An Honest Difference of Opinion

Prof. Jim Fetzer invited me as a guest to his internet radio program, Real Deal, to discuss my recent presentation at the DC 9/11 Truth Conference, “The Pentagon 757.” In it, I argue a Boeing 757 could very well have struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, although under very different circumstances from those posed in the official story. In my supposition, a group of technically competent planners set up a high-speed impact of a 757 into a hardened wall of the Pentagon. They did so to produce a crash scene unlike any previous airplane crash scene. I can’t offer a reason for carrying out such a spectacle, other than to bring a great deal of confusion to the day’s overall treachery.

My supposition is based on what can be inferred about the cr. 2000 state-of-art in analysis of high-speed airplane impacts into hardened walls. Also, my supposition assumes use of automated aircraft control available by government insiders shortly before 2001.

Our sharp differences of opinion were, I think, quite interesting, in that we both strongly believe the official explanations are completely false. Narrowing in on the specific question, did a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon?, Fetzer holds strongly the mainstream 9/11 Truther belief — NO.
In stark contrast, I believe the evidence available to the public is consistent with a 757 crash, and thus, the answer should be a tentative YES. I’m not insisting a 757 did crash, but rather, the evidence that one didn’t crash needs to be very persuasive to overcome that pointing to a 757 impact.
 
Fetzer’s first argument against my supposition was that aerodynamic forces would prevent a high-speed airplane flying that close to the ground. He backed up his opinion with that of a number of commercial pilots, who say it is impossible to fly that close to the ground because of what’s called ground effect. My response is that pilots make that case under the assumption the plane would have been flown by a pilot (according to the official story), and configured as a commercial airliner (again, assuming the official narrative). My supposition is that the plane would have been rigged in advance to make close-to-ground flight possible, and that it was not flown by a pilot, but rather by an automated control system. The rigging might have included center-of-gravity control through use of ballast, which could have included water tanks within the cabin, with pumps to transfer water between tanks.

A second area of dispute was the applicability of a F-4 Phantom fighter rocket-sled crash into a massive solid concrete block conducted by Sandia. Fetzer argued it had no applicability, whatsoever. saying the weights of the two airplanes were so different, there would simply be no relationship between the two. Fetzer furthermore argued that the F-4 was filled with water, which would make it completely unrelated to an airplane filled with aviation fuel. I countered, saying the water was used in the F-4 test to simulate the weight and fluidity of aviation fuel. The overall F-4 test was used to validate the analysis tools, so these tools could be applied with confidence to other airplane-impact situations. Although, we Truthers don’t have the ability to use these tools to model a 757 impact into the hardened Pentagon wall, my guess is that the planners did their analysis in advance, assuring themselves the crash after effects would be roughly what they desired.

The third area of discussion involved the lack of debris on the lawn. Fetzer maintained the lack of debris was evidence a 757 couldn’t have hit. I argued the lack of debris is what should be expected, based on the results of the Sandia F-4 test. Fetzer then did, what I consider to be an “appeal to authority,” by bringing up the opinion of General Albert "Bert" Stubblebine. General Stubblebine is featured on a widely viewed YouTube video stating a 757 couldn’t have hit the Pentagon, because there were no aircraft remains to be seen. My response is, although I greatly respect General Stubblebine, he is not aware of what the validated airplane-impact analysis tools would predict, and therefore, he is “wrong” on this matter.

The last area of discussion caught me by surprise. Fetzer showed a photo of the collapse of the Pentagon structure that occurred some time later, taking down a section of the Pentagon to the south of the alleged impact point. We both agreed that section was probably brought down on purpose. Fetzer concluded, the appearance of the Pentagon prior to bringing it down was apparently “not what the authorities desired.” Therefore, they must have brought it down to make the building appear more like a major impact had occurred. I agreed. However, that put my logic in a bind. Whereas I had been arguing the planners probably achieved the result they wished to achieve, this later “adjustment” suggests they fell short of their objectives.

Oh, if we could only know what the planners had planned.

A Shift in Reasoning: 757, Pentagon, and heliport debris

The question on the Pentagon airplane or airplanes is, I think, complicated. A number of apparent conflicts in lines of reasoning has made it difficult for me to settle in on one set of consistent answers. For the past several years, I have favored CIT's north-path airplane with flyover. This hypothesis implied, I thought, either no airplane struck the Pentagon, or an airplane struck in tight time correlation with the flyover airplane. 

