911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
Kevin Ryan's blog
At the Journal of 9/11 Studies we have a new letter from Professor Lance de-Haven Smith.
The letter is titled Conspiracy Denial in the U.S. Media. Here's an excerpt:
"Many American journalists appear to be locked into a peculiar way of thinking that makes them blind to signs of political criminality in high office. This mindset is characterized by an apparent inability to differentiate groundless accusations of elite political intrigue from legitimate concerns about the integrity of U.S. political leaders and institutions. For some reason, when it comes to popular suspicions of schemes involving the nation’s political elites, many journalists in the United State make no distinctions. They categorize all such suspicions as “conspiracy theories,” which they assume are not only untrue, but wacky and paranoid."
We would like to announce the publication, in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, of Matthew Witt’s article, “Morewell than Orwell: Paramilitarization in the United States post-9/11”. Matthew Witt is well known as a member of the group of scholars that has encouraged the study of “State Crimes Against Democracy” (SCAD). In this article he looks, not at the events of 9/11 themselves, but at the crisis of legitimation that the U.S. state faces and the way it has, since 9/11, chosen to respond to this crisis. The Occupy Wall Street movement is taken as the central example of state response and repression.
As we announce this publication we also want to announce our intention to broaden the scope of the Journal. The historical importance of the Journal lies in detailed, critical examination of the events of the day of 9/11, and we have no intention of abandoning this focus, but there are many disciplines we would like to invite into the conversation and we would like to include studies of the context and meaning of 9/11. We are aware that there are other journals that attempt to deal with these issues, but with few exceptions these journals accept the official narrative of 9/11 and tend to exclude the writings of authors with a critical perspective. In our view this means that the interpretations of 9/11 developed in these journals are bound to be faulty. We want to create a space where researchers working in the humanities, such as John McMurtry, whose recent article on the moral decoding of 9/11 has drawn a good deal of attention, and Matthew Witt can write without the usual pressure to adhere to flawed accounts of 9/11. In this process we also hope that people who have not traditionally read our Journal will find themselves drawn to it and to its critical perspective on recent history.
Please post links to these articles on all relevant websites so that we can invite as many people as possible into a dialogue on these important events.
Kevin Ryan and Graeme MacQueen
Professor Graeme MacQueen and I are pleased to announce two new, peer reviewed articles that have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
The first is from German journalist Paul Schreyer and is titled Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11.
This paper identifies six major, simultaneous anomalies that occurred on September 11, 2001 with regard to the national air defenses. Here is an excerpt:
“The official explanation for the detour is that air traffic controllers at Langley had sort of a standard flight plan, sending all jets generally to the east and that this standardized eastern heading somehow replaced the original NORAD scramble order. But this seems to be a dubious claim. Because how could that have happened? The pilots knew the original scramble order. They knew which direction NEADS wanted them to fly. And then they somehow forgot? But, same as with the Otis scramble, there seems only little chance to dig deeper because ‘Giant Killer’, the responsible control facility, deleted all its tapes from the communication on 9/11."
The second article is from licensed structural engineer Ronald H. Brookman and is titled A Discussion of “Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse.”
This paper discusses a recent article published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, authored by a team including several of the primary NIST WTC report authors. Brookman’s discussion reviews how the NIST authors continue to ignore facts related to the construction of WTC 7 in their computer models, and how the basic information needed to verify those computer models remains unavailable to independent researchers. Here is an excerpt:
“The destruction of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001 and the final NCSTAR reports issued in 2008 raise many questions in addition to those outlined here, but one thing is certain: Thousands of hours of computer simulation are no substitute for a forensic investigation based on published national standards and well-established principles of scientific inquiry. “
For the 11th anniversary of September 11, we at the Journal of 9/11 Studies would like to share a series of letters from thoughtful people who have reflected on the tragic events of that day. Five letters are being published today, from the following individuals.
Lorie Van Auken is a founding member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee. Without her dedication there would never have been a 9/11 Commission investigation.
Gregg Fishman is Secretary of the World Trade Center Rescuers Foundation. Like others he represents, Gregg risked his life and health in an attempt to rescue and recover victims following the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.
