Friday, August 29, 2008

Common Sense and NIST's "New Phenomenon"

The videos we see showing the collapse of WTC 7 (aka the Salomon Brothers building) appear, for all the world, to mimic perfectly a controlled demolition. I don't know anyone who disputes this fact. News reporters on the day of 9/11/2001 remarked upon it. YouTube video makers show WTC 7 falling down side-by-side with valid demolition videos. The similarities are obvious. Here they are:
  1. Rapid onset
  2. Rapid collapse (approaching free-fall speed)
  3. Symmetrical collapse (building exterior does not exhibit deformations)
  4. Sounds of explosions
  5. Debris field is basically within the building's original footprint (the goal of a controlled demo)
  6. Foreknowledge of collapse, including warning to get away from premises
  7. Massive pyroclastic-type dust clouds following collapse
In order to account for these classic signs of a controlled demolition, NIST had to come up with a theory that would produce the same visible effects. I'll leave alone, for now, the fact that even with total control of their own computer simulation software inputs, they could not show us a picture that matched the reality.

NIST's theory states that fire caused certain steel members to expand enough to break their connections to adjacent steel members. (How the heat was retained by these specific members, or why this steel failed to disperse and dissipate the heat is not covered.) These local failures somehow spread (like the flu?) to neighboring columns, girders, and beams until the entire inner structure of Building 7 failed. At this time, the outer shell, or facade, had no choice but to follow suit, producing the massive total collapse we witnessed.

I'd like to take a look at this theory and apply a bit of common sense. Take a look at this image of a table. It is supported by four legs, or columns.

Let's say one of this table's legs is cut out from under it. What would happen? Maybe nothing. But we can see that the table would be weak if someone leaned on the corner that no longer had a leg. Alright! What if two adjacent legs failed? What would happen? Would not the table fall over, in the direction of the failed legs?

Now, take a look at this table. It has more legs.

If one leg of this table were removed, the table would still be relatively sound. If two legs were removed, the table might lean some, depending on whether the absent legs were adjacent or not... and if three legs were removed, the table would probably tilt... in the direction of the removed legs, right? (As long as those three legs were neighbors.)

How about this table?

It would probably take 3 or 4 legs being removed before this table would become unstable, and again, if it "collapsed," we'd expect that it would definitely lean in the direction of the removed legs.

One more example:

What if one leg between one story was removed? Nothing would happen in this multi-story table. What about two legs on the same level? Maybe we'd see a slight lean, toward the side that lost two legs. Would you expect that all the rest of the legs would simultaneously give way?

Neither would I.

World Trade Center 7 had 24 core columns. That means, in the middle of this table tower, you would have to add 24 internal columns, or legs. World Trade Center 7 had 57 external, or perimeter columns (legs). Not four. Not eight. Not 24, not even 48... but 57 columns around the perimeter.

NIST is telling us that a single connection failed between column 79 and one girder that connected to it, and as a result, a "domino" effect caused the failure of every other column, girder and beam in the entire building within a mere few seconds. And that's why we saw, from the outside, a total, rapid, symmetrical collapse that looked just like a controlled demolition would.

If you want to plant a tinfoil hat on me for shaking my head in disbelief, be my guest. But I was endowed with old world common sense from my immigrant mother and grandmother, and I can smell bovine excrement from miles away.

NIST's "new phenomenon" is nothing more than a feeble, pathetic attempt to explain away a controlled demolition with false science. Science does not start with a conclusion and then manufacture numbers to plug into computers that eventually come close to the desired result. Science, true science, does not ignore or discount valid observations and real evidence. Science seeks truth, and is not limited by taboos. Science starts with physical evidence... something NIST never had.

It is definitely taboo, within the world of government science, to even approach the notion that the events of 9/11/2001 were aided or caused by people we are supposed to trust.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

NIST Report Says WTC 7 Buckled

NIST's recently released 115 page final report on WTC 7 (PDF) drew from three (even lengthier) companion documents. In the one titled NIST NCSTAR 1-9A (PDF), NIST shows us what happened to WTC 7 — in their simulated computer model.

image of computer simulation showing WTC 7 buckling and twisting as it begins collapsing
Compare that with what the cameras recorded:

In section 3.5.3 of the final report titled "Accuracy Appraisal," NIST states,
Given the complexity of the modeled behavior, the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.
Oh really?

Monday, August 25, 2008

Writing Reports, NIST Style

Here's an anatomy of the NIST's 115-page WTC7 final report. They use two pages to tell us what happened, and 14 pages to show pictures generated from their computer simulations. Don't miss the 4 pages where they put in disclaimers about the simulations! I found precious little "beef" anywhere in the 115 pages.

Number of PagesDescription
38Preface including disclaimers, contributors and contractors, dedication, table of contents, abstract, list of figures and tables, list of acronyms, executive summary, etc., etc.
17Historical World Trade Center information, WTC 7's structure, occupancy by floor, and NIST's best guesses about what floors were on fire when, and how the fire moved around.
2NIST describes "Probable Collapse Sequence."
2NIST lays out the hypothesis they ended up proving.
2NIST does its best to debunk a commonly held hypothesis.
14NIST treats us to a lengthy discussion about the computer simulations they used to prove their initial hypothesis.
4-1/2NIST adds disclaimers re: the results of their computer simulations.
1/2NIST shows its math for calculating the actual speed of fall for a few stories of WTC 7 at the beginning of the collapse, and compares it with free-fall speed.
14These pages recap the findings.
10NIST provides recommendations based on their findings.
11Finally, these many pages are devoted to appendices and references.

