debunkers have claimed that there is no proof that demolition workers use the word ‘pull’ as a synonym for demolition, it’s hard not to take this scene (the second scene in the documentary to associate the word ‘pull’ with the act of demolition) as a clear statement to the contrary.


    So, if we apply the same formula to the segment featuring Larry Silverstein, what do we come up with? Here is a transcript of this short scene appearing earlier in America Rebuilds:

    Kevin Spacey: “Pelted by debris when the North Tower collapsed, [WTC] Seven burned until late afternoon allowing occupants to evacuate to safety.” Larry Silverstein: “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said, 'you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is ‘pull’ it, and they made that decision to ‘pull,’ uh, and we watched the building collapse.”

    Immediately we see that, unlike the segment mentioned above, this scene is not framed in reference to demolition. In fact, Spacey’s comment “…Seven burned until late afternoon allowing occupants to evacuate to safety” actually does refer to evacuation, and does so immediately prior to Silverstein’s statement. Since evacuation is the alternate definition of the word ‘pull’ used by Silverstein to explain his comments, Spacey’s reference to it certainly must be noted.

    But briefly mentioning evacuation is hardly a frame, and it cannot be said that Spacey’s brief reference necessarily sets the agenda for the segment. And how a scene may or may not be framed at all is only one part of the equation; the words themselves are the main attraction—and it’s the words that Larry Silverstein said, regardless of the context, that have drawn the world’s attention.

    The Filmmaker’s Craft

    I spoke with one of the producers of America Rebuilds on the phone for about twenty minutes in 2004. He predictably supported the claim that Silverstein used the word ‘pull’ to mean evacuation and our brief discussion yielded few helpful insights.

    He did, however, confirm what should be obvious; that Silverstein’s comments were culled from a much longer, more in depth interview, standard practice for video documentaries. So, if this was indeed the case, this is my question: Of all the subjects covered in Silverstein’s interview by the producers of America Rebuilds, why would quality, educated documentary filmmakers use only these two vague and ambiguous sentences in their final cut? Why would they choose to include commentary that contains esoteric industry slang that no lay person has a hope of defining for themselves? Of all the many interesting subjects that Silverstein could have shed light on as leaseholder of the entire WTC complex on the darkest day in American history, the one brief reference that the producers included in the 90 minute documentary was one innocuous and utterly bland comment about a well known decision made by whomever that WTC 7 was evacuated before its collapse on 9/11?

    Found in Translation

    When it comes to translating this two line quote, it’s what Silverstein doesn’t say that has always been more interesting than what he does say. Fully aware that his interview would be included in a television documentary viewed by millions of people who likely don’t have a clue what the word ‘pull’ might mean in this context, Silverstein would presumably want to adjust. But instead he presents us with a riddle. Instead of saying something to the effect of “maybe the smartest thing to do is, is ‘pull’ it, you know, pull the rescue workers and firefighters out of the area…”, he confuses us with a code word for what? We’re not told.

    Nor do the producers make sure that Kevin Spacey clarifies the issue in his comments by saying something like “Seven burned until late afternoon allowing the authorities to ‘pull’ out occupants to a safe perimeter.”

    The fact that Silverstein and the producers both neglect to define the vague meaning of the word ‘pull’ is strange enough, but Silverstein uses the word twice and still no clarity is offered.

    It’s as though the word itself has become the focus of the segment. It’s like ‘pull’ is the tag, the encryption that the rest of Silverstein’s comments and the scene itself orbit around. And, as such, it seems incumbent upon the producers to make sure to define the term for public consumption. Instead, six years later, we’re still scratching our heads about a word that has taken on iconic status among those who doubt the official story of 9/11.

    “…that decision to ‘pull’…”

    But what has attracted interest to this issue more than anything has undoubtedly been the simple matters of cadence, composition and inflection; subjective points to be sure but no less intriguing for being so.

    It’s always been that last part, when Silverstein says “…and they made that decision to ‘pull,’ uh, and we watched the building collapse” that has drawn people in, and it’s done so for good reason.

    Without meaning to get too Clintonian about it, there just simply isn’t enough room between “…and they made that decision to ‘pull’…” and “…and we watched the building collapse.” If we attach the meaning of demolition to the word ‘pull’, it sounds all too clear and unambiguous. If you push the button on an explosive system in a building, the result is pretty much immediate, and that’s how the statement reads; “we” made a decision and “they” pulled the building.