Recently, I've taken a more careful look at many of the issues, and have gradually shifted my thinking toward an airplane impacting the Pentagon. One shift was deciding the north-path airplane was more likely not time correlated with the explosive event at the Pentagon face.

Another shift came relative to the "no debris on the lawn" issue. I was bothered the "no-Boeing" folks didn't have much of a comeback to the Sandia F-4 sled test implications. That test provides empirical evidence suggesting that "confetti" is what should be expected when an airplane crashes at high speed into a hardened wall.

An "ah ha" moment occurred when I ran across a photo in a different setting with "confetti-like" debris on the ground. I was familiar with the photo, as Jim Hoffman described the photo as "...portion of the lawn near the heliport." I stumbled across the same photo in the book, Pentagon 9/11, but the ledger read, "...debris-covered helipad."  The helipad, it turns out, is in the exact right spot for deflected debris from a plane flying directly over the cable spools before impacting the Pentagon centered on column 14, the official impact column. This gave a boost to the 757-on-south-path hypothesis.

Treachery in Wedge One

There is much arguing within 9/11 Truth community about what, if anything, struck the Pentagon’s recently refurbished Wedge One. I am on record supporting the idea the plane overflew the Pentagon, with planted explosives as the explanation for the fireball and internal damage. I stated that opinion on Jesse Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” TV show back in December 2010. Since that time, I have mulled over more information, and today, find myself more on the fence if not on the other side. 

It is worthwhile to examine that change in viewpoint. Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) is the primary proponent of the overflight hypothesis. They base this on on-camera interviews of about a dozen witnesses who independently attest to the plane flying north of a CitGo service station to the west of the Pentagon. The most crucial interviews are of the witnesses who were at the CitGo station, Sgt. William Lagasse and Sgt. Chadwick Brooks, interviewed by Craig Ranke. Ranke asks Lagasse how confident he is the plane passed to the north, and he answered, “100%, bet my life on it.”

This idea of asking how confident a person is of their answer is a good idea. If the “Conspiracy Theory” interviewer would have asked me how confident I was of my “overflight” explanation, I probably would have said about 80%. The reasoning -- deduct 10% because there might have been a way to pass north of CitGo and still strike the Pentagon at the location of damage, and another 10% as Sgts. Lagasse and Brooks might have been lying.

At the time, one of my reasons in support of the overflight hypothesis was the flight data recorder (FDR) indicated an altitude higher than the Pentagon as the airplane passed across structure’s face [Balsamo]. 

New information became available with the publication in January 2011 of a new FDR analysis [Legge and Stutt] that decoded 4 additional seconds of data that apparently was on the file released by the NTSB, but had not been decoded. If these additional seconds of data are valid, the radar altitude measurement indicates the airplane did level off at a low enough altitude to strike the Pentagon. There are reasons to be cautious of the FDR, as it has no identifying numbers to authenticate it as having been installed in a particular aircraft, or even that the data came from a plane in flight. All the recorded parameters could have been outputs from of a very complete simulator. Nevertheless, I think these additional 4 seconds of decoded data warrants adjusting my 80% confidence level downward by about 30%, lowering my overall confidence in an overflight to about 50%.

More recently, I have come upon an article reporting on a careful examination of the photographic evidence of damage to the face of the Pentagon. I find it difficult to come up with explanations other than a 757-sized airplane that would cause the damage photographed. With that said, I conclude my 50% confidence should be reduced a bit more, down to 30%. The compliment of this statement, is I now have 70% confidence a medium-size transport airplane struck the Pentagon.   

This idea of making probability estimates for something that is unknowable, at least with available evidence, has been used in other areas of science. Most notably, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) makes use of the Drake Equation. That is, it provides a systematic approach to estimating the probability there is intelligent life on another planet close enough to communicate with Earthlings. As applied to the Pentagon question, possibly stated as the “probability a large airplane struck the Pentagon.” Such a percentage (if expressed that way) would be the product of a number of conditional probabilities. An example of a conditional probability related to the FDR would be “probability the data file provided by NTSB is valid, given the FDR came from aircraft debris recovered from the Pentagon.” 