Friday, August 22, 2008

WTC7 Coverup - Thermal Bullcrap

Had the latest NIST report actually investigated the collapse of WTC7, we may rest easier with their conclusions that a heretofore unknown process for bringing down steel-framed skyscrapers was in any way valid: fire-induced thermal expansion.

But they didn't.

Nist claims that they took a cursory look at a controlled demolition scenario. But what they did — all they did — was to dismiss the possibility because it was untenable. Why? Their only reason was that an explosion of sufficient size to blow column 79 (their key critical core column) would have caused a sound event that they were unable to verify actually happened.

All you have to do is Google "WTC7 Explosions" to find multiple videos recounting explosions in World Trade Center 7. Eyewitness accounts. Actual video taken on the day. There is no dearth of reports of explosions in WTC7, starting from before... yes BEFORE ... the twin towers even fell.

But hey, NIST was unable to find any of those accounts or videos, so they were left with the supposition that building 7 had to have collapsed by some mechanism previously undocumented.

With all due respect to Dr. Shyam Sunder and his contractors (which included Larry Silverstein and his development group), it is painfully obvious that they were overtly instructed to find a different conclusion from the most obvious one: controlled demolition.

They go so far as to say, hey! what we found looks just like controlled demolition but ... lookie here, it really isn't! It's really uhhh fires, regular office fires, uhhh... see here, column 79, got baked man, and heck, once that happened, the result was uhhh... total failure, into a neat pile! I mean, believe me, I work for the Government!

Forgive me for doubting.

NIST did not ever examine any physical evidence. NIST did not explain the dozens of witnesses who heard explosions. NIST did not ever view (or explain, if they did) the dozens of videos that clearly show explosions. NIST did not ever examine the forensic evidence gathered by other researchers (to wit, Dr. Stephen Jones). NIST did not build any scale models, they did it all by computer simulations. NIST took 7 years to foist this bastard of a report on us.

Lately, TPTB are growing in their arrogance and their outrageousness. They know we have no WMD to strike them back with.

Or do we?

WTC7 Thermal Expansion Hoax: NIST Disses 9/11 Truthers

Remember, Remember, 11th September

There are some images of the impossible destruction on 9/11 that I can't forget. Here's an aerial view of the rubble taken a couple days after the event.

The smoke is still rising from the piles of both towers and building 7, in spite of firemen spraying millions of gallons of water on the heaps of debris. You can see severe damage to the building at the lower left, and more holes torn into the roof of the building at the lower right. The buildings across the street however (Verizon on the upper left, and the Post Office on the upper right) appear relatively unscathed -- except for the one in between. That's the remains of WTC7, the first and only steel-framed building over 10 stories to be totally destroyed by office fires and a "new phenomenon" NIST calls "fire-induced thermal expansion."

Here's a color-coded image identifying the remains:

Then and Now
Early theories about the demise of WTC7, put forward by Popular Mechanics in a March, 2005 cover story, and supported with statements from Dr. Shyam Sunder, supposed that serious damage caused by Tower 1's explosive collapse turned building 7 into a wreck just waiting to fall down. We have yet to see any photos revealing such extensive damage but Popular Mechanics said they saw them in a private showing. We were supposed to take their word for it. I always wondered how the Verizon building and the Post Office escaped similar damage from Tower 1's energetic debris. And then, I wondered why those two buildings showed no damage from the implosion of WTC7 either.

As we're told now, by the same Dr. Shyam Sunder, all that was needed to totally destroy this 47-storey steel skyscraper and make it look just like a controlled demolition, was an office fire on a few floors. NIST claims that those fires weakened the connection between a beam and a critical northeast core column. This initiated a domino effect resulting in first one, then several floors giving way. That left the critical core column unsupported over the span of 9 floors, so it buckled causing more floors and beams to break loose above, and then like dominos, the other 80 columns went along for the ride in rapid succession wherein the whole building fell down.

Dr. Sunder reassures us that they've got it right this time. "The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."


Thursday, August 21, 2008

Final NIST Report on WTC7: Color Me Unconvinced

WTC7 on the afternoon of 9/11/2001

After nearly 7 years of investigation, the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), charged with producing reports explaining how the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed, held a press conference today announcing the publication of a final report on WTC7 (pdf) — the third building in the New York City complex that inexplicably collapsed in 7 seconds late in the afternoon of 9/11/2001.

From today's press release (emphasis mine):
The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department?s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.
Reasons for WTC7's collapse have been touted, over the years, by Popular Mechanics, FEMA, and NIST itself. A favorite debunking theory was that debris from the exploding towers caused excessive, critical damage to WTC7. Here's what Popular Mechanics said to debunk "conspiracy theorists." Note that PM quotes Shyam Sunder, the same fellow who gave the press briefing today:

The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
Well, in today's announcement, we hear:
Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."
How conveeeenient! Now the photographs of this excessive south side damage that Popular Mechanics claimed they alone were privileged to see no longer have to be produced...!