    It’s when ‘pull’ is defined as evacuation that everything goes pear shaped. The evacuation of a building the size of WTC 7 and its immediate vicinity would take a long time, and Silverstein’s short closer just doesn’t sound right when applied. Again, it’s not what Silverstein says, it’s what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say something like “…and they made that decision to ‘pull’, you know, pull out personnel from the building. And it was good that they did because it wasn’t long before the building collapsed.” What he says instead is something quite different in rhythm, meaning and construction.

    Of course, ending the segment with these words just as a video of WTC 7 falling in a perfect vertical implosion is played in the background doesn’t help either. This fateful juxtaposition of video and commentary is surely the spark that ignited this fire. And, intentionally or not, this short video clip does end the scene with the suggestion of controlled demolition and associates it closely with the comments that preceded it; comments that use the curious verb ‘pull’ like few people have heard it used before.

    Isn’t this a fairly basic discipline for any writer or filmmaker, especially ones that produce documentaries on extremely serious subjects; reducing to a minimum confusing, ambiguous references? Getting one’s facts straight and presenting them responsibly? Of all the comments Silverstein made in his lengthy interview, these were the ones they just happened to present in a particularly ambiguous way?

    If these were extemporaneous comments made on live TV, we could forgive such a lapse, but this is big budget, documentary-style, information based filmmaking. Production and post-production are lengthy processes that leave plenty of time for careful oversight. This particular program is about the attacks of 9/11, one of the gravest, most disturbing spectacles in human history. One would think that a commensurate reverence for the issue would heighten even more the researcher’s commitment to due diligence.


    The most common question asked by the curious after this story exploded across the internet in the fall of 2003 was: Why would Silverstein admit to demolishing his own building on TV? Good question. Slip of the tongue? Unlikely. If you were a successful, media savvy Manhattan real estate tycoon with years of practice schmoozing with the press, would you commit such an unthinkable gaff? Probably not. If you were a producer on an experienced, professional filmmaking team, would you mistakenly edit into your film such a confusing and disorienting reference? I suppose it’s possible but still, under the circumstances, it seems unlikely.

    So, if it wasn’t a mistake then what was it? If Silverstein’s statements were not chosen because the producers thought the whole issue of the evacuation of WTC 7 was indispensable to their story, then why did they choose these two bewildering sentences as Silverstein’s sole contribution to the project? Could there be something else going on, some sleight of hand; something we just don’t see?

    Is it possible that there is something subtle hidden within his words that was meant to produce a certain effect? Could there be a Madison Avenue, gimmicky ingredient contained therein that might shape public perceptions towards a particular point of view and, more importantly, away from something suspicious? Could Silverstein’s statements have had a profound cryptic meaning that may pertain directly to one of 9/11’s most compelling and disturbing mysteries?

    Silverstein’s most recent and transparent lie, the one about the North Tower’s antenna, proves that he is absolutely capable of inventing falsehoods in order to misdirect attention. The incredible notion that Building 7 was clearly demolished with what could only have been an explosive system pre-planted in the building prior to 9/11 has turned some of the most sane and sober heads of our time. If Silverstein really did destroy his own building as part of a role he played in the most monstrous crime and cover up in human history, wouldn’t he want to offer the public some simple (albeit intentionally misleading) accounting for the bizarre way his building just fell out of the sky?

    The Why of it

    This is what I think happened:

    When the North Tower fell at 10:28 AM on the morning of 9/11, a huge cloud of white demolition dust slowly rose over lower Manhattan until the entire area was shrouded in a thick, heavy layer of debris. When the cloud had risen to more than twice the height of Building 7, the 9/11 conspirators detonated its explosive system from a remote location. The heavy cloud of debris would completely hide any visual indication that WTC 7 was being intentionally demolished.

    Afterwards, the stories about debris from the North Tower striking the diesel fuel tanks (placed in several locations throughout the building) and the Con-Edison substation in its basement, causing the building to catch fire and possibly even explode, would have made good sense to most observers in the absence of visual evidence to the contrary. The intentional but unseen demolition of WTC 7 would also be utterly upstaged by the unthinkable collapses of the iconic Twin Towers. To a shell shocked public, Building 7’s destruction would be barely an afterthought when the smoke had cleared.

