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.

Leading Atheists are Promoting a False Meme

According to the 9/11 Commission, 19 al-Qaeda hijackers commandeered four jetliners and flew three of the four into buildings. This, from day one, has been promoted by the mainstream media, and thereby became prevailing opinion, and the 9/11 Commission confirmed that opinion.
The meme of religious extremists flying airplanes into buildings grew out of that prevailing opinion. It, a slightly more generic version of the 9/11 Commission’s story line of Islamic extremists hijacking and flying the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Leading atheists have promoted that religious-extremist meme
Possibly, atheists have tailored the specifics to this more generic meme. The more generic version certainly suits their purposes, as it shifts the "bad guys" away from being just Islamic Jihadists to any type of religious extremists. Here are examples:

Richard Dawkins
Most well-known atheist, and the coiner of the term “meme” in his book, The Selfish Gene (1976).

• Quoted from Paul Copan in the Parchment & Pen Blog (Credo House Ministries March 2, 2011) “To top off his answer to me (without addressing how to ground rationality), Dawkins dismissively quipped that science flies rockets to the moon while religion flies planes into buildings.”

Sam Harris
Harris is a leading atheist, and the most frequent promoter of the meme, and possibly the earliest to craft the idea and promote it. Here are several examples:

• Article by Sam Harris, L.A. Times “Head-in-the-Sand Liberals: Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists” – Sept 18, 2006. “I don’t know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate.”
• Q&A with Sam Harris (Official Website for “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris. “People who think you can get to heaven by flying planes into buildings must be educated.”
• “The Science Studio Interview – with Sam Harris” Interviewed by Roger Bingham. Response to question by Harris, “And then people started flying planes into our buildings, obviously based on what they believed to be true about the nature of the universe, based on no evidence that anyone should credit.”

Victor Stenger
Stenger is another leading atheist, also promoting the meme. One example:

• “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.” Victor Stenger thought of this great original slogan as a possible ad for the bus campaign, or perhaps for something else? Maybe we could start running ads like this as banner ads on popular websites, too? (January 31, 2009)

Meme evolution
This meme promotion has been for questionable reasons
The meme provides a catchy way of promoting atheism. Stenger even advocates a variation of the meme as an advertisement on the side of busses, clearly a means of promoting atheism.
There has been no checks and balance within atheism’s leadership. Anyone raising an objection was marginalized.

The basis for this meme was the US government and the mainstream media
Basis was from the immediate accounts in the mainstream media following Sept. 11, 2001.
The account of 19 Arab/Islamic hijackers taking control of four airliners, flying three of them on a suicide mission into buildings, was authenticated by the 9/11 Commission. This is part of what commonly is referred to as the Official Story.

The basis for this meme is likely to be without merit
“Consensus 9/11: The Best Evidence Panel” casts doubt on the Official Story as it pertains to hijackers and al-Qaeda pilots. The panel consists of over twenty experts in 9/11 research. A Delphi method was used to arrive at consensus on points of evidence.
These three points, out of 13 recently published Points of Best Evidence, are pertinent:

Point 1: The FBI has never wanted Osama bin Laden for 9/11 attacks.

• The FBI did not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden is wanted.
• When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated that the FBI had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
• Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised to provide evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed.

Point 10: Pilots did not transmit the “hijack code” to ground controllers

• Pilots are trained to “squawk” the universal hijack code (7500) on a transponder if they receive evidence of an attempted hijacking, thereby notifying FAA controllers on the ground. But leading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified.
• A CNN story said that pilots are trained to send the hijack code “if possible.” But entering the code takes only two or three seconds, whereas it took hijackers, according to the official story, more than 30 seconds to break into the pilots’ cabin of Flight 93.

The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story.

Point 12: Hani Hanjour, as al-Qaeda pilot of AA77, incapable of flying the “official” maneuver

• Several former airliner pilots have stated that Hanjour could not possibly have maneuvered a large airliner through the trajectory allegedly taken by Flight 77 and then hit the Pentagon between the first and second floors without touching the lawn.

These three Best-Evidence points make a strong case the official story is seriously in error with respect to al-Qaeda hijackers and their pilots, as it pertains to the explanation for airplanes being flown into the three buildings.

Atheist leaders should explain themselves
Atheists pride themselves in their rational thought processes. Critical thinking is the hallmark of their rational approach.
The idea of the “meme,” how it develops, and how it can influence public thinking, is also high on their list of important topics. Yet, in this case, they apparently unknowingly became promoters and possibly even designers of a false meme.
The time has come for leading atheists to seriously consider the evidence brought forward by these 9/11 research experts, and recognize the errors the atheist leaders may have made relative to Sept 11, 2001.

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)

Flying Blind

(Note: written in the form of my president's message for posting on the Progressive Democrats of North San Diego County website.)

Like a hiker searching for a solid rock in the stream, Progressive Democrats of North San Diego County seem to be searching for solid footing in the political landscape. On the one hand, the two major political parties appear to be two sides to the same coin, a coin good only for maintaining the status quo. Others feel the differences between the two parties are substantial, not at all equivalent to being the same coin.

Some of us feel the solid footing is with the Democrats. Others of us feel that, if that footing is solid, it is solid only in the sense of being solidly attached to “business as usual” or the status quo.

In our general meeting of February 14, where I recounted material presented to the House of Parliament by Chris Martenson on the three E’s—Economy, Energy, and Environment, the bottom line was that the next 20 years are going to be very different from the past 20 years. If the next 20 years are going to be very different, then we have almost no past history as a guide. It almost has to be, by definition, a time of great uncertainty. In that context, we should make our best effort to become aware of and anticipate differences from the “business as usual” frame of reference that most likely will be there. We should make that the backdrop for any changes in program areas we seek to advocate.

For example, consider some of the discussion concerning the recent health care debate pertained to either potential costs or savings of various proposals. The Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) presented the savings for Single-Payer Bill, HR 676, as compared with the Reconciliation Bill passed by the House on 3/21/2010, as a YES for HR 676 savings, claiming a redirect of $400 Billion in administrative waste to care, with no net increase in health spending. This, as compared to a NO for savings with the Reconciliation Bill of 3/21, where it would increase health spending by about $1 trillion over 10 years. It has been difficult to keep track of the various savings and cost estimates, partly because secondary items get added on or deleted, making apples-to-apples comparisons challenging. The Congressional Budget Office is thought to provide a bipartisan means of assessment of the projected costs of future program options. However, does bipartisan mean the same coin? What if that “same coin” is so heavily biased towards the “business as usual” assumptions that it completely misses a future that is “completely different,” in the sense that Martenson speaks?

We are flying blind into the next 20 years. Business-as-usual methods of projecting future costs and/or savings aren’t going to keep up with the dramatically changing world of constraint. Maybe we should search for a different rock to plant our foot.

Dwain