In it's initial report, FEMA postulated that "a fire fed by fuel oil caused the collapse" and suggested that the cantilevered construction over the power station was a contributing factor in WTC7's demise. At least FEMA acknowledged that more study needed to take place (emphasis mine):
The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
Yet today, NIST tosses this notion into oblivion:
"Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7," Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building's construction — namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below — did not play a significant role in the collapse.
Instead, we are told that ordinary office fires "burned out of control" (see picture above) and created enough heat to expand steel beams which eventually caused Floor 13 (unlucky floor, eh what?) to lose its connection, and then in domino-like fashion, all the other columns and beams simultaneously failed resulting in a total collapse. In 6.5 seconds. In a neat pile. Totally symmetric. Read it and try not to laugh:
Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," Sunder explained. "What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line — involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire fa├žade collapsed."
I wonder if there is any other possible explanation for a rapid onset for the failures of 81 core and perimeter columns? (Like some helper mechanism to dismember the structural support?) We have to recognize that there are certain paths NIST would not walk. And since the physical evidence has been destroyed, there can be no conclusive finding from any outside investigation.

How conveeeeenient.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Innocent Explanation for Ivins' "False Anthrax Sample"

Short Facts

The FBI and most of the media continue to claim that Dr. Bruce Ivins submitted false anthrax samples designed to mislead investigators — therefore, this goes to show that Ivins must be guilty of mailing the anthrax letters. If true, this would be fairly strong, although circumstantial, piece of evidence. If untrue, I think we can reasonably accuse the FBI of trying to mislead us.

In February 2002 the FBI asked for anthrax samples from flask RMR-1029 in Bruce Ivins' lab. Ivins provided two; one went to the FBI (they subsequently destroyed it) and the backup sample went to scientist Paul Keim in New Mexico. These samples were smears, or a representation of the entire set of cultures in the flask. After destroying the first sample, the FBI asked Ivins for another sample, which he provided early in April. The instructions were given verbally, and the subpoena with written details on the required protocol was not delivered until May 2002, a month or more later. The sample Ivins provided this (second) time was a pure culture sample instead of a smear. Remember, he had already provided a smear.

The FBI now says the first sample was prepared in such a way that it would make for poor evidence in court, and that is why they threw it away. (Is this believable?) The FBI also now says the second sample was false, that is, not from the RMR-1029 flask, because it did not contain the newly discovered genetic markers unique to the anthrax used in the attacks. (Are all the king's horses and all the king's men unable to distinguish a smear culture from a pure culture? Apparently so. Otherwise, at the time, they would have asked Ivins for another specimen or gone and gotten a replacement smear culture sample themselves.)

The second sample was a pure sample cultured from the dominant strain in this flask of mixed cultures. Of course it didn't match the initial sample precisely. Years later, the FBI remembered there was a backup of the original sample provided by Ivins, and they retrieved it from Keim. Surprise, surprise, it had the newly-significant genetic markers. It was exactly what Ivins had given them in the first place.

Do I need to point out how ridiculous this "proof of guilt" is? It looks to me like Dr. Bruce Ivins was doing his best to help the FBI, when it was the FBI itself who trashed his first sample and miscommunicated what they wanted for the second sample. So, who is really misleading who? (Related documentation with links below.)

FBI Supports Request for Search Warrant (pdf)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service investigation ... has led to the identification of Dr. Bruce Edward Ivins... as a person necessitating further investigation for several reasons: ... (4) Ivins is believed to have submitted false samples of anthrax from his lab to the FBI for forensic analysis in order to mislead investigators...

USA Today Still Headlines False Sample Story

Ivins submitted a second sample in April — one that court papers say was intended to mislead investigators. That sample did not contain the specific genetic markers of the anthrax used in the attacks.

LA Times Repeats False Sample Claim

Ivins, recruited to assist the FBI, had failed in February 2002 to provide an anthrax sample, known as RMR-1029, as requested by a bureau agent. The FBI did not obtain the RMR-1029 from within the Ft. Detrick laboratory complex where Ivins worked until two years later, when an agent took possession of a flask holding that material.

NPR Repeats, Then Questions Claim

(4) Ivins is believed to have submitted false samples of anthrax from his lab to the FBI for forensic analysis in order to mislead investigators;

That is a far cry from the picture Justice Department officials painted Wednesday. They say Ivins not only dodged their inquiries, but also tried to outright "mislead" investigators. They say Ivins submitted false anthrax samples from his lab to throw off investigators.

In one instance, the documents say, investigators asked Ivins for a specific sample of anthrax they needed. Ivins gave a sample, but when they went to the lab themselves and took the sample, it did not match what Ivins had given them. When they confronted Ivins, the documents say, he denied it was true.

Kemp says when investigators asked Ivins for an anthrax sample, he thought they were asking for a pure culture sample. It wasn't until six weeks later that they called and said they had wanted something else.

Christian Science Monitor Buys FBI Story

Yet the FBI had requested a sample from a flask of anthrax spores which Ivins held as early as 2002. In April 2004, after discovering that the samples Ivins submitted in fact had not come from the requested flask, RMR-1029, an FBI agent accompanied Ivins into a biocontainment suite at Fort Detrick to seize the flask.

Daily Princetonian Attempts to Counter

The documents allege that Ivins sought to mislead investigators, claiming the anthrax used in the attacks was different from the batch maintained in his laboratory and giving them false samples of anthrax from his laboratory. They also say Ivins had mental health issues and sent a suspicious e-mail a few days before the anthrax attacks with similar wording to the laced letters.