    But what happened instead was this: When the debris cloud finally dissipated, Building 7 was still standing. The explosive system had failed and the building, which sustained only minor damage from the North Tower’s wreckage, was still intact. When the conspirators fixed the problem, the building was brought down later in the day. But, instead of demolishing it under the cover of a debris cloud, it was done in front of the eyes of the world in what was obviously a controlled demolition.

    In the months that followed, Silverstein was increasingly the object of doubts and suspicion regarding the bizarre and unprecedented collapse of his 47 storey building. More and more, people from all quarters voiced suspicions that the building seemed to fall just like the ones in the demolition videos we’ve all seen on TV since we were little, and things started getting hot for Larry Silverstein.

    Finally, Silverstein took action. He made a few calls, pulled a few strings and, shortly thereafter, there he was on TV being interviewed in a slick, classy documentary narrated by Kevin Spacey. To whatever extent the producers themselves might have been part of the scheme is unclear, but Silverstein had to make sure that his well oiled comments would be included in the final cut. When all was said and done, his attempt to “hang out” one of the biggest and most shocking stories of all related to the attacks of 9/11 was in the can and on its way to primetime TV.

    The fix

    When Silverstein says “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire,” we’re immediately hit with the image of brave, heroic officials getting something important done. When he adds “And I said, 'you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is ‘pull’ it…’”, we’re led to believe that Silverstein, in particular, is up to something gritty and compassionate.

    But the next part is the key. When he ends with “…and they made that decision to ‘pull,’ uh, and we watched the building collapse” just as the building is seen collapsing in the video, viewers have the commentary about ‘pulling’ Building 7 fused together with the video, much like a TV ad that shows a girl in a bikini drinking a Budweiser. Budweiser becomes sex; ‘pull’ becomes a building falling to the ground—a neat solution to a sticky problem, just like the video tells us.

    At the end of the day, we, in our post 9/11 shock and horror, are, with all the skill of an ad campaign, manipulated into believing that 1) brave, heroic officials, 2) with the aid of one particularly on-the-spot individual, 3) made a tough choice on 9/11 4) to do something that’s hard for us to figure out but it’s being done by heroes who gave it the name ‘pull’ so don’t worry about it, 5) that resulted in the strange looking collapse of WTC 7.

    There is one final point that needs to be addressed. Silverstein specifically points the finger at the FDNY as the ones who performed the actual ‘pulling’: “…and they made that decision to ‘pull,’ uh, and we watched the building collapse.” But the “Department Commander” that day, Daniel Nigro, has no recollection of speaking to Silverstein about ‘pulling’ anything on 9/11. In the same speech in which he delivered his antenna comments, Silverstein was pressed for the name of the department commander he claims to have spoken with. He ignored the simple question and pushed on to the next subject.

    Given Silverstein’s history, it’s easy to see him as someone quite capable of attempting to deflect suspicions elsewhere, much like the Bush administration scapegoated the FAA for the numerous air emergency protocols that went haywire on 9/11. Bottom line, his comments linking the FDNY to the bizarre collapse of his building certainly cannot be relied upon as being hard evidence of complicity by fire officials in the unprecedented collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11.


    Thursday, August 7, 2008

    Chemical Traces of High Explosives in WTC Debris

    The standard way to demolish a steel-framed building is to apply cutter charges to the supporting beams. The cutter charges consist of finely-powdered aluminum mixed with iron oxide, with added sulfur. This mixture contains both fuel and oxidant – it needs no air – and it burns hot enough to melt steel. The trade name for this product is "Thermate."

    There is a science to placing the charges in such a way that the building falls inward. It requires a great deal of expertise to keep a tall building from toppling over sideways.

    Many scientists and engineers have looked at the way the WTC towers fell and remarked that it had the appearance of controlled demolition. The buildings collapsed symmetrically, and fell straight down. The speed of the fall indicated that the buildings were collapsing unimpeded. They must have had the "legs" simultaneously pulled out from under them, because a layered collapse from the top down would have taken several minutes, whereas the observed collapse took place in less than 20 seconds.

    Another anomaly in the WTC collapse was the violent explosions. Firemen reported earthshaking blasts from the basement before collapse, and the impact areas in the upper floorss of the buildings exploded just at the onset of collapse. Jet fuel burns but cannot explode.