If probability numbers were used on this “what struck the Pentagon?” issue, it might loosen the polarization between the two sides that now exist within the 9/11 Truth movement. As it is now, people on the two sides sound as if they have 100% confidence in their respective positions. Maybe they do, but they might be willing to back off these hard-over positions if there was a pattern of dialogue which facilitated taking more moderate views.

If we set aside the polarizing issue of what (if anything) struck the Pentagon, it may be easier to reach agreement on which military organizations had significant numbers of victims, and possibly the implications. Of the 125 deaths, the Army had 78, the Navy and Defense Intelligence Agency combined had 46, and Office of the Secretary of Defense had one [Navy History]. This Army section was primarily a financial management/audit area, and may have been devoted to trying to track the $2.3 Trillion Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld publicly announced as possibly “missing” the day before [Honegger]. The Navy and Defense Intelligence Agency personnel are characterized as being part of the Naval Command Center [ibid]. Part of this unit was the Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot (CNO-IP), as described by Washington Post writer Richard Leiby. CNO-IP was responsible for production of daily intelligence briefings and other intelligence materials for the Chief of Naval Operations, Secretary of the Navy, and other senior military and civilian officials, including the Director of the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence). The ONI was also part of the Command Center [Heidner]. The ONI, it was reported, was at odds with Bush and his primary enforcement agencies -- the CIA and NSA.

The possibility emerges these two functions, Army budget auditors and ONI investigators, may have been moved into the first floor of the vacant Wedge One to be “targets” in the larger scheme for 9/11.

September Reflections

For the first ten years, the 11th was the day to reflect on September 11th. This, the 11th anniversary, for me, the day itself was less of an event, whereas, the whole month seemed to bring on the reflections. Maybe because the background of the upcoming Presidential election, or maybe because the magnitude of the ongoing global financial crisis, whatever the reason, this anniversary of the 9/11 events seemed much different.

Notable in the Presidential campaign is the complete avoidance of the real underlying causes of the global financial crisis. Without singling out which cause is the biggest, lets just say there are several, each would be an elephant in the room. The two major candidates, Barack Obama and George Romney, as well as all their handlers, manage to find fault with their opposition without hinting at the elephants in the room. 

Likewise, there are a half-dozen or so major 9/11 issues within the Truth movement. The leading figures on either side of these issues, and their supporters, seem to be falling into the same polarizing patterns as the politicians in their Presidential races. Here are two examples:

Did a large plane strike the Pentagon?  Of course, the Official Story says American Airlines Flight 77, a Boing 757 did strike the Pentagon. But some questioning the Official Story say no, and others say yes. Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) argues on the basis of a dozen well-placed witnesses that the plane (a large one) that approached the Pentagon was on a path that couldn’t have caused the physical damage. Therefore, the plane couldn’t have struck the Pentagon -- it must have flown over, and the physical damage caused in some other manner. CIT concluded the strongest evidence against their no side, a combination of flight data recorder, radar, and other eyewitnesses, must have all been wrong. The most recent technical article on the yes side was The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane [journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Wyndham1.pdf] authored (2011) by John D. Wyndham  (PhD, Physics). In concluding in favor of a large plane strike, Wyndham comes close to not even mentioning the strongest evidence on the no side. That strongest evidence came from three eyewitnesses situated at the pivotal point where they could see if the plane flew north of the CITGO station, or south of the station. Since they were at the station, they stated very clearly, independently, that the plane flew on the north side. No question in their minds. However, if the plane did in fact fly on the north side, it couldn’t have caused the damage path at Pentagon.

As an aside, I am on record on the no side. However, the more I continue to study it, the more I think I could change my mind. If I do, I will have to decide the three eyewitness at the CITGO station must have misremembered what they thought they saw. A politician would never admit to such a change of their mind. If they did change their mind, they would find a way glossing over it.

The second example is -- were nuclear devices used at the World Trade Center? At  The 9/11 Toronto Hearings held the weekend of the 10th Anniversary, the question wasn’t even raised. Most probably, any speaker known to have considered nukes wouldn’t have been invited. At The 9/11 Vancouver Hearings held in June, 2012, the question was not only raised, but answered by two speakers (Don Fox [Fox presentation slides] and Jeff Prager [Prager presentation slides]) in the affirmative. I followed their presentations with an assessment of several theories of Twin-Tower destructions [Deets written version]. Nuclear devices came out in first position based on the nine issues I considered.