But Kemp said it is actually government officials who are making misleading statements and failing to mention that Ivins passed two polygraph tests in 2002.

"He submitted proper samples in February," he said. "The government lost one, and the other was sent to a lab in New Mexico, and the government can trace it right back to his lab."

NPR Conducts In-Depth Interview With Ivins' Attorney

NPR: One of the things that came out of this idea that they can link the spore sample exactly to Ivins was that he also misled the FBI. There was this big thing in Wednesday's press conference about how they had asked for a sample from him, and that when they went out themselves and took the sample, that in fact it was different from what Ivins had given them.

Kemp: So many problems with that statement. It's hard to know where to begin. No. 1, I'll try and be organized in this, he provided a sample in 2002, the month of February of 2002. He provided it in a way that he thought matched their directions that at that point were orally given.

There really were, I believe, two different vials or preparations, slides, I think they're called, and he did it in a way that ultimately matches their written protocol for the preparation of these slides. One of them is delivered to the government, and they either lose it or destroy it. The second one is sent to a well-known scientist, somebody on a caliber with Dr. Ivins, in terms of this kind of thing. Paul Keim is his name, now at the Northern Arizona State University, at that point from the University of New Mexico. And he has it, maintains it. It's available for analysis, and when the government loses their slide or destroys it, they do go to the slide that Dr. Keim has, and are able to make the analysis from that.

So, that's the story, as to the February one. Not only did he not falsify the submission of samples, this is a government screw-up, for the February sample.

In the April sample, here's what they contend is wrong. They contend that the nature of the slide he prepared was improperly taken from RMR-1029, that they wanted him to prepare a smear sample of the entire set of cultures in the beaker. What they say he submitted is what's called a "pure culture" sample. And to understand that, you have to know what these things look like.

If you examine grossly, meaning with the naked eye, the anthrax that is prepared in a petri dish, an open glass petri dish, you might extract some of this stuff from the beaker — you can't really work with the beaker because it has a narrow top — so you take it out and put it in a wide petri dish and you let it grow in an agar substance.

And it ferments and grows upon itself. There will be little globules of anthrax in a harmless form, it's like wet oatmeal or something like that, and you can dip down and take each globule, or a representative set of globules ? that's called taking a "pure culture" sample.

What they wanted him to do with that open petri dish was to take a smear across them all. And that's what he did the first time. He submitted a smear sample, it was properly done.

The second time, he did the pure culture sample and sent it in. That should have been readily apparent to them, as soon as it was received. They don't get to it for a long time. RMR-1029 was there. It has never been adulterated. It has never been tampered with. Why didn't they go back and say, "You took a pure culture sample, can you take a smear sample?" Why didn't they go back and take a smear sample themselves? So that's a long-winded way to the first point.

Second point, he's polygraphed twice, during the same year. They ask him, you know, "Have you told us all you know about this? Are you hiding any evidence?" as part of these normal polygraphs, but also that are directed by the investigators here.

They now discount the reliability of his passing in the polygraphs because it was conducted by the Defense Department, not by the Justice Department. And so we're left with this disparagement of the Defense Department, the same way Mr. Taylor disparaged the Defense Department yesterday during his news conference, saying, in a backhanded way, "Well, that's a matter for the Defense Department," namely, why was he allowed to continue working at the lab, with full access to these pathogens, right up to the end of the investigation?

NPR: So in your mind, this idea that the FBI came to him and said, "We need this specific sample," and that it was some kind of test and that he sent in something different, it just has no credence?

Kemp: It is unbelievable to me that in, I guess the second-highest-profile case going on at the time, the first highest-profile case being the Sept. 11 attacks, in this time frame, that they wouldn't go take the sample themselves or direct him to do it while one of their agents watch him.

The final point, the biggest point: He doesn't get the written protocol as to how to submit the samples until May 24 of 2002. The sample was submitted at their direction on April 10 of 2002. They'll say, in defense of that screw-up, that he was present at a meeting at which they think it was discussed, that, "We want you to take smear samples."

That to me is inconceivable. It's part of an investigation of a case of this significance. All of that is beside the point. He'd already submitted a proper sample at the beginning of February, I forget the exact date, in February of 2002. And they lost the slide, or destroyed it. I don't know which. But [U.S. Attorney Ken] Kohl can tell you.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Of Conspiracies and Theories

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories..." ~ George W. Bush

Everybody knows conspiracy theorists are crazy people. They wear tinfoil hats. They are idiots and morons who should be shut up, if not locked up. They come up with ridiculous reasons for events that are already satisfactorily explained by people in positions of authority in our Government and Media. They have the gall to keep asking questions and raising doubts. They're never satisfied!

Anyone who has been awake over the last several years knows that people in positions of authority in our Government and Media try to manipulate us and purposely mislead us. They busily rewrite history and even tell us outright lies with straight faces.

But conspiracy nuts are looney kooks. Everyone in their right mind knows that. Why should we concern ourselves with any of their conspiracy babbling, or spend time looking at questions those fools keep asking? After all, people in positions of authority in our Government and Media wouldn't do anything to harm us. They can be trusted to act in our best interests. It's downright hateful and anti-patriotic to think otherwise.

People in positions of authority in our Government and Media have floated several theories concerning Bruce Ivins' motives to mail anthrax. What makes their theories any more believable than the theories espoused by others? What makes one theory credible and another theory unthinkable? When does a theory become a "conspiracy theory," and therefore outlandish?