    In an article published this week in the journal Environmentalist, chemical engineer Kevin Ryan collects evidence from EPA documents that suggest there was both Thermate and high-explosives in the debris from the WTC collapse. Ryan was formerly employed by Environmental Health Labs, a division of Underwriters Labs, before he was fired for raising these and other questions.

    Fires at the WTC site persisted for weeks after 9/11, despite firefighters' use of water and chemical extinguishers to smother the flames. This suggests that it was a fuel-oxidant mixture that was burning. Pools of red-hot molten iron could not have been caused by burning jet fuel or building materials, because these burn at a much lower temperature than steel melts.

    Ryan's evidence consists in traces of 1,3-diphenylpropane as well as sulfur and particulate matter, reported by the EPA to have appeared in spikes continuing as late as March, 2002. Ryan believes that these came from brief, intense fires ignited by the molten steel when it came in contact with yet-unburned plastic building materials during the clean-up process.

    Link to Journal article full text

    Josh Mitteldorf was educated to be an astrophysicist, and has branched out from there to mathematical modeling in a variety of areas. He has taught mathematics, statistics, and physics at several universities. He is an avid amateur pianist, and father of two adopted Chinese girls. This year, his affiliation is with the University of Arizona, where he studies the evolution of aging.


    Tuesday, August 5, 2008

    Bush ordered fake letter linking Iraq to 9/11

    A blockbuster new book from investigative journalist Ron Suskind adds another revelation to the growing canon demonstrating the lengths to which President Bush and members of his administration lied, misled and deceived the American people to pursue its invasion of Iraq.

    Bush allegedly ordered the CIA to forge a handwritten letter from the head of Iraq’s intelligence service to Saddam Hussein that purported to link the Iraqi dictator to the ringleader of the hijackers who toppled the Twin Towers on 9/11, according to news accounts of Suskind’s new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. Such use of an intelligence service to influence domestic political debate could be an impeachable offense, Suskind writes.

    Politico’s Mike Allen reports:

    According to Suskind, the administration had been in contact with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service in the last years of Hussein’s regime, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti.

    “The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.” [...]

    The author claims that such an operation, part of “false pretenses” for war, would apparently constitute illegal White House use of the CIA to influence a domestic audience, an arguably impeachable offense.

    The faked letter was first reported as genuine by the conservative London Sunday Telegraph in December 2003. Right-wing commentators and Bush defenders harped on that disclosure as evidence of Saddam Hussein’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks. According to Suskind’s book, the CIA had been protecting Habbush in the early months of the invasion; the agency persuaded the Iraqi intelligence chief to write the letter in his own handwriting and paid him $5 million.

    CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante reported Tuesday that Suskind’s sources had seen a draft of the letter written on White House stationary.

    The Way of the World is Suskind’s third book on the inner workings of the Bush administration, joining The One Percent Doctrine, which outlined the often extreme anti-terror policies advanced by the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney, and The Price of Loyalty, which painted a picture of the early day’s of Bush’s presidency with the help of ousted former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.

    Predictably, the White House is unhappy with Suskind’s latest offering and the Bush administration is relying on its trademark push-back of insulting the messenger. White House spokesman Tony Fratto insulted Suskind, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his work with the Wall Street Journal, as a practitioner of "gutter journalism," and called the allegations "absurd."

    Suskind appeared Tuesday on NBC’s Today Show for interviews about the latest book.

    This video is from NBC’s Today Show, broadcast August 5, 2008.

    Download video

    This video is from CBS’ Early Show, broadcast August 5, 2008.


    TruthgoneWild is PRO America. TruthgoneWild is not, in any way, connected to, or supportive of, any person(s) who engage in violent acts towards anyone or anything, for any reason. TruthgoneWild is not, and will never be, associated with, or support, any person(s) who are involved with any kind of religious, extremist, occultist, terrorist organization(s). TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the people who read the TruthgoneWild blog. TruthgoneWild posts consist of information copied from other sources and a source link is provided for the reader. TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the authors' content. Parental discretion is advised.

    TruthgoneWild is exercising our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Those who attempt to hinder this right to free speech will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law. TruthgoneWild is not anti government. TruthgoneWild is anti corruption. And we the people have every right to know who in our government is corrupt.