As a second aside, I included in my “several theories”, one which has received little attention among 9/11 Truth researchers. Going by the name Runaway Open Office Space Destruction (ROOSD)[Global Characteristics of Twin Tower Collapses], it did well in my assessment, coming in second place. However, that I even included it at all drew severe criticism from one of the Vancouver Hearings co-organizers, Jim Fetzer. Furthermore, the advocates for ROOSD were angered their theory was included in a presentation that included nuclear devices, so even though their ROOSD theory received favorable treatment, they prefer to ignore its presence on the list. 

In both these examples, the different sides tend to argue at poles length. They seem to adopt similar tactics as the Presidential campaigns. Either avoid the elephant in the room, or avoid mentioning any topic that might point to evidence favorable to one’s opponent. Seeking the truth doesn’t seem to be in anyone’s play book. 

The elephant in the room for 9/11 Truth may be that it doesn’t matter which side is correct on the detailed “what happened” questions. In the bigger picture which pertains to the “why it happened” questions, it appears a decision has been made at some very high level to do what ever was necessary across international lines to keep hidden massive illegal activities, using illegal methods, with confidence the true reasons could be hidden from the public by a compliant U.S. media, controlled governments, and intelligence agencies to snuff out any potential whistleblowers. Not just hiding the true reasons, but substituting a false reason, in this case, al Qaeda hijackers who supposedly “hate our freedom.” Hopefully, next September, more evidence on the “why it happened” will be known to the public.

The Case for Seeking 9/11 Whistleblowers’ Testimony

Unnamed individuals claiming to be 9/11 whistleblowers have sent a document titled Dakota Report to one or more individuals within the 9/11 Truth community. The document claims to give a detailed accounting of what the 9/11 perpetrators did to accomplish their mission (i.e., set of operations), plus descriptions of some future, even more gruesome, planned missions. The document does name some familiar names, including George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, as well as brief mention of George H.W. Bush, and last names only of Silverstein and Giuliani. The whistleblowers claim to be members of this perpetrator team. They also claim their main intent is to expose and thus prevent the future missions. 

The whistleblowers demand immunity and impunity, and protection by a security detail. Should this demand be granted, it must be announced publicly by a high level person in the Administration. It must be announced before 12-12-12 at 20:00 EST. In exchange for these demands, they will provide detailed video, photographic, audio recordings, implicating the individuals responsible for 9/11.

Since the report became known to a number of 9/11 Truth leaders on or about 7/3/12, there has been a scramble to discredit the Dakota Report, or argue against being supportive of the whistleblowers’ demands. One argument is 9/11 Truth leaders have virtually no chance in getting any U.S. politician to advocate the granting of immunity for a case such is this.

I take a different view. I think the document is plausible enough that it should be treated as authentic. (Some will prefer I say “potentially authentic,” but I find it clearer to hypothesize that it is authentic.) Part of my tendency to do this is my familiarity with assessing safety hazards associated with possible experimental aircraft failure conditions. The approach is to hypothesize some failure condition, such as a hydrogen leak into a particular hazardous area. The task is then to prove to everyone's satisfaction that a hydrogen leak can not lead to a catastrophic outcome. There will be people who want to argue that a hydrogen leak into that area of concern is so improbable that we shouldn't spend time worrying about it. I sometimes find myself in that camp. But, it is important to think through the ramifications of the hydrogen leak as a given. 

Similar to Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine (irony noted) which gave inspiration for the title of a Ron Suskind book (www.ronsuskind.com/theonepercentdoctrine/), where he quotes Cheney, “If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.” Applied to this case, if there’s a 1% chance the Dakota Report is authentic, we should treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.

Taking it as certain, the political challenges are daunting. The most likely situation is the demands will not be granted prior to the General Election. That leaves the six-week period between Nov 6 and Dec 12 for the announcement to be made.

If Obama wins, there is the small possible opening in that there probably aren’t any Democrats implicated. However, Obama has been very unfriendly to transparency in general, and whistleblowers in particular. Obama is unlikely to change just because of a second-term victory.