We owe it to ourselves to don a tinfoil hat and ask questions of our Government and Media when they say, "Trust us."

Friday, August 15, 2008

Doubts About Bruce Ivins as Anthrax Mailer

image of anthrax letter sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy in October 2001

I'll be very surprised if it turns out that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax letters. Here are a few reasons:
  1. Who benefited from the scare? Not Ivins.
  2. Who had a supportable motive? Not Ivins.
  3. Who had access to the equipment to produce the highly concentrated, 99% pure, military grade polyglass-coated spores (found in the Daschle and Leahy letters)? Not Ivins.
  4. Who had the know-how to produce this weaponized material? Not Ivins.
  5. Who can be placed at the scene where any of the hoax or real anthrax letters were mailed? Not Ivins.

The attempt to convict Ivins posthumously, in the press, is supported largely by an unsubstantiated report from a drug-addiction counselor (who had repeated convictions for DUI and was a home detention 'inmate' on the date Ivins' reportedly made threats in front of her group therapy session). She told the court in a peace order hearing that psychiatrists had diagnosed Ivins as a sociopathic revenge killer bent on homicide who had killed before. There is NO independent confirmation of this anywhere.

The FBI says, "Trust us, we got the right guy this time." I'm not buying it.

Cui bono?

Those in the government who were pressing for military aggression in the Middle East. Those who wanted to elevate the fear level of Arabs in general, Muslims in particular. Those who profited from the sales of Cipro and other drugs to treat anthrax infection.

Who had a motive?

See Cui bono.

Who had access to the highly specialized equipment?

Those persons working to develop (probably not legally, either) bio weapons. That's not what USAMRIID did, where Bruce Ivins worked. His lab developed vaccines to prevent anthrax infection, and didn't even use powdered anthrax in his work -- his challenge bacteria was in liquid form, as was the now-infamous vial of RMR-1029.

Who had the know how?

The same persons who had access to the equipment, the same persons who had been working for years on developing particularly nasty strains of bacillus anthracis for weapon use.

Who can be placed at the scenes of the mailings?

We know Bruce Ivins can't. Hatfill came close. Until we see how the FBI eliminated their 'universe' of other persons who might have had access to the anthrax, we'll never know.

Important reading on this topic:

from Glenn Greenwald
from Dr. Meryl Nass

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Why is 9/11 So Important?

The talking heads on TV, witness Homeland Security head Chertoff, still point to 9/11/2001 as a seminal event... a day that changed everything. This has been the mantra since that day. This event, and the accused perpetrators (never mind that those supposedly responsible have morphed from Osama bin Ladin to Saudi nationals to Saddam Hussein) are the reason we now have lost habeus corpus, the reason we are now enmeshed in a civil war in Iraq, the reason we are still losing soldiers in Afghanistan, the reason our gas prices are high, the reason we cannot expect the Executive branch of our government to follow the law....

I confess to holding a few assumptions. (1) The current administration is lying and has been lying about nearly everything. (2) Questioning the "official line" about what happened on (and who caused) 9/11 is verboten.

Actually, point 2 is indisputable. If you don't believe me, just try to raise a question, out loud, about how Tower 7 fell... or any other anomaly that day. Like how in the hell our national defense system failed us so badly that no planes were scrambled to confront the airplanes that turned off their transponders. Or why the members of the 9/11 commission just failed to include testimony from Norman Minetta that raised definite questions about just which orders Cheney wanted to stand as a plane approached the Pentagon.

Point 1 is obvious to anyone who learns about the world outside of Fox News [sic] channel. The lies are endless. Not only are they proven lies, they go unchallenged by the "MSM" ... who apparently have better things to do than source their stories and seek the truth.

The root of all current evil is 9/11. Once we shine the light on what really happened (and what DIDN'T happen) on that day, the remainder of our current issues and their solutions ... will come into focus.

That's why 9/11 is so important. If we leave those stones unturned, we are only trying to plug the hole in the dike when what we really need to address is why the seas have breached the dikes in the first place.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Overarching Issue of Our Time

When we can no longer trust our government, our elected representatives and those they appoint, to protect and defend us, where can we go? What can we do?

The event that created the current climate we live in is referred to as "9/11." Everyone has heard, "9/11 changed everything," declared from every major media outlet for the last 5-1/2 years.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that what we've been told by those same major media outlets about 9/11 is a made-up story. (I've researched plenty of information that suggests just that.) Yet, maybe you don't want to spend the time to look at it because there are so many other important issues that need dealing with, such as the occupation of Iraq, the state of our health care, the imminent disaster posed by climate change, the ongoing nemesis of HIV, or overpopulation or genetically engineered foods or colony collapse disorder or Somalia or Iran or the Israeli-Palestinian situation or $4.00 a gallon gas or ... the list could go on for a long damn time.

However, who do we look to for solutions to the problems in this increasingly long list? Can we alone fix any one of these crises? No. Can we lend our voices and our money to try to help? Sure, but it's a drop in the bucket. We look to our elected representatives and their appointees to deal with local, national and international issues.

But if they fail us, where do we go?

