PROFESSOR STEVEN E. JONES, 9-11 LECTURE AT UTAH VALLEY STATE

What you are allowed to think and what you do think are two different things, aren't they? That's another way of saying that this forum may be NSFW, if your boss is a Republican. A liberal won't fire you for it, but they'll laugh at you in the break room and you may not get promoted. Unless you're an engineer, of course, in which your obsession with facing reality is not actually a career-disabling disability.

PROFESSOR STEVEN E. JONES, 9-11 LECTURE AT UTAH VALLEY STATE

Postby admin » Sat Jan 16, 2016 8:51 am

Part 1 of 2

PROFESSOR STEVEN E. JONES, 9-11 LECTURE AT UTAH VALLEY STATE COLLEGE
by Professor Steven E. Jones
February 1, 2006

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


[Transcript prepared from the video by Tara Carreon]

Image
David Keller

[David Keller ] There’s clearly a lot of passion about this topic, but please keep in mind that this is an academic forum, and that democracy cannot function without dialogue. But dialogue cannot function if people feel threatened. So please, during the question and answer period, keep your demeanor civil and collegial. Thank you.

My name is David Keller. I’m director of the Center for Study of Ethics here at Utah Valley State College. September 11, 2001 unmistakably marks a turning point in history, and has set the tone for the current political climate both nationally and globally. The horror of that clear autumn morning will forever be burned into our collective psyche. For me, and many of my generation, those born after World War II, and who were too young to comprehend the significance of the Vietnam War, September 11 is perhaps, politically speaking, the defining moment. This moment is all the more significant if the public has not been given the full information regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. It may, at first glance, seem odd that an academic Ethics Center would invite a physicist to speak. Yet the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings illustrates a strange convergence of physics, engineering, ethics, and politics. To this end, it is my great honor and privilege to introduce Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University. His vitae is too long to read, so I will just turn the time over to Dr. Jones.

Image
Professor Steven E. Jones

[Steven E. Jones] Thank you. Well, let’s get started. We have a lot of material to cover. In fact, I think you’ll find it’s like trying to get a drink out of a fire hydrant. I apologize, there’s just a lot of material out there. Even then, I can’t expect that you’ll be able to absorb all that we're going to discuss tonight, especially if it’s your first time looking at this material. So I have a handout. I hope that we have enough. There’s obviously a lot of interest in this topic. It has been discussed in the Deseret News lately. Miami Herald carried an article talking about our Scholars for 9-11 Truth group, which we have at last count around 100 members. It was 50 last Friday. We’ve grown. And I’ll talk more about that group as we go along.

So at the top of this handout, there are two papers that I will refer you to. So if you have questions, of course I’ll take questions at the end, and in addition I’d encourage you to read these papers. That’s why we write scholarly papers, so that you can read on your own, and digest and click on the websites, and get more information, look at the video clips at your leisure, and so on.

Image

Now tonight as we are starting, I notice that this clip here, which is the collapse of Building 7, World Trade Center 7 -- I might say WTC from now on instead of World Trade Center --this clip I requested to be shown on the Tucker Carlson show. And I couldn’t see what others were seeing, but they didn’t show this clip. It’s ironic, this is the one that wouldn’t play for us tonight. But now you see it. So you’ve all seen it collapse, and as you notice, it dips in the middle, falls straight down, and very rapidly. That’s “B”, World Trade Center 7.

Over here, we have a large high-rise in Madrid, Spain last year that burned. It was an inferno for about 24 hours. It did not collapse. And indeed, there has been no example, at least none before 9/11/2001, where fire has caused a building to collapse completely. So this is “A”. But that is in fact the official explanation of the collapse of Building 7. That it was due to fire. And we’ll talk about this more in some detail. In the paper that I wrote, and it’s available on the Net, it’s on the notes, you can read more of the scientific arguments about why fire is very unlikely to have caused this building to collapse. You might notice the amount of smoke as we get to the building here. This is over at the World Trade Center. But it’s not an inferno, certainly.

Now these are different views of a controlled demolition with explosives. This is in Norway. Oslo, as I recall. And it shows again the straight down, rapid collapse using explosives.

So it’s not nutty to say – let’s get that straight – that this looks like it could be controlled demolition due to explosives. I hope you would agree that at least there is some comparison here, that it looks fairly similar between the collapse of World Trade Center 7 and this, which of course is done by explosives.

