Tucson Weekly: Ten years later

From: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/serraglio/Content?category=1315172


Ten years later, some—like Randy—still believe in Sept. 11 conspiracy theories

After the sustained media frenzy of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, most people are probably ready to move on. I offer this question as a starting point for the next 10 years: "Sure, but move on to what?"

Based on the past 10 years, we can expect more wars that have little to do with Sept. 11, but will sacrifice the lives of far more Americans than the 3,000 who died that day, as well as the lives of many, many more foreign civilians. Our government will continue to justify and codify torture as an indispensable element of U.S. foreign policy and subvert the civil liberties upon which this nation was founded. And we'll face the harsh reality that such actions cause suffering and resentment that generate more terrorism.

Excuse me for jumping to the conclusion that we're moving in the wrong direction.

Here's an alternative: Why not start with a real investigation of the events of Sept. 11? I mean a full-on, independent criminal investigation, with prosecutors, subpoenas and the whole nine yards, not the half-assed, politically constrained nonsense churned out by the 9/11 Commission. I think we owe the victims of this massive crime nothing less.

A lot of the groundwork for such an investigation has already been laid by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a group devoted to the scientific study of the physical evidence of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

I spoke with Peter Morse, a Tucson engineer with a lot of experience in the construction of large, steel-framed buildings and a former board member of AE 9/11 Truth. Like 1,600 other colleagues in the group, Peter hardly fits the profile of "conspiracy theorist" that is so commonly used to dismiss anyone who questions the official story of Sept. 11. The group is packed with luminaries and true experts, including National Medal of Science winners, a professor emeritus of physics at Brigham Young University, and the former director of Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative.

It's a highly qualified group, but most of them came to the issue through simple common sense. Like Peter, they watched video, read the official explanation of the towers' collapse, scratched their heads and asked, "How could that have happened?" The closer they looked, the clearer it became that the government's fanciful theories were unsupportable, and the more these professionals were drawn, however reluctantly, into the fight to establish the truth. "It goes against the psyche of engineers in general to invite conflict," as Peter put it. "But we took an oath to protect the public."

If you want to talk conspiracy theories, the official explanation for the collapsing towers is a whopper. It posits that skyscrapers specifically designed to withstand the hottest fires and direct impacts from airplanes somehow succumbed to those stresses and collapsed at virtually free-fall speed, straight down into their own footprints. Never before had such a thing occurred—despite other skyscrapers hit by planes and beset by fires far hotter than those present at the World Trade Center—but on Sept. 11, it happened three times in eight hours.

The alternative case carefully constructed by AE 9/11 Truth researchers is startling. A straight-down, nearly free-fall collapse means that the structures met virtually no resistance on the way down, and all of the reinforced steel support columns must have failed completely and simultaneously. This simple physical law disproves the preposterous theories put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the author of the official collapse story.

Subsequent testing of WTC dust samples established the presence of thermite, a high-powered incendiary that cuts through a steel beam like a lightning bolt through a stick of butter. This evidence is hard proof of the most-likely collapse scenario, one that was completely ignored by NIST, which did not even test for explosives, despite eyewitness testimony of more than 100 New York City firefighters who heard and saw explosions on Sept. 11.

I remember network news anchor Peter Jennings, mesmerized by video of the collapse, observing, "Almost like a controlled demolition." Indeed, thousands of buildings have collapsed straight down at virtually free-fall speed over the years, and every one of them resulted from controlled demolition.

I'd say Mr. Jennings' journalistic instincts were correct. Kudos to Peter Morse and the rest of the patriotic citizens of AE 9/11 Truth for picking up where he left off. Check out their website for yourself at www.ae911truth.org.

When a formal criminal investigation determines who planted those explosives and why, then maybe our nation can start figuring out where it's headed in the next 10 years.


it wasn't me

I did a double-take and lol'd when I opened up 911Blogger and saw this headline.

After reading the article, yep, that is me.

Great job Randy!!!

You set a great example!
Also, this was extremely well written.


A trend? ...a trend of a network of alternative media?

The Tucson Weekly has an affiliation with "Voice Media".
Here are some of the assets owned by Voice Media: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Village_Voice_Media

Here is a map of "Voice Media" service areas.

Our "North Texans for 9/11 Truth" Group has utilized advertising throughout all the major cities in Texas with "Backpage.com" of "Voice Media"
*****(By the way, it is very affordable and anyone with a credit card can do it online.)
...and in the "Voice Media" owned Dallas Observer...

The Dallas Observer surprisingly wrote a relatively positive article about 9/11 Truth

Randy's article might be a sign of a new trend with this media network.


Just to be clear, Serraglio is not my last name. I'm the guy that got beat up by Bill Maher's goons 10/07.

Supportive comments

The first posted comment beneath the article was a snarky, dismissive remark, and it was great to see that that was met by some snarky counter-remarks farther down, along with a lot of other very supportive comments.

The Tuscson Weekly (and especially their headline writer) may not be pleased with this development, but I sure am!


Snarky? My name is Randy too. The article rang true with me.

Sorry if I was misunderstood.

It's classic

The way that the title has "conspiracy theories" but the entire write-up debunks that label.

Hey, Editor, who are they?

I would like the Editor to tell us who the folks are who do »not« "still believe in conspiracy theories." Who are they, what truth do they believe and who gave them that truth?

If he cannot do that then he should apologize to Randy for insulting him with the "conspiracy theory" smear.

Apologists for the official story must be beginning to feel lonely. The OCT is in tatters from all perspectives but the cover-up artists have (so far) absconded and left the apologists twisting in the wind as they are armed not with facts but only empty ad hominems and insults.

(mechanical engineer pe aka Peter Morse)

Unconfusing the thread...

First off, Randy from 911blogger (http://911blogger.com/users/randy) did not write the article.

The author of the article in Tuscon Weekly is called "Randy Serraglio", and shares Randy's first name.

TomT assumed Randy from 911blogger wrote the article in TW and praised him for it. Randy did not write the article.

rm wrote that he thought the first comment was a snarky one. By "first comment", he meant the first comment at Tuscon Weekly, not the first comment in this thread. This was misunderstood by Randy from 911blogger who replied in confusion, thinking he had been accused of writing a snarky comment.

To compound confusion, "mechanical-engineer-pe" (Peter Morse) chimes in and accuses the author of the article in Tuscon Weekly, Randy Serraglio, of insulting Randy from 911blogger. It appears Peter misunderstood the title of the article and may not have read the article itself. Randy Serraglio, who is not Randy from 911blogger, wrote an article supportive of 9/11 Truth in Tuscon Weekly. The title of his article refers to himself in the third person.

I hope that "unconfuses" everybody?

thanks for clearing that up SnowCrash

I caught on to a lot of that, but I didn't realize the "snarky" comment was not directed at me. pretty funny. good synopsis.

Ditto for me

Yes, thanks for clearing that up SnowCrash.

... kinda

as noted below the article is about Peter Morse.

Tucson knows what's up. (well.. minus Randy's editor)

snowcrash, that's not correct

I did not confuse any Randys. Randy S wrote the article for the Weekly but he did not write the Weekly headline. My comment was aimed at the Tucson Weekly's editor who wrote the original Weekly headline, not Randy S and not any Randy at 911 blogger.

I've never heard of another Randy at 911blogger.

I didn't "chime in", I'm Peter Morse, whom Randy S interviewed for the article. I live in Tucson.


I would think that Tuscon Weekly contributor Randy Serraglio chooses the headline for his own articles. If I'm mistaken, consider me unconfused as well ;-)

The Editor wrote the head

Not Randy S. And he and I both let the Editor know that it was a very unfortunate headline to choose. Thanks.

In that case

I consider the editor's interference out of line, way out of line. Thanks. And I apologize for evidently missing that you were the one interviewed.