I guess what I'm trying to say is until we solve the many mysteries surrounding 9/11, we will not be able to move forward on any other issue. If certain powerful forces within our government are complicit in 9/11, we can't very well expect them to work for the common good on any other issue. In fact, think of a common issue we've seen progress on in the last 6-7 years. I can't think of any. Why not? Compassionate conservatives seem to care only about granting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And supporting an illegal invasion of a sovereign country, and assassinating the leadership of that country... and setting up a puppet government who will agree to granting 80% of profits from that country's oil fields to multi-national corporations for the next 30 years.

If we don't address the root cause of our invasion of Iraq, the root cause of the stripping of our civil liberties with the Patriot Act and various other bills that have gone into law since 9/11, we soon will find ourselves bereft of any of the promises made in the Declaration of Independence: including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And we'll also be bereft of our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of press, assembly, and the right to confront our accusers and have a speedy trial. Habeus Corpus is already a thing of the past.

I move that there is no more important issue than delving into what really happened on 9/11. That's even more important than impeachment, because it involves a larger group of people than the current [mis]administration. If we cannot have a proper, impartial and objective investigation of the biggest crime in our recent history, we are destined to become slaves to those who carried it out.

The FBI has insufficient evidence to charge Osama Bin Laden with the crime. So who did commit it?

Believe the mainstream media at your own peril, about anything.

Friday, May 11, 2007

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

How Many Conspiracists Does it Take to ...

Why is one conspiracy any more believable than another?

To read forums and blog comments, some people believe that 19 incredibly lucky Arabs with boxcutters pulled off the total destruction of the entire World Trade Center complex, plus the destruction of a plane with passengers and crew in Shanksville, PA, plus heavy damage all the way through several rings on one side of the Pentagon.

I'd say that's fairly outlandish.

But if you suggest there's more to the story, or a different story, all of a sudden it's impossible because it would take the assent, aid and continuing silence of thousands of people!

This, my friends, is a straw man argument. There is no mainstream 9/11 Truth theory that calls for a cast of thousands.

I mean, if all it took was 19 mostly Saudi Arabs, then surely another group of 19 could do it too. Especially if the event was planned in advance and the mechanisms put in place over time.

I do not believe now, nor have I ever taken seriously, the motive ascribed to Osama bin Laden and his followers, that, "they hate our freedoms." Did Osama benefit? Did Islam benefit? Did the Taliban benefit? Just who did benefit? And who might have had the means and a motive?

If we are looking for motive, we find one right here -- the implementation of the PNAC's hegemonic plan simply could not have happened absent our "new Pearl Harbor." The neo-cons seem to have been ready for 9/11/2001.

[Tunick photo found here, fair use]

Saturday, March 3, 2007

Why the BBC Video is Important

"9/11 Changed Everything"

Can you remember when and who first spoke the phrase, "9/11 Changed Everything"? Within a day or two of 9-11-2001, pundits began this curious chant. The phrase persisted through the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report where, on page 328, you'll find:

However, the attacks of 9/11 changed everything. Less than one week after September 11, an early version of what was to become the Patriot Act (officially, the USA PATRIOT Act) began to take shape.

But who seeded that phrase into media consciousness? I surely thought it odd at the time. 9/11 didn't change everything for me.

Someone Planted a Story for the Media

Who seeded the media with the notion that WTC7 collapsed because of fire and damage? The same entity responsible for releasing the soon-to-be news a tad too early, that's who. That's why the recently unearthed BBC video is so important. You know, the footage where Jane Standley reports that the Salomon building (aka WTC7) has collapsed, only it is quite uncollapsed in the view out the window behind her.

At about 5:10 in the video linked above, Jane makes a rather honest observation: "It looks like the aftermath of a huge Atom bomb or something..."

How Perceptions are Formed

This video is called The911Solution. Watch how the news was massaged from the very beginning. After all, if we see it on TV, it must be true, right?

To All the Debunkers...

...who suggest that it would be perfectly ridiculous for bad guys to pre-announce their dirty deeds: you must not be astute or educated enough to grasp the fact that the television is a tool to brainwash the masses. The purpose of the news feed that made it on air too early was not to pre-announce a crime. Its purpose was to provide an explanation (fire and damage) for WTC7's collapse to replace the only other conclusion people could have reached had they been left to their own observations (that WTC7 was imploded in some sort of pre-planned demolition).

Friday, March 2, 2007

Part of the Conspiracy? (2)

Richard Porter, head of news for BBC World, continues to explain away the "9/11 foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse" broadcast, the missing BBC tapes, and all in all, how reasonable and easy to explain the whole thing is, after all. He ends his blurb with, "There's no story here." I don't think he understands that he doesn't get to decide that.

read more | digg story

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Fight Ignorance: Read Widely

"Fight Ignorance: Read Buzzflash"

Or so it says at the bottom of many of the pages at Buzzflash. The motto should read, Fight Ignorance: Be Sure to Read Things Not Allowed Here.

I have doubts whether Buzzflash will print my contribution to their Mailbag, so I reproduce here what I wrote them today.
There are a handful of alternative news compilation sites I've frequented—and supported, financially—over the last several years. Every site has its particular bias or focus, naturally, because there is a human on the other side of a site and we each wear our own spectacles, right?

I have been visiting Buzzflash almost every day for the last few years since the site presents a good cross-section of stories from major and not-so-major news publications around the country. Buzzflash's obvious bias, like many other sites these days, is anti-establishment, and in particular, anti-Republican. Not unlike DailyKos in this regard, Buzz tends to promote Dems while harping on Repubs. Fair enough, the ruling party deserved it.