Okay, now I want to back up a step or two and see if this will work here. Yes. The outline is on your notes as well:

Image
Outline

1. Physics of World Trade Center collapses
• Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC7)
• Collapse of the WTC Twin Towers
• Comments: Temperatures & official reports
• Molten metal beneath all three
II. What about the highly toxic dust?
III. Bin Laden was blamed – did he do 9/11?
IV. Did some officials have foreknowledge of impending events? Timeline up to 9/11/01.
V. Supporting the U.S. Constitution – now

I’ll start with the physics. I’m quite comfortable talking about the physics. I’ve studied it and discussed it with many scientists and engineers in the last several months. I find it quite fascinating. We’ll then talk about the highly toxic dust and so on. So you can see where we are.

The goal: To Preserve Constitutional Law in the United States of America, including the Bill of Rights. 1775, Patrick Henry: “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth … is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not …?

• “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know … it – now.”
• We are engaged in a struggle for liberty and truth, right now.
• And the truth shall make you …

I want to back up one more step. The goal tonight I have in mind is to preserve Constitutional Law in the United States. And I love America. And I love the Constitution which Patrick Henry, George Washington, Ben Franklin, you know, the list. My daughter knows the list better than I. She studied the Revolutionary War at length. These men were considered rebels. We call them patriots, but the British called them rebels because they wanted independence, they wanted freedom, they wanted certain rights: freedom of religion, freedom of speech. We have these. Knock on wood. And hopefully they will continue.

So Patrick Henry in 1775 said: “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth … is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not …" And I hope you’ll join in with Patrick Henry in saying this, “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know … it – now.”

Many of the things I’ll be talking about tonight, and if there are questions I’ll be clarifying that, but there are a lot of things we have learned about 9/11 that we need to take a look at.

I maintain that we are engaged in a struggle for liberty and truth right now, and my exemplar actually said, “The truth shall make you free.” So let’s see if we can get some truth going, shall we?

So here’s Building 7. We’ll start there, with the collapse of Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11. Now it’s important to realize that Building 7 -- we’re looking at it now after both towers have collapsed, looking from the plaza area over to Building 7 -- Building 7 was never hit by a plane. No plane hit Building 7. Is that clear? So the towers were each hit by a plane, of course. We’ll talk about them later. Building 7 was not hit by a plane. There was no jet fuel. Fires were random, but not particularly large, and certainly not an inferno. It collapsed seven hours after both towers had fallen. It’s not like it was immediate. It’s not like a shock from the falling of the towers somehow made that fall, which you’d think would happen immediately. The official theory is damage and fire.

Now in this photo you’ll see a close-up of the fires in Building 7. You can see a little bit of fire in there, not much, and yet when it collapsed, it collapsed straight down into a tight little pile. Very curious.

In fact, engineers were baffled over the collapse of this building. And myself, I didn’t see it on the day of September 11th. When I first saw it, I thought, this is very strange. I mean, that the building should collapse straight down and rapidly, it just did not look like what I would expect from the law of entropy, which is things topple over. And indeed, other scientists and engineers have worried about this mystery of the collapse of the 47 story Building 7. Experts said that no building like it, a modern steel reinforced high-rise, none had ever collapsed because of uncontrolled fire before. So they are trying to figure out what happened, and worried that other buildings might have this problem around the country.

Now in giving this talk -- by the way, there is a fair amount of material here, I’m not going to be able to read everything -- I’ll focus on the yellow parts. So if you’re a fast reader, you can pick up the white. That’s just the way the rule works here, because of the time. So down here, fire and structural damage, this is Professor Barnett of Massachusetts: “Fire and the structural damage would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated.” Now it takes a very high temperature to evaporate steel. We’ll see how that could happen. It’s not due to ordinary fire.

So now we see some photos in the late afternoon. Not a lot of fire is seen here, or damage. There is damage if you look close right down in this corner. The corner from Tower 1 did cause some damage here, which would make me think that if it would fall, it would fall towards the southwest corner. And maybe immediately too. If you damage something, knock your knees out, you start to fall. But that not the way. Instead, it came straight down. It had 24 steel beam core columns. Enormous steel beams up the core, 57 perimeter columns. A student drew this. The damage is here, on the corner, and some damage here on a floor. Nothing wassevered in the core, we’re quite sure. No evidence of that. So why did it fall symmetrically down if the damage is just on the south side. And why did it take seven hours? This is a good question, I think.

As we saw in the clip, it does fall symmetrically and nearly straight down onto its own footprint. Even the FEMA report, writing about