If Romney wins, this puts Obama as a lame duck during this critical period. Maybe Obama would be willing to grant the demand in order to damage prominent Republican leadership from the George W. Bush Administration.

The third possibility, highly unlikely, is that Obama grants the demand prior to the Election. Possibly, granting what is equivalent to a Presidential Pardon on the anniversary of Sept. 11, which if played correctly, would be a major hit to the Republican Party.

This third possibility will not happen of its own accord. Things have to be lined up to give it any chance at all.

One possibility is to urge the Defense for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to seek this whistleblower information. Maybe the Defense can argue that the information has been offered to the Government, potentially information that can clear their defendant from any charges of wrongdoing.

We should seek strategic help from people like Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney on the political side, and William Veale on the legal side. 

Dwain

9/11 Hearings in Vancouver -- Taking the Next Step

I'm flying home from Vancouver after participating in the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings. The memory of the Canadian customs official questioning me as I entered Canada is vivid in my mind. After asking me what conference I was attending, I replied, "the 911 Vancouver Hearings." 

While hoping that would be a sufficient answer, he followed quickly with another question. 

"And, what is your role?" he asked.  

"As a speaker," I replied.  

"Okay, you may go."

And as if to add an exclamation point, he came down with the stamp machine on my passport.

With an inner sigh of relief, I promptly moved on, almost afraid I would be called back for further questions.

Fast forward to the opening session. I really was thinking of this as a conference. Calling it a Hearings was, I thought, just a quirky little thing. Something like giving it some spin to make it sound more dignified. But, soon it would become clear there was a good reason these were called Hearings.

A panel of jurists, headed by Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre, would be hearing evidence from each of the witnesses. I was to be one of the witnesses. 

I listened closely as the first witness was called. Judge Webre swore him in, asking him to affirm he would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The first witness was also asked to state his qualifications as it relates to the area of 9/11 research. 

At the end of the first session at which three witnesses testified, Judge Webre asked each of them to identify two or more individuals for which prima facia evidence exists indicating they should be questioned.

This grabbed my attention. I immediately realized I would be asked the same question, and that would be taking a big "next step." I always had placed myself solidly on the "what happened" question. It was for others some time later to ask the "who did it" question.

My time to be called as a witness was the next day, nearly 24 hours later. Not enough time, it seemed, to sufficiently mull over two difficult questions. One; what qualified me to be a witness on the destruction of the Twin Towers?  And two; who would I name as, in my terminology, "persons of interest"?

The idea of being qualified as a witness brought back to mind my answer to a question asked of me many times in my stint being a 9/11 activist -- “aren't you afraid to be speaking out so publicly about 9/11?” My answer has always been -- no, because I hidn't witnessed anything. I've never considered myself a witness or in any kind of danger. But, now, I'm suddenly looking for a reason why I am qualified to be a witness.

I did decide it made sense to be a witness on the Twin Towers destructions because of my experience as an engineering general manager. There wasn't any particular discipline that would make me that much more qualified, in that the breadth of disciplines possibly involved in the Twin Towers destructions was quite large, indeed.

As it turned out among Internet chatter the next day, I was accused of not being qualified because I was not an architect. Or maybe the criticism was that I was more qualified in other areas, such as with airplane issues. I would agree, I am more qualified with airplane issues, but I feel I am adequately qualified in general engineering and matters involving the laws of physics. The Twin Towers destructions certainly falls within those areas.

My presentation on assessing alternative theories on the Twin Tower destructions was meant to propose a process for evaluating evidence. I illustrated the process by assessing four theories against nine issues. This is limited both in number of theories considered, and number of issues considered. Thus, this example shouldn’t be a final answer. However, in this limited assessment, there was one issue, radionuclides, that made a strong difference in support of nuclear devices of some sort. So, the matter of who would be my top two persons of interest was logically associated in a negative sense to that issue.

I decided, from the evidence that I put forward in my presentation, the most troubling information pertained to the concentration levels of elements found in the dust, as reported by the USGS. Although USGS apparently didn't recognize the significance of these measurements, several different 9/11 truth researchers have reported the strong correlation between certain elements that correlate with nuclear fission. This, I conclude, makes the strong implication that the isotopes of these elements must be radionuclides, that is, radioactive. 

