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.

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.

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?