Monday, June 27, 2005

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? by Morgan Reynolds

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? by Morgan Reynolds


Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term.

From the Article:
"Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it:

*Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor).
*By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes.
*The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires.
*FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
*Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.
*Griffin (pp. 25–7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts:

*Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
*The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
*WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).
*In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
*FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
*It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself" (p. 44). In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.

*Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
*Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
*Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said").
*Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse.
*Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
*Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
*The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
*Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
*According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
*Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
*Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).

Interview with Morgan Reynolds discussing the WTC collapse on George Noory's Coast to Coast show, June 16, 2005 (37min.51sec., 12.9mb)

Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

"Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations, has gone on the record with his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria."

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Bush Administration Psychological Warfare Against the U.S.?

mparent7777: Bush Administration Psychological Warfare Against the U.S.?

"Sam Gardiner has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. He was recently a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defence College. During Gulf II he was a regular on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer as well as on BBC radio and television, and National Public Radio. He authored “The Enemy is Us” an article describing how the Bush Administration used disinformation and psychological warfare – weapons usually used against the 'enemy' – against the American public in order to support the war in Iraq. He has done an extensive analysis of the media coverage before the war, during the war and during the occupation as well as of the statements of Administration officials. His conclusions are startling and of great concern. He has put his findings in a report entitled: “Truth from These Podia.”

Zeese: Can you give some examples of false or exaggerated stories put out by the Bush administration in the build-up to the war?

Gardiner: In the summer of 2003, we know from the Downing Street Memo that the Administration was talking about justifying a war by arguing that Iraq was the nexus of terrorism and WMD.
The terrorism argument was what propaganda literature would refer to as the big lie. The Administration’s objective was to make enough arguments connecting Iraq to terrorism and Bin Laden that the American people would believe Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. They used a technique called the excluded middle. Iraq supports terrorists. The attacks were by terrorists. Iraq must been behind the 9/11 attacks.
We the WMD story fairly well. We know the story of the uranium from Niger. We know about the aluminum tubes that were not for uranium enrichment. We know the biological labs Powell showed to the UN did not exist.
Beyond these there are many exaggerations that have gotten very little notice. Let me mention just a few.

A New York Times reporter was told by the Administration that Iraq was buying excess quantities of atropine to get ready for chemical warfare. It turns out the quantities were consistent with the Iraq use of the substance for routine medical purposes.

The President told us in a speech in Ohio that Iraq had drone aircraft that could possible deliver chemical weapons into the United States. When that facility was found, the officers reported that it looked more like a school project than a serious military program.

The Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the Council on Foreign Relations that Iraq had the capability to attack US computers. They did not.

We were lead to believe a Navy pilot shot down during the first Gulf War was alive and being held in Baghdad. He was not.

We were told on the State Department web sit that Iraq was forming units of children to fight the United States. Iraq did not do that.

We were told the French were supplying air defense missiles to Iraq. That was not ture
There were many more.

Zeese: How about information during the war? Did the embedded journalists help give the U.S. a more accurate or less accurate perspective? How did the Pentagon control information?

Gardiner: A number of democratic institutions failed us during the war. Certainly, the press was among those. I attended a conference in London in July 2003 at which one of the PR firms that advised the Pentagon talked about lessons learned from the effort. They were pleased that they were able to dominate the story. That was their objective. The embedded notion had been tested in Afghanistan, and it proved to be effective. The product was lots of coverage with personal stories of soldiers. That was the Pentagon objective. Keep their story on television. Keep people talking about Meals Ready to Eat, and they won't criticize the war.

The only reason that the administration was able to get away with this was America's bought and paid for Mainstream Media... Etienne

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

The Republic is dead...

Saturday, June 04, 2005

CorpWatch: "Houston, We Still Have A Problem - An Alternative Corporate Report on Halliburton

CorpWatch:�Houston, We Still Have A Problem

An Alternative Annual Report on Halliburton
by Andrea Buffa and Pratap Chatterjee, Special to CorpWatch
Contact: Pratap Chatterjee, +1 510 759 8970,
May 16th, 2005

An Excerpt:

"On February 26, 2003, three weeks before the Iraq invasion, a secret meeting was held at the Pentagon. The Army Corps of Engineer’s Lieutenant General Carl Strock was present as were representatives from the State department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and others, including several representatives from Halliburton. On the agenda was the decision as to which contractor would get the RIO contract, estimated to be worth several billion dollars over five years. No announcement of the contract had been made or put out to bid, as is the normal procedure, but it was clear that Halliburton would be in the running, even though government contractors claim that other major corporations were equally capable. 6

The Army Corps’ chief procurement officer, Bunnatine Greenhouse, who was present at the meeting, was stunned. She whispered to General Strock that the Halliburton representatives leave the room. The general agreed reluctantly. (Normally protocol dictates that the contractor that draws up a plan for a project should not be allowed to bid on the job itself because they know insider details that would give them an unfair advantage).

Once Halliburton’s representatives had gone, Greenhouse raised other concerns. She argued that the five-year term for the contract was not necessary, that it should be for one year only and then be opened to competition. Strock and his colleagues ignored her opinion—when the approval document arrived the next day for Greenhouse’s signature, the terms were a sole-source contract made out to Halliburton for five years.

With war likely to take place in a matter of days, she had little choice but to sign off on the contract. But she added a handwritten note saying she felt that extending a no-bid contract beyond one year could send a message that “there is not strong
intent for a limited competition.” 7

On March 6, 2003, less than two weeks before the invasion, an email from a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers official, described securing “authority to execute RIO” after “DepSecDef [ie Wolfowitz] sent us to UnderSecPolicy [Under Secretary of Policy Douglas] Feith and gave him authority to approve” (the RIO contract).8 The final contract stated that the company could be awarded as much as $7 billion in repair work.9"

$7 Billion Dollars in a no-bid, 5 year sweetheart deal for Halliburton that got shoved up the ass of the American tax payer over the stated and written objections of the Army's Chief Procurement Officer. The no-bid contract was approved by Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith longtime associates of Vice President Dick Cheney the former CEO and current stockholder of Halliburton...

Dick Cheney...The man who orchestrated the war that was "necessitated" by the lies & plans written years ago by The Project for the New American Century whose main members were... Wolfowitz & Feith... How Cozy... - Etienne

Thursday, June 02, 2005

When You Absolutely, Positively Have to Relocate To God Knows Where