Having radionuclides in the rubble must have been known by those behind this treasonous event, and been of great concern that their presence must be covered up. The first person that comes to mind when I think of hiding the rubble is Mayor Rudi Giuliani. He was the one who ordered immediate removal of the debris, and therefore should be a person of interest for the criminal destruction of evidence.

The second person I identified, tentatively at this point, was Michael Chertoff. At the time (2001), he headed the criminal division of the Department of Justice. My understanding is that Chertoff had authority over the part of the FBI conducting the WTC investigation. Many indicators suggest this part of the FBI was primarily hiding any evidence related to the WTC debris from the public, rather than conducting a serious investigation. I will investigate further this possible connection between Chertoff and the FBI before deciding if the “tentative” qualifier should be removed.

Experiencing 9/11's 10th Anniversary as a Truther

Estranged from society by the media –- connected to the people through the truth. The two halves of my day were as different from each other as night is to day. My morning at home emerged me in a constant barrage of media TV, the audio sneaking through in the background as I partially escaped from the TV images. The media’s version hit me as propaganda, doing all that it could to reinforce the official theory. Over and over I heard of the Twin Towers, the four airplanes, the tugging of emotional strings through careful selection of family members. The more I heard, the more I sensed the glaring avoidance of any mention of Building 7.

The more I heard family members interviewed, the more it was obvious they had been selected because they were “solid on 9/11,” that is, did not question the Official Story. Even worse, these were the family members who had accepted the government’s hush money. (This will seem harsh to those unaware of the details of these arrangements. However, there were a few family members who did not agree to give up their rights to challenge in the court of law. These few have suffered immensely, with the courts placing gag orders on them as well as finding ways to prohibit any testimony on the side of the plaintiffs from making it into the court's records, and to find ways to punish these individuals financially.) Most likely, big money was exchanged for agreeing to take no legal action, and who knows what all else was part of the agreement. What ever it was, I’m quite sure these family members agreed to stay mum about any behind-the-scenes matters.

Finally, the time came to drive down to the local 9/11 Truth outreach.  The car radio kept me connected to 9/11 memorials, leaving me equally estranged from the public happenings of the day. Finally, I arrived at the San Diego harbor walk across from the U.S.S. Midway Musuem.

Just as soon as I unloaded my two large building models, the day made a dramatic change for the better. It was as if the light of truth had been turned on. One of my models depicts WTC 7, a six-foot tall plywood “shell,” making it 1/100^th scale version of the 600+ ft. former WTC building. The other model is of the smaller “tallest building in San Diego,” where the real counterpart can be seen along the nearby skyline.

A steady stream of people sauntered by. They mostly self select, with some walking by while avoiding eye contact with any aspect of the 9/11 Truth displays, or the truthers themselves. It is the other ones, those that slow down just enough to glance at a few of the displays, that almost always respond in the affirmative when I ask them if I can explain my building models. These are the people who have some curiosity, who become intrigued, and almost always stay long enough to ask a few questions, take some reading material, and actually grasp the idea that there may be something here worth their time for consideration.

I delight in these people. People who grasp the seriousness of the information, people with a sense of responsibility greater than their fear of getting into something that may be uncomfortable. These people, the ones who aren’t afraid to think for themselves, come from a wide variety of places. Probably about an equal three-way split. A third from San Diego larger, a third from elsewhere in the U.S., and a third from other countries. These are the people who make my effort seem worthwhile. These are the people that make this a two-way energizing experience. These are the people who give me the sense that the truth movement is making progress.

Seven Troubling Facts Concerning 9/11

These seven troubling facts have been drawn from the various venues and topics of 9/11. Although it is arguable if any of these reach the status of “smoking guns,” there are a number of “slam dunks,” incriminating clues, and one “dog that does not bark” kind of clue.

1. A free-fall drop of WTC 7 was the prominent feature in all the “collapse” videos. This might be called a “slam dunk,” in that the laws of physics require the addition of energy to remove all the lower steel columns that would otherwise resist the fall. The top visible part of World Trade Center Building 7 is potential energy before it descends. This potential energy must convert fully to kinetic energy during free fall, or it isn’t free fall. This means none of what had been potential energy is available to abruptly remove the lower columns out from under the falling upper section. The only possible explanation is that additional non-gravitational energy sources must have been planted. In conventional controlled demolitions, the other energy sources are placed carefully at the base of columns. When the time comes for detonation, these exotic accelerants do their destructive work as planned, serving as incendiaries or explosives.
   
   The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency assigned to investigate this, agreed the building exhibited a free-fall drop. However, they approached their analysis of the problem by creating a sophisticated computer model of the building, and then declared their computer model was "consistent with" the video records. NIST also said their computer model did not include a “blast” event, and therefore, explosives were not involved. However, this is a pathetic explanation, in that their computer model produced a visualization looking nothing at all like the video records.

2. An explosive event at the Pentagon occurred at approximately 9:32 AM. It was announced as a “fire at the Pentagon” on network TV approximately six minutes before the time of the alleged aircraft impact. This might be thought of as an incriminating clue, in that either there were two separate explosive events, or there was just one that didn’t involve an aircraft. If there was just one, the 9/11 Commission’s accounting of the aircraft impact is completely wrong.
3. The stand down of the Nation’s air defense. Each of the four airplane events started with what should have been declared in-flight emergencies. Loss of communications, deviation from approved flight plans, and loss of transponder signals has always been responded to immediately with a fighter aircraft joining on the wing of the wayward aircraft, to assess the extent of the emergency. This is routine, and the response is always rapid. But on September 11, 2001, none of the four were treated as emergencies. They were all called “hijackings,” taking them into a new protocol put into place just two months earlier. This new protocol actually slowed down the decision-making process to the point where effectively there was no response at all. The net effect was a stand down of the air defense system, an incriminating clue that has all the marks of being intentional.
4. Continual stonewalling by the government. As we reach the tenth anniversary, the continuing government stonewalling has become one of the most disturbing aspects. All three Branches of the Federal government have dug in. No member of Congress even hints at offering support for a new investigation. The Administration is equally uncooperative. For example, efforts by a building professional to gain information on the NIST computer modeling of WTC 7 was denied for such an outlandish reason as saying the release of the information “may endanger public safety.” The Judiciary is doing their share of the stonewalling as well, preventing every petitioner that comes before them from even having the chance to call their witnesses. Taken together, this stonewalling is itself an incriminating clue, suggesting powerful persons of influence may be behind this unwillingness for government officials to at least ask questions.
5. Nanothermite in the dust. Four samples of dust collected independently from assorted locations in lower Manhattan were found to contain a high-tech pyrotechnic, nanothermite. One of the samples was collected less than twenty minutes after the second tower was destroyed, therefore cleanup operations couldn’t have contaminated the dust. Although it isn’t known what role the nanothermite played in the destruction of the towers, the material shouldn’t have been there. An international team of scientists reported on their investigation of the iron oxide – aluminum nanothermite, in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31, under the title, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” by Niels Harrit, et al. As government officials have offered no explanation as to how these chips could have found their way into the dust, it represents an incriminating clue.
6. None of the eight pilots entered the 7500 hijack code. Commercial pilots are trained to enter the digits ‘7500’ into their transponder at the first sign of a hijack. This takes only about three seconds to dial in the code and transmit. The fact that none of the eight commercial pilots transmitted this code raises serious questions concerning the hijack scenario itself. This is suggestive of the clue from Sherlock Holmes’ famous case, the “dog that does not bark.”
7. Twin Towers demolished in near symmetry, whereas fires were asymmetric. Furthermore, fires had never before brought down a steel-framed high rise. If fires were able to bring down steel-framed high rises, the resulting rubble would be at least as disordered as the fires themselves. The 9/11 Commission Final Report doesn’t try to explain how the Towers were destroyed, it only goes to the point of global-collapse initiation. Therefore, the Official Story doesn’t even attempt to explain how asymmetric fires turn into a symmetric global collapse. This is at the very least a “slam dunk.”

Competing Theories

Other than the Official Conspiracy Theory, there are three candidate alternative theories as to how the World Trade Center towers were destroyed; Explosive Nanothermite, Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), and Nukes. The mainstream 9/11 Truth leadership is urging that we circle the wagons around what they call “the strongest” of these, Explosive Nanothermite, as we approach the 10^th anniversary.

