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.
Dear friends and colleagues,
I have been invited to give a presentation at the Physics Dept. seminar of Utah Valley University on 10 Sept 2008, 4 pm, room PS-202. You are invited to participate. Here is the title and abstract:
9/11/2001: Forbidden Questions, Explosive Answers
By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Seminar at Utah Valley University, Physics Department
10 Sept. 2008, 4:00 pm, room PS-202
Why did three (not two) skyscrapers fall to the ground on 9/11 at near free-fall rates, killing thousands? Why were numerous bone fragments found on a roof-top 600 feet away? Why did the National Inst. of Standards and Technology, charged by Congress to explain the collapses, concede to us, "…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"? Why did NIST refuse to look for residues from explosives? (We, however, did so using state-of-the-art methods and I will report results.) What is the significance of red/gray chips found in the 9/11 dust? What is super-thermite? Who are the whistleblowers and what do they have to say? Why were there no air defenses on 9/11?
NIST'S WTC 7 technical briefing took place this morning. A number of good questions were asked, it seemed they came mostly from the 9/11-truth-seeking community. I asked (and these got through but were somewhat re-worded by the fellow "reading" the questions):
1. Did NIST have available to it samples of dust from the WTC catastrophe, and if so, did NIST examine the dust for red/gray chips as described by Dr. Steven Jones (physicist)? Note that over a dozen WTC-dust samples were examined by the US Geological Survey, and these were presumably available to NIST.
2. NIST discusses the fall time for WTC 7 on page 40 of their summary, where we find the significant assumption: "Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant..." However, observations by Dr. Frank Legge and others of the descent speed shows that it is accelerating, not constant at all. Why did NIST assume "that the descent speed was approximately constant" when observation shows otherwise?
Thanks to the able translators who have made the "Fourteen Points" readable now in Dutch and Italian:
It is through INTERNATIONAL efforts that I believe we can succeed in the TRUTH AND INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT (seeking Truth about 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, the NAU/SPP, the expanding US debt and falling dollar, rising oil prices, and so on -- and Independence from corrupt and decaying systems, individually and in communities).
The Italian translators are Riccardo Pizzirani and Massimo Mazzucco. Massimo wrote about this paper:
"we have just [finished] a translation of your “14 points” piece, which I personally found delightful: I never thought such fine irony could be married so elegantly to any 9/11 discourse.
Thanks for it all, on behalf of all Italian 9/11 truthers as well."
The translation into Dutch was accomplished by Frank Ho, who wrote:
"Thanks for showing interest in my Dutch translation of your 14 points study. I'm impressed by this new approach in seeking for agreements. The Journal of 911 Studies is free to use this translation for it's purposes.
"There is one remark. I translated this article with lot's of efforts because of it's main importance....
My main goal is making the information about 9/11 irresistible and inevitable for mainstream oriented public and press. Therefore I consider a smooth readability and presentation as an obligation."
Further translations are welcomed!
Reddit the deseret news article: (hit the "up" arrow - http://reddit.com/info/6i1kb/comments/ )
The "Fourteen Points" paper regarding the WTC destruction has been translated into Czech and appears in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
The authors hold the copyright to the peer-reviewed paper (our thanks to the respected editors at the Open Civil Engineering Journal) and so we can strongly encourage further translations and publications of the article -- into Spanish, German, French, Italian... Thanks to Petr Kral for his first translation of this paper, original here: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000...
The Fourteen Points paper is also the basis of a break-through media article, in a major Salt Lake City newspaper, here:
As my colleague Kevin Ryan wrote me this morning "They took the high road this time." I think so, too.
The reporter (Walch) was willing to speak about microspheres and red/gray chips which we found in the WTC dust -- and to nudge NIST to take a look at the evidence.
(EDIT: FYI, it is extremely common for Open Access Journals to charge a publication fee. This in no way reflects upon the quality of the peer review process, or the contents of the paper. -rep.)
Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.
And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )
The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)
I appreciate 911blogger and the opportunity to share some recent events and thoughts with all of you. I'm just going to talk freely to you my many friends in this community...
1. Recently had a technical paper accepted for publication following peer-review (three reviewers!), in a mainstream journal. Hopefully it will be out soon. Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you? The paper should come out about the same time as Truth Week, and hopefully add to the momentum of that week (beginning April 16th).
Dr. Frank Legge has a knack at explaining difficult concepts logically and succinctly, as exemplified in his latest paper: "WTC 1 Collapse – What if the Columns Miss?" Dr. Legge considers four possible ways in which the columns in WTC 1 could have interacted in a gravity-driven collapse, and concludes:
"None of these four outcomes was observed. Clearly all the evidence points to the use of explosives to sever the columns in a precise sequence designed to produce vertical collapse at near free fall speed. As felling of such a tall building had previously not been attempted, it is likely that a considerable excess of explosive was used to make absolutely certain that the collapse would be vertical and complete. As a probably undesired consequence of this excess, most of the concrete was pulverized, as we observe.
"We can therefore safely conclude that, regardless of how the columns of the upper section interact with the columns of the lower section, the official explanation for the collapse is false."
Please read this three-page letter, here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/ColumnsMissLegge9.pdf
Paper by Dr. Daniele Ganser (Basel University) published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies in THREE languages
Dr. Daniele Ganser (History Department, Basel University, Switzerland) succeeded in publishing an academic paper in Sept. 2006 a significant European newspaper – quite an accomplishment! Subsequently, his article was translated into French and English. With his permission, his article is re-published for convenience of researchers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, in THREE languages:
Français : http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserFrancaisOnzeSept.pdf (Actress Cotillard pls read)
The editors of the Journal note that some of his views may be controversial even in the 9/11 fact-seeking movement – which is fine for publication as long as the views are substantiated and supported with solid evidence (as his are) and ad hominem-type attacks are avoided. The model of publishing an article like this in a major newspaper provides a notable good example. (Publication in mainstream peer-reviewed technical journals is even more highly encouraged!)
A great event came together very well Saturday evening, 23 Feb 2008, under the able leadership of Julia and Kristine (sp?) of KPFK - LA. Julia provided introductions followed by Richard Gage for about 35 minutes, then I spoke for about an hour, followed by Richard once more... Then Cynthia McKinney gave a powerful, motivating talk -- she is running for US President in the Green Party (USA). She is very 9/11-savvy. Finally, Q&A. It was fun -- a lot of energy at the meeting.
I presented new SEM/EDS data on the red/gray chips -- and explained further research that is being planned and done to finish this up. (Hopefully the video will be available soon.) I also spoke about areas where I/we actually agree with NIST scientists and engineers, e.g.,
1. The "pancake theory of collapse" -- has been analyzed and dismissed by NIST in their reports. For example, in an FAQ released by NIST in Aug 2006, they write:
"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers."
Dr. Crockett Grabbe of the Dept. of Physics, University of Iowa, has challenged NIST in his latest paper: Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum
NIST, in their latest Answers to FAQs, artfully dodges the important issues on the physics of conservation of energy and momentum in the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. These issues and their unmistakable implications are addressed.
READ the full paper here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf
Eight-author paper (including 5 PhD's) pub'd in Journal of 9/11 Studies: Extremely High Temperatures during the WTC destruction
A paper that will surely rattle a few cages was published today:
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
Steven E. Jones1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Gregory S. Jenkins3, Frank Legge4, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.
1 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
3 Physics Department, University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland
4 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
5 Department of Physics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
A little background is in order. The paper was written several months ago with the decision to focus on the "temperature gap" between temperatures reached in the "official story" and temperatures required by the data. (No mention of "thermite" was given in the paper -- so that might have a better chance of publication in a mainstream journal. Showing the "official explanation" to be wrong seemed sufficient for this paper.)