Another site I've frequented is WhatReallyHappened. Michael Rivero's bias is plain to see—Zionism in its extreme form can be quite ugly, and computer hackers (the bad kind) do deserve to be strung up.

Yet another site I've spent much time perusing is InformationClearinghouse. You'll find some of the more graphic images and videos of the "war on terror" here. The site owner has some pretty strong opinions about neocons and torture and globalism.

I think it is fine if you run a site and make your biases known. But I've run into a problem with Buzzflash in this regard. The site owner has biases he or she keeps hidden. Thus, you think you understand the scope of the content and don't realize the filtering that goes on behind the scenes.

I should have guessed this about Buzzflash, given a recent guest contribution from one Peter Michaelson.

Mr. Michaelson wrote a piece for Buzzflash where he, with true Frist-like audacity, remotely diagnoses everyone associated with what is called the 9/11 Truth Movement. I'll blog about his piece separately. The bottom line is, it was a hit piece disguised as a plea to those folks who dare question the Official Rendition of Events on that "day that changed everything"—a plea to leave their pointless questions behind and join with the true progressives to fight for the issues that really matter. Mr. Michaelson derided and belittled and talked down to and insulted all those who ask questions about what really did happen on 9/11/2001. So, do we assume just because Buzz invites this guest to contribute an article (which was nearly universally repudiated by its own readers) that Buzz itself subscribes to the "you are a nutcase if you disbelieve the government line about 9/11" belief?

Well, I didn't. Until yesterday that is.

Buzzflash offers an alternative .net site that solicits news from users—sort of a toned down Digg. You post something, users "buzz" it or not and if it makes the grade the story is supposed to go on Buzzflash's main page.

So okay, there is a new story this week about someone who uncovered a piece of video aired by the BBC back on 9/11/2001. The video shows a female reporter, standing in front of windows that let on to a view of the World Trade Center complex from a pretty good vantage point, blithely repeating some information she'd been given that the Salomon Brothers building, aka WTC 7, had collapsed. The problem is the building is visible over her shoulder and out the window. She reports the story about 23 minutes before it actually happens.

This is no small bit of news and, at least in my mind, it should raise a few very troubling questions, to wit: Who provided this breaking news to the BBC that had yet to break? And why did her live feed suddenly go black a couple minutes before the building actually fell? Shouldn't we ask some questions of the BBC, this reporter, and possibly the news service that provided that feed? How did someone know ahead of time, for sure, that WTC 7 would collapse?

Shortly after posting the item on, and after it had been 'buzzed' a few times, the posting was removed.

A subsequent posting of a similar story, this one bringing to light the CNN broadcast of Aaron Brown saying that WTC 7 had fallen down, or was falling down (when it obviously wasn't since you could see it in the video behind Aaron) more than an hour before it actually DID crumble, well.. this posting was also duly removed from the pending items. It isn't as if the stories were voted down and rejected. They were simply removed from consideration. I'd wager that the majority of readers never got a shot at viewing and rating the stories.

So what we are left with is the knowledge that Buzz has a hidden bias. Talk about government lies, fine, unless it's lies about 9/11. Talk about corruption and evilness and lack of compassion in Katrina-handling or veterans' health care or Iraq profiteering, but don't mention the possibility of corruption or evilness or lack of compassion regarding the government's handling of 9/11. Talk about National Intelligence Estimates and Government Accountability Office reports and secret Pentagon briefings, but don't talk about the 9/11 Commission Report. Whatever you do, don't post a newly unearthed video of a live news broadcast from 9/11/2001 that indicates foreknowledge of at least part of the tragedy that day.

I'm more than a little disappointed that the Buzz folks, whoever they are, have a phobia about this topic. I'm also quite sure that I won't purchase anything from the Buzz store or financially support this site anymore.

You may well be behind the curve, Buzz. There is a growing understanding that the Official Rendition of Events simply doesn't add up. This is not a wild-eyed kook-generated conspiracy. The perpetrators left too many loose ends, and we the People want to know the truth. I wish you were there with us, but either you are a left gatekeeper or simply too afraid of being accused of wearing a tin foil hat. Either way, you'll never earn a place in your own hall of fame for courage in the face of adversity.

Maybe one day you'll be honest with your readers that you are scared to death about 9/11 questions. At least that way progressives like me won't waste a few years and a few hundred dollars on your site, thinking that we are hearing about all the important issues of the day. Or maybe you'll catch on and catch up. But first you'll have to pull your head out of the sand and join the people who care not only about the Iraq War but about the event that "changed everything" that got us in there in the first place.


Lee Franklin

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

WTC 7 9-11-01

A 4 min. video about the collaps of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9-11-01.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Osama Was a Friend of Ours

Back when we were all a'skeered of communism and the USSR was our enemy, the US of A armed, supported and made friends with some Ay-rabs who were hanging out in Afghan-istan. One of these lead Ay-rabs was none other than Osama Bin Laden. If we could help the poor Ay-rabs in Afghan-eye-stan resist the Russian move into their country, well hell, we'd be doing ourselves and all the communist-hating peoples worldwide a favor, right?

So our CIA made deals with Pakistan's ISI, their CIA counterpart. Through this connection, we sent material aid to the Afghan-istan terrorists who ended up thwarting commie Russia's drive to make the area their own.

Now, don't go telling me we will fight terrorism wherever we find it. Truth be told, we support and even create terrorists when it serves our "Nashnul intressshhhts."

So here we have good ol' Osama, he's a friend. That's a good reason why we never caught the dude even when we blamed him for coming up with this plan to fly planes into our buildings. That's probably also the reason we thought we could blame him for the events. After all, he was our boy, and we needed some scapegoat. How in hell we got from Osama to Iraq... well, that's all laid out in history now, the lies and the phony Niger documents and the smoking gun mushroom clouds and the morphing poor Saddam with Osama.

By the way, Saddam was our boy too. We put him where he is, we even gave him the chemical weapons we are now trying him for using against Iran and the Kurds.

Meantime, back at the ranch... the Congress just passed a bill and it's been signed... that effectively obliterates the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. In fact, by writing and publishing this, I could be declared as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, making me eligible for one of those orange suits and a 6 x 6 cage down in Guantanamo.

Monday, August 14, 2006

Letter to Producers of the Diane Rehm Show

[For those who do not listen to NPR (National Public Radio), the Diane Rehm show is a highly respected and nationally distributed talk show.]

I'm sure this has already been suggested, but I'd like to hear a show anytime now ... given the upcoming 5-year anniversary of 9-11-2001 ... that takes a much closer look at the official story of events, as given in reports from the Administration and the 911 Commission report.

Bush, in his first radio address to the nation on the morning of 9-11, promised a full investigation into who perpetrated the tragedy. On the same day, Bin Laden was accused and a list of names and pictures of the 9-11 hijackers was published. A few months later a "Bin Laden" tape, supposedly found in a bombed-out house in Afghanistan, appeared to contain Bin Laden's confession. (The Osama in this tape really doesn't look like any other Osama pictures we've seen. Several of the alleged hijackers -- who should have died, right? -- seem to have been quite alive in the months following. Can this be disputed? I'd really like to know!)

The Bush administration fought setting up any 9-11 fact-finding body for 14 months. The Zelikow Commission that was grudgingly established (originally headed by Kissinger, wasn't it?) finally published a report which failed on a grand scale to adequately explain what exactly happened on 9-11. Two commission members have now indicated they seriously considered exploring criminal charges against certain officials for their misleading and contradictory testimony.

There's more. The 911 Truth movement seems to be growing, and respected professionals -- scientists, engineers, physicists and scholars -- have spent a great deal of time trying to analyze what happened. They cannot explain the WTC buildings collapsing into dust in their own footprints using the official line (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 .. and what happened to WTC6? Have you seen the photos of the gaping vertical holes in that building?).

These brave people express dismay and disbelief that examination of the physical evidence (removed promptly from the scene and destroyed) was prevented. They claim it is impossible that the laws of physics somehow did not apply on 9-11 and 9-11 alone. (They point to the fact that no steel building before or since 9-11 ever collapsed due to fire. Can this been disputed? I'd really like to know!)

If .. and I pose this as an if that should be examined in great detail .. the official 9-11 story is more hype than fact, don't we as a nation deserve to discuss it? This seminal event .. the day that changed the world as we know it (according to the MSM anyway) .. has given rise to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, to the abduction and interminable detention of foreign born and US citizens, to the abrupt passage of the Patriot Act, to warrantless domestic wiretapping, to disregarding the Geneva Conventions, and to countless other sea-changes in our way of life.

We are being told these are all for our own good. But what if the premise on which the War on Terror rests is a house of cards? We already know that we were hyped in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. We've seen repeatedly how certain politicians seem to rely on evoking fear by conjuring up images of 9-11. And who did forge those documents about Saddam's supposed attempt to purchase yellowcake from Niger? I'd really like to know.

I have so many questions and I don't want to wait 30 or more years for the answers to trickle out. By then, the real perpetrators will be dead and gone, and so will I. But the all too real results of this day that changed our lives forever will reverberate in the world my children and their children have to inhabit.

Thank you kindly for your consideration of one or more shows dedicated to revisiting 9-11. Someone has to do it. Is NPR and WAMU able and willing?

Sunday, October 17, 2004

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

I read a brief article in my Web browsings titled, "Everything Didn't Change on 9/11." The author was at least hopeful that our Constitution still exists, the flag still flies, and the hearts of Americans are still by and large magnanimous, caring, and freedom-seeking.

Sadly there are some not-so-hopeful things that remain unchanged -- corporate greed (how delicious that by law, corporations are faceless and monolithic), income disparity, and endangered species among them.

You'd have to be Iraqi to see another rerun from pre-911. US-appointed Iyad Allawi, according to today's Sunday morning talking heads, wants to "take out Fallujah" before our election. Our military is supposedly more than ready to help him. I am reminded of the post-Desert Storm months when GHW Bush encouraged the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, and Saddam grew in evilness by putting down that rebellion, creating mass graves we now seek.

It seems to me the Iraqi people haven't changed. They see Allawi, for plenty of reasons, as just another ruthless dictator appointed and supported by the US. Instead of the Republican Guard, he has the American military at his disposal to slaughter these dissidents.

The words in the Who's song apply equally well to the people of Iraq and the people of the United States. It may take a revolution here before the powers-that-be recognize that 9/11 didn't change everything.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee... I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again." George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002