Father Frank Morales is an Episcopal priest, activist, and author from New York City. He was present at Ground Zero shortly after the 9/11 events, offering prayers for the victims and support for the first responders.
David Johnson is Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee. Dr. Johnson served as a panelist at the Toronto Hearings on the tenth anniversary of 9/11.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has investigated the events of September 11, 2001 and his writings on that and other subjects have attracted a worldwide following.
A similar number of letters from other contributors will be published later this week. We hope that the words and sacrifice of these great people will make a difference on the anniversary of 9/11 and into the future.
Sincerely, Graeme MacQueen and Kevin Ryan, co-editors
We have a new format at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. As before, there are over 60 peer-reviewed articles, nearly 70 letters, and a section for those just beginning to look into the unanswered question of 9/11.
There are two new entries in the letter section.
The first is a detailed paper by Dr. Frank Legge entitled The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus.
The second is a letter written last year by the board of directors of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, addressed to Sir Paul Nurse of the Royal Society of London.
Unfortunately, Sir Paul and the Royal Society could not be troubled to respond. If you're wondering why, the Society's contact page is at this link.
People from around the world came together at Ryerson University in Toronto, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, to present evidence challenging the official accounts of that day. A DVD of the proceeding of the "Toronto Hearings" is nearly complete. Here is a preview.
Detailed investigation reveals unexpected connections among people who played critical roles related to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Earlier articles have covered some of those connections with respect to the World Trade Center (WTC) and the official reports which were produced to explain the WTC events. This article will begin to outline a wider set of connections that encompasses more aspects of 9/11. Readers may find that, with respect to the 9/11 attacks and those who were responsible for protecting us from terrorism, it is a small world after all.
Barry McDaniel came to the WTC security company Stratesec, in 1998, to become its Chief Operating Officer. In the years before 9/11, Stratesec had contracts to provide security services not only for the WTC, but also for United Airlines, which owned two of the planes hijacked on 9/11, and Dulles Airport, where American Airlines Flight 77 took off that day.
At the WTC, McDaniel was in charge of the security operation in terms of what he called a “completion contract,” to provide services “up to the day the buildings fell down.” McDaniel came to Stratesec directly from BDM International, where he had been Vice President for nine years. BDM was a major subsidiary of The Carlyle Group for most of that time. When Barry McDaniel started at BDM, the company began getting a large amount of government business “in an area the Navy called Black Projects,” or budgets that were kept secret.
Public Lecture - The Collapse of the Seventh Tower: A Physical & Chemical Analysis
Niels H. Harrit, Copenhagen University
When: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 @ 7:15-9:15 p.m.
Where: Morrison Hall 007
Departmental Sponsors: College of Arts and Sciences, American Studies Program
To most people, the image of the World Trade Center (WTC) is confined to the famous twin towers, which dominated the New York skyline until September 11th, 2001, when they collapsed after each one being hit by an airliner. However, the trade center was an assembly of seven buildings around a plaza. The youngest of these, WTC7, was a huge office building, reaching 186 meters and 47 stories into the air. The ground-plan area was little less than a soccer field.
WTC7 was not hit by an airliner. Still, it collapsed seven hours after the twin towers in a totally symmetric movement with free-fall speed. It was the most unexpected collapse in the history of modern building construction.
The talk outlines the factual circumstances around this event. These facts are held up against the official account of the event as it has been presented in a report from National Institute of Standards and Technology. According to this report, WTC7 collapsed due to fire. But never before - or since - in history has a steel-framed high-riser collapsed due to fire.
In the second part of the talk it is proposed that the collapse of WTC was due to controlled demolitions using explosives. In addition, unambiguous evidence points to the use of thermite, which is an energetic material used to cut and weld steel. The newest findings in the dust include still-reactive remains of so-called nano-thermite.
On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies will sponsor four days of citizen hearings at Ryerson University in the city of Toronto, Canada. These international hearings will be commonly referred to as the Toronto Hearings and more information can be found at http://torontohearings.org/ .
The objectives of the hearings are as follows:
1. To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.
2. To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.
3. To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens.
4. To engage the attention of the public and media through witness testimony as well as through public talks and media events during the four day event.
For more information, contact the steering committee at http://torontohearings.org/about/ .
The organizers of the Toronto Hearings have received a large number of inquiries from people who want to attend the Hearings. As a result, we’re pleased to offer approximately 100 seats to members of the public to attend as non-participant audience members. Seats may be reserved for all 4 days of the Hearings for a donation of $200 per seat. Click here to make that donation and reserve your seats.
For those who are attending, various hotel accommodations are listed at the site as well.
Daily attendance at a lower cost may be available at a date closer to the event, depending on what seating remains available.
Since announcing the Hearings nearly one month ago, we have raised one-third of our $25,000 funding target. Work continues on finalization of the witness list and the panel.
We wish to thank everyone who has offered to help and all those who have expressed interest in attendance. Please check back with us for further updates.
Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11: The Wall Street Lawyer and the Special Ops Hijack Coordinator
Of the many unanswered questions about the attacks of September 11, one of the most important is: Why were none of the four planes intercepted? A rough answer is that the failure of the US air defenses can be traced to a number of factors and people. There were policy changes, facility changes, and personnel changes that had recently been made, and there were highly coincidental military exercises that were occurring on that day. But some of the most startling facts about the air defense failures have to do with the utter failure of communications between the agencies responsible for protecting the nation. At the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), two people stood out in this failed chain of communications. One was a lawyer on his first day at the job, and another was a Special Operations Commander who was never held responsible for his critical role, or even questioned about it.
The 9/11 Commission wrote in its report that – “On 9/11, the defense of U.S. airspace depended on close interaction between two federal agencies: the FAA and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).”
According to the Commission, this interaction began with air traffic controllers (ATCs) at the relevant regional FAA control centers, which on 9/11 included Boston, New York, Cleveland, and Indianapolis. In the event of a hijacking, these ATCs were expected to “notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters. Headquarters had a hijack coordinator, who was the director of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security or his or her designate. “
When I was fired by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) for publicly questioning the company’s testing related to the World Trade Center (WTC), and its role in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), UL claimed that there was “no evidence” that any company had tested the WTC steel components.
Of course, that was a lie. The company had already admitted that it was responsible for the fire resistance testing related to the WTC buildings, in an April 2002 letter to the editor of the New York Times. Below is that letter. UL had also certified the fireproofing material and had consulted with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey throughout the life of the buildings.
The author of the letter to the editor, UL’s manager of its Fire Protection division, Tom Chapin, wrote in defense of ASTM E119, the standard test UL had used to ensure fire resistance of the buildings. The NYC code, which UL’s CEO had confirmed to me was used to guide the testing, required two hours of fire resistance for the steel columns and 3 hours of fire resistance for floor assemblies. One of the buildings fell in 56 minutes.
Two new papers have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
The first is called "Why Australia's Presence in Afghanistan is Untenable," by James O'Neill. Here is an excerpt:
"The events of 11 September 2001 provided a nominal casus belli for the attack and occupation of Afghanistan, heavily promoted by the mainstream media, which particularly in the United States is closely linked to the major armaments manufacturers. The same mainstream media have uncritically accepted and promoted the US government’s version of events about 11 September 2001, not because that account is plausible, which it manifestly is not, but because to question the rationale for military intervention is to question the whole of post World War II US foreign policy. If US foreign policy is seriously flawed then that in turn must raise serious questions about the level and extent of Australia’s adherence to the policies of its powerful ally."
The second paper is by Aidan Monaghan. It is called "Review of Analysis of Observed and Measured In-Flight Turns Suggests Superior Control of 9/11 Aircraft." Here is an excerpt:
"Although human control of UA 175 cannot be ruled out, small margins for error are evident in the number of available degrees of bank that could generate impact with WTC 2 via a constant radius turn from approximately 1.5 miles distant. An error of 5 degrees of bank left or right seems largely indiscernible to an observer, but would generate substantial distances from a given target. To achieve impact via a mile-long plus constant radius banked turn, within an acceptable margin of error would seem to be a substantial challenge to a reportedly inexperienced pilot without aid. The CWS function would apparently provide an in-flight automated stability that would permit a pilot to apply greater attention to the course of an aircraft and consider whether additional maneuvers would be required."