The paper was then given to two independent Professors of Physics for peer-review. They made suggestions which were implemented. Both of these Professors then approved publication in a scientific journal (neither is a 9/11 activist).
Next the paper was sent to a mainstream journal for publication (and their own peer-review). However, this journal returned the paper with the comment "beyond the scope of this journal." No technical comments were given, whatsoever.
Meanwhile, two of the authors in the above list wrote a separate (and distinct) paper and submitted it to another mainstream technical journal, about seven months ago. This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper.
The process is glacially slow, it seems...
Given the level of activity with our 9/11 Investigation at this stage -- things are moving quickly now -- the authors decided to go ahead and submit the paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where it was accepted and quickly published following final reviews.
See what you're missing -- Journal of Physics!
I should also note that three physics departments are listed in the affiliations: Brigham Young University, Univ. of Maryland at College Park, and Univ. of Iowa. (Some PhD's are sticking their necks out again... The paper, we believe, is solid.)
You will want to read this one! We hope it will generate interest and comment.
Milestone Reached: 100 Papers Published in the Journal of 911 Studies with "Sudden Collapse Initiation Impossible"
Dr. Frank Legge and Mechanical Engineer Tony Szamboti team together on a paper published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, entitled:
"9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible"
This paper is the 100th paper to be published in the Journal of 9/11 studies in its nineteen months of existence, or about five scholarly, peer-reviewed papers per month on average (including full articles and letters). A great place to get solid facts and analyses!
This paper should be read for its cogent, pithy arguments regarding the sudden initiation of the destruction of the Towers. Quoting brief extracts:
At the Boston Tea Party conference last Saturday, I announced that I had found peculiar "red chips" in the WTC dust, and the possible significance of the findings. The chips are bi-layered, red on one side, gray on the other -- and present in all four samples that I and colleagues are exploring in depth at this time. Paul Payne (great work Paul!) was there and taped the talk, and asked if he could extract for now the part where I announced the discovery, and if I would provide the PPT slides (etc). I did so, and I congratulate Paul for doing this video clip so very quickly.
Yes, the discovery is original work and with other scientists now examining the microspheres and red chips in the WTC dust -- this new evidence, there is hope of a breakthrough, pending confirmations. I will refrain from further comment here; hope you all will watch the clip (and the full talks from the Boston conference as they become available). Again, many thanks to Paul Payne for this work.
Gregory Urich publishes "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of WTC Tower 1" in the Journal of 9/11 Studies
Gregory Urich has analyzed WTC Tower 1 and presents his findings in a detailed in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, December volume.
This technical paper pulls together data from a number of sources and will certainly support further analytical studies of the destruction of the WTC Towers. While we as a community are calling for an in-depth investigation, note that we are NOT waiting for Congress to act; we are proceeding with our own investigation. Without external grants from the government, we have no strings attached and are free to pursue the truth and to challenge the "official story" wherever we find it incomplete or misleading. The series of 99 papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies constitutes a strong, evidence-based challenge to the 9/11 official story.
Gregory's peer-reviewed paper is published here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
The mass and potential energy of one of the Twin Towers is calculated based on available
data. The mass for each floor is established based on floor types, documented design
loads, and estimated in-service live loads. The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons
Kevin Ryan and Michael Fury have added very informative Letters to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Kevin's letter begins: "Just before the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Ryan Mackey, a new defender of the Bush Administration’s conspiracy theory, posted a 200-page paper that attempts to critique the NIST chapter of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking.... Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work includes the production of “strike aircraft weapon systems.” This means that his involvement in the discussion of the truth about 9/11 should be taken with the understanding that the official story of 9/11 supports an historic increase in military spending, and therefore benefits people who work for the military-industrial complex. Introducing himself, Mackey declares his allegiance to the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)..."
Read the rest of Kevin Ryan's Letter here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf
Michael Fury (pen name) writes an open letter to John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He begins,
I've written a letter to the editor, Boston Globe, in response to the article which appeared there yesterday: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/12/03/the_science_of_ho...
I invite feedback as I plan to send this letter to the Globe later today. I wish to address some important 9/11 points, and call attention to the Boston Tea Party conference next week. The letter will also be sent to the author of the article (Colin Nickerson of the Boston Globe).
As reported in the Boston Globe 12/3/2007, a 1/8th scale building was constructed and subjected to the destruction of one of the key support columns. And what happened? The scale building did NOT fall down! I wish to contrast this empirical result with the COMPLETE destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/2001. From the article:
I asked David Ray Griffin for permission to post his email here -- because of it's insightful content. He agreed, asking that I post it with all the names of the authors of the Appeal written to NIST.
Dear James, Steven, Kevin, Richard, Frank, Bob, Bill, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice,
I have just read your Appeal to NIST. It is absolutely brilliant and very useful.
(I will be quoting bits of it in an updated edition of The New Pearl Harbor, which I’m working on now.)
Thanks very much for this great contribution to the cause.
The Appeal to NIST was penned mainly by James Gourley and he deserves recognition for his work in the 9/11 Truth movement. It is available here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl... James and I have written a technical paper which we hope will be published soon. (I'm going to ask you to do a little prepatory homework; please work through the problems here: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.html . All four lessons are helpful.)
A local 9/11 activist taped my talk given June 24, 2007 in Orem, Utah, to an audience of about 700 people (standing room only in the large Friendship Center). Thanks to Tim Costello! He inserted photos and some text (based on my PPT slides) and put this on a DVD, with the idea that it could be copied and distributed freely. Now Tim has put the DVD onto video.google (55 minutes long), here:
A strange thing is that when I checked this several days ago, the number of views was over 700; this morning it was just 138 views... Do they reset the counter?
The talk was one of a series given in cities in Utah and Idaho, and represents an effort to bring the most salient points regarding 9/11 to the public. It could be considered a sequel to my talk given at UVSC in February 2006 (also in Orem, Utah). I welcome comments!
OUTLINE of the talk:
1. Complete WTC skyscraper collapses at near free-fall speeds: challenging the "official story"
2. Lack of Air Defenses on 9/11
3. WTC Dust: Toxic and Loaded with Melted Spheres
Two frequent contributors to 911blogger.com have published letters in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: George Washington and Reprehensor.
"The legal principle called "burden of proof" can help 9/11 activists to be more effective in promoting 9/11 truth and in obtaining justice against all of the perpetrators of those attacks." -- found in "Burden of Proof" by Geo. Washington: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/f/BurdenofProof.pdf
A new topic has been opened in the Letters section of the Journal to encourage well-written letters to Senators and Representatives. Reprehensor's "Open Letter to Jane Harman, Re: Terrorism and the Internet" is an example of such a letter. It is found here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LettertoJaneHarmanUSCongress.pdf
The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies encourage submission of well-researched and written articles such as these, to commence the peer-review process. All papers are peer-reviewed, unless an exception (very rare) is granted by the editors and then a disclaimer is added to the posted paper. Information on where to submit papers is found here: http://journalof911studies.com/contact.html .
The pair of Letters added today to the Journal of 9/11 Studies illustrates how a civil discussion can take place, even when one party is critiquing another's work.
Prof. Mark Vorobej sent a Letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies which included a critique of some material in Barrie Zwicker's book, "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11." Of course, the editors allowed Barrie to reply -- a courtesy we extend in all such cases. That is, if one finds his work criticized by another, then he or she has a standing invitation to respond. This invitation stands to all authors who find their work critiqued by another research. And most journals extend the same courtesy -- hence the importance of responding to such authors as Bazant and Seffen... But I digress...
Barrie Zwicker offers a gentlemanly, exemplary response to, and comments upon,
the paper “Cumulative Arguments and Smoking Guns” by Mark Vorobej. He writes:
In April, the team of presented a Request for Correction to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a lab under the Department of Commerce. This request was published in the June issue of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The authors were James Gourley, Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
In their reply dated September 27, 2007, NIST states: “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
And they expect the requesters to be satisfied with this response?!?
Remember, NIST is making these statements to men who lost family members in the Towers destruction… Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, as well as to serious researchers Jones, Ryan, Gourley, Gage and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
Further from the NIST response letter: “NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.” The next sentence admits: “NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue…”
New in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: "Islam and the 9/11 Wars: Steven Jones Interviews Kevin Barrett"
I will be interested in how people react to this article. I wanted to learn more about the many framed-victims (it must be said) of the "9/11 Official Story," and so I asked a Muslim. Thanks to Dr. Kevin Barrett, the article has significant informative content and hope you will read it here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/BarrettAnswersJonesReIslam.pdf
The Appendix contains Kevin's account of his run-in with airport security operatives -- and his great sense of humor shines through...
"How many Iraqis have fled their country due to the 9/11 wars?
According to the BBC, more than two million Iraqis have fled their country due to the US invasion and occupation."
"Approximately what proportion of Muslims question the US-official 9/11 story?
Prof. Peter Dale Scott publishes: ""9/11, JFK, and War: Recurring Patterns in America’s Deep Events."
Professor Peter Dale Scott adds another well-researched paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies: "9/11, JFK, and War: Recurring Patterns in America’s Deep Events."
One peer-reviewer writes: "It is an amazing paper."
Another: " It should be a fine addition to the high standards seen in all the articles published to date.
You are to be congratulated."
Prof. Scott writes: "If history is what is recorded, then deep history is the sum of events which tend to be officially obscured or even suppressed in traditional books and media. Important recent deep events include the political assassinations of the 1960s, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and now 9/11. All these deep events have involved what I call the deep state, that part of the state which is not publicly accountable, and pursues its goals by means which will not be approved by a public examination. The CIA (with its on-going relationships to drug-traffickers) is an obvious aspect of the deep state, but not the only one, perhaps not even the dirtiest."
Dr. Frank Legge (PhD in Chemistry) writes a letter to an educated friend who is a "Die-Hard Supporter of the Official Explanation," presenting straightforward arguments regarding the collapse of WTC 7. This marks Letter #50 in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. He begins:
"Dear friend, let's not talk about the details of our previous discussions. Instead let's start from the beginning and consider emotions, and move from there to a brief summary of the case. You already have the observations, calculations and conclusions in the papers in front of you, from the Journal of 9/11 Studies. These will not be repeated, but the essential thread of the argument relating to WTC 7 will be carefully spelled out as an example of how the case for explosives may be made.
An excellent opinion piece appeared yesterday in the Arizona Daily Sun. Tom Gorman asks thought-provoking questions, places the 9/11-truth movement in perspective -- and reminds us to keep sending Letters to local newspapers!
On 9/11 attacks: Is the struggle for truth worth it?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
A recent poll cited on the MSNBC Tucker Carlson show indicated the one third of Americans believe the government was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Truth activists are becoming more visible (HBO Bill Maher show) and stepping up their campaign in confronting candidates such as "9/11" Rudy Giuliani.
As the election year soon descends upon us, I was wondering why some citizens bother to seek truth and justice. In social movements of the past to eliminate slavery or apartheid, or for voting rights or civil rights, the activist vanguard are at first detested and scorned by the ruling minority and the public majority. Also, mass denial of the issues may make progress toward resolving inequalities or corruption a long and winding road with many detours and setbacks.
The Journal of 9/11 Studies has published a brief but important letter: Update on Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11? By Mark H. Gaffney
In his Letter, Mark Gaffney notes "CNN has now confirmed the basic facts regarding the USAF E-4B fly over of the White House on 9/11." Furthermore, Mark has updated his detailed paper on this subject, which appears in the July volume of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. His full letter is below.
Mark's research raises compelling questions IMO regarding the presence of this sophisticated USAF electronics jet over the White House/Pentagon area about the time the Pentagon was hit. Of course, the military denies its presence -- but with the clear and substantiated evidence gathered by Gaffney, this denial is tantamount to cover-up. I think this is a very important line of inquiry... one which should be pursued by Congress/other investigations; it would no doubt be important (for example) in an impeachment proceeding.
Reading of Mark's updated paper is also highly recommended, here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Gaffney_911Mystery%20Plane.pdf
Article on the Military-Industrial-Complex, PNAC, and 9/11 by Andrew Marshall, in the Journal of 9/11 Studies
Andrew Marshall brings a Canadian's perspective to the discussion of the Military-Industrial-Complex, PNAC, and 9/11 in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Andrew also discusses the North American Union in this context. His paper is based on a talk he gave at the Vancouver, BC, conference in June 2007. (I heard his talk and invited him to present this as a paper to the Journal.) He brings fresh insights as a university student, and he noted to me that he benefited greatly from the peer-review process.
Please note that the editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies WELCOME articles by university students.
From the paper:
Prof. Peter Dale Scott publishes: "9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney’s Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath"
Professor Peter Dale Scott has written an insightful and provocative paper, published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Excerpts from the paper:
"The 9/11 Commission Report is an example of concerted cover-up, partly by omissions, and just as importantly by its cherry-picking of evidence to create impressions that are in fact authoritatively disputed, and in some cases probably not true. There are many examples of cherry-picking and contrived simulations of fact. More importantly, there is a consistent pattern in this: to minimize Cheney’s responsibility for what happened that day."
"In this presentation I have focused on anomalies in the behavior, especially on 9/11, of Richard Cheney. He, and Donald Rumsfeld and others, should testify, under oath, about
1) The June 1 JCS Order requiring highest-level approvals for intercepts of off-course planes,
2) The contested time of Cheney’s arrival in the Presidential bunker,
3) Cheney’s orders with respect to a plane approaching Washington, and did this occur around 9:27 AM (as testified to by Mineta), or 10:15 AM (as per the 9/11 Report)?
Dr. Frank Legge from Australia continues his diligent efforts to reach the public regarding 9/11 issues with his paper on the collapse of WTC 7 sans math, in an article entitled: "9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations"
The paper begins:
"There are several reasons why a large proportion of the public is resistant to looking at the scientific evidence that explosives were used in the demolition of three buildings at the World Trade Centre on 9/11. The reason for some is that they do not trust their own calculations, or find calculations tedious, and instead rely on a trusted authority. The purpose of this paper is to provide an argument that explosives were used which does not require any calculation. The hope is that readers will be curious to see how this can be done and will read on and discover, perhaps with some surprise, that they are able to rely on their own judgment. The argument is based on material readily available for all to study, namely videos and photographs. "
Also discusses motivations... Read it here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeVerticalCollapseWTC7_6.pdf
Excellent comments and good-natured humor again enter the Journal of 9/11 Studies with the addition today of a Letter by Francisco González, "Comments on Garcia's Sept. 12, 2007, article in Counterpunch."
Here is a short excerpt to entice you to read this pithy, insightful Letter:
"The last section of his masterpiece has the following title:
"WTC7 Collapse, So What?" and reproduces a letter by a reader, who narrates how she saw a fire raging on one side of the building. Mr. Garcia needs no further proof than a letter from a reader to conclude that a fire on one side of a steel building can cause it to come down in perfect imitation of a perfectly symmetrical demolition at free fall speed. Happens all the time, apparently. Frivolous quibbles on the matter are left for the irrationals to investigate "to their hearts content." He also claims that the fires were fed by fuel tanks in the basements, apparently unaware that most of the fuel was recovered inside intact tanks, as described in the FEMA report. http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm "