Radio interview on 22 April 2013, challenging the official 9/11 narrative
Two weeks ago, I spoke on a radio show regarding 9/11 – providing evidence that strongly challenges the official 9/11 narrative. Perhaps a quick outline of topics discussed/prepared for will be helpful – note that I spoke about much more than the WTC demolitions. I think this is important. (Summary of main points; not necessarily in the order followed on the radio show.)
0. Define the official narrative: A – There is no cover-up of 9/11 facts by gov't”; B-”the evil of that day was ONLY by Al Qaeda; there were no explosives in WTC towers or WTC7.” The radio interviewer and his studio guest Martin Tanner declared their support of the official story at the beginning.
1. Gov't cover-up/lies about the WTC dust danger: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- At the White House's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency gave New Yorkers misleading assurances that there was no health risk from the debris-laden air after the World Trade Center collapse, according to an internal inquiry.
"The White House "convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones" by having the National Security Council control EPA communications after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, according to a report issued late Thursday by EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley.
"In all, the EPA issued five news releases within 10 days of the attacks and four more by the end of 2001 reassuring the public about air quality. [Soon,] respiratory ailments and other problems began to surface in hundreds of workers cleaning dusty offices and apartments. [Scientists had measured the pH of the dust at about 12, which is roughly equivalent to liquid Drano. The dust was also laden with asbestos fibers.]
"The day after the attacks, former EPA Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher's chief of staff e-mailed senior EPA officials to say that "all statements to the media should be cleared" first by the National Security Council, which is Bush's main forum for discussing national security and foreign policy matters with his senior aides and Cabinet, the inspector general's report says.” http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/136350_epa23.html By JOHN HEILPRIN, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, August 23, 2003
No lying or cover-ups? What happened to people who trusted the government, that the WTC dust was benign when it was not? And what happened to whistleblower Nikki Tinsley? She told what happened as EPA Inspector General - she was forced to resign. (The radio interviewer guessed correctly.)
(Less detail on following points; readily searchable)
2 – Lack of air defenses that day. Testimony of Sec'y of Transportation Norman Mineta. Why was Mineta forced to resign following his (whistleblower?) testimony? Why were there no warnings to people in the Pentagon to evacuate as the plane neared (April Gallop testimony)?
3. Testimony of Barry Jennings regarding explosions in WTC7 – before either Tower came down. He and colleague could not get down past 6th floor due to huge explosion. Rescued. Testified. Jennings was murdered a few days before NIST report on WTC7 came out. NIST is a government laboratory, under the Department of Commerce.
4. Over 99.5% of WTC steel was quickly shipped to Asia for melting down – evidence from a crime scene was destroyed! Done contrary to objections by engineers and scientists.
5. Samples of the WTC7 steel and Towers steel showed high-temperature oxidation and sulfidation. Our scientific team was denied the scientific courtesy of inspecting these samples - we did ask.
6. NIST did not comment on these steel samples; admits did not look at any WTC7 steel for their report; nor did NIST look for explosive residues in the WTC dust. (We did.) NIST used computer models for both Towers and WTC7 – independent scientists and engineers are not allowed to flex the model, despite repeated requests.
7. FEMA report 7 – “our best hypothesis [fire] has only a low probability of occurrence” – agreed! NIST stated regarding the Towers' fall: “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” See "Fourteen Points" paper: http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/articles/V002/35TOCIEJ.pdf I emphasized the observed fact that WTC7 dropped at free-fall acceleration for over 100 feet, meaning that nothing was in the path to impede free-fall acceleration for that distance. This fact was finally admitted to by NIST in their final report – but only after they had been publicly corrected by physicist David Chandler and me in August 2008.
8. Red/gray chips study – especially important were Differential Scanning Calorimeter tests we did which showed iron-rich sphere formation in the residue. As did hitting material with an oxyacetylene torch. Millette did not report ignition studies at all.
9. Highly suspicious put options in the days before 9/11, on United and American airlines in particular. Billions (estimated) were made on these trades as the 9/11 tragedy ensued. 9/11 Commission comment as a footnote on p. 499 admitted suspicious trades, but said there were NO conceivable ties to Al Qaeda so that trades were “innocuous.” We discussed implications of this admission.
10. AE911Truth.org – good source of info, over 1800 AE and over 16,000 others have signed petition for real investigation. See also my website – google “dr byu”, youtube oz steven jones 911, journal911studies.
It became clear that Mr. Tanner was called in to debate me, and he interrupted me frequently and rudely. He had prepared arguments from debunker sites regarding the fall of the Towers in particular. He tried to argue that several other high-rise (over 8 stories) steel-frame buildings had fallen due to fires, but when I pointed out that in none of his examples was the collapse total – as observed for the WTC Towers – he could hardly counter. I noted that even NIST admitted they could not fully explain the total collapse of the Towers. (See point 7 above.)
He was clearly unprepared to discuss the government's reassuring lies regarding the WTC dust (which was in fact highly toxic), or the testimony by Barry Jennings who witnessed large explosions in WTC7 even before the Towers fell. In general, I think it wise to include such arguments that go beyond just considering the destruction of the Towers and WTC7.
At the end, the radio host and even Mr. Tanner agreed that a re-investigation of 9/11 was needed.