But Explosive Nanothermite has the annoying distraction of not being explosive enough, not even in the same ballpark as conventional high explosives such as RDX or even TNT. T. Mark Hightower has brought this matter into focus with his Nanothermite Challenge, calling for evidence in the open literature demonstrating iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite with a detonation velocity of at least 2,000 m/s, significantly beyond the highest reported in the open literature of 895 m/s. (Even that is an inadequate velocity, in that it would have to be 8,750 m/s in order to be equal to that of RDX.) The deadline was reached with no submittals in the inbox. I am finding many of the leading supporters of the nanothermite hypothesis are dismissive and sarcastic in their responses when nanothermite as a high explosive is challenged.

The DEW hypothesis of Dr. Judy Wood, together with the many areas of evidence pointing to that hypothesis, is packaged nicely in her book, Where Did The Towers Go? Many proponents of the Explosive Nanothermite hypothesis are quite insistence that no one give any words of support to Dr. Wood’s ideas. I have taken an open-minded approach to her work, but have found weaknesses in each of the areas of evidence that I examined more closely. One of the most critical issues is whether or not extremely high temperatures were involved in the building destructions, as well as in the debris pile at Ground Zero the weeks afterwards. Dr. Wood had pointed out a photo of workers in a hole near the WTC 2 basement, known as the Liberty St. Hole. The workers didn’t appear to be affected by very high temperatures, which supposedly would make the hole feel like an oven. She said this was in the immediate vicinity of a hotspot labeled Location F, which had a surface temperature measured with an airborne infrared sensor at about 801˚ F. A close examination reveals it is over 100 ft. from Location F. Thus, this piece of evidence is lacking in support Dr. Wood’s hypothesis.

The Nukes hypothesis doesn’t appear to have a similar technical weakness, but rather has the stigma associated with it that anyone supporting it will immediately be marginalized. (Actually, there are several different theories within this category, but I lump them as one.) I brought it up as one possibility I hated to mention on an e-list. A response promptly came back from one of the nanothermite advocates, asking me if my reason for hating to mention it was, “because you understand exactly…how it makes us look to mention it.”

The question more and more surfacing is, at what point should an open attitude toward any or all of these theories be abandoned?

Can more than 1,000 architects and engineers be wrong?

The Freedom of Information Act used to be key to transparency in government. Not any more — at least, not if you ask about Building 7, a 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper that came crashing down on Sept. 11.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology investigated the collapse of Building 7 and issued their final report. They took a very unusual approach. Rather than examining remnants from the destroyed building, they developed a computer model that they claimed represented the building's characteristics. They theorized what might have been the cause for the collapse, then ran their computer model and claimed it represented what had actually happened. NIST states office fires alone led to the collapse of the building.

Now, more than 1,000 architects and engineers are asking for a new investigation. They say this defies the laws of physics. They ask for information on the computer model. Was it an accurate representation of the building itself?

Attempts to use FOIA to get information on the model have been futile. NIST refuses to provide critical information, saying, "release of the information may endanger public safety."

What? Endanger public safety? FOIA requests shouldn't be refused for such outlandish reasons.

(Note: This was published as a letter to editor in the North County Times on April 6, 2010)

Starting to chip away

This is me exploring this new domain. A place to blog.

Here's some recent happenings on my favorite topics:

1. I just read an outstanding article in New Yorker by Calvin Trillin about his late wife, Alice. She was a giving, a caring person unlike probably anyone you've heard of before. As a very minor comment late in the article, Calvin said she had absolutely no interest in religion.

2. Two factions have developed within Scholars for 9/11 Truth. They have decided to go their separate ways. One side believes the towers came down due to conventional explosives. The other side believes they came down due to unconventional (high tech) explosives. However, they are united in their view that the official explanation (planes striking buildings plus fires initiated by jet fuel) could not be true.

3. Guess I can't think of any new developments on the peak-oil scene. Probably the biggest thing is the growing list of countries shifting their future oil contracts out of US dollars.

4. I sat in on a breakout session recently at a conference with Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. He discussed President Bush's support for the Military Commissions Act. During the session, Paul said that "the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities."

Paul also warned that "the Military Commissions Act and the Defense Authorization Act . . . essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus."

Paul continued by noting, "Right now we don't have concentration camps, but . . . the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus." He then said, "If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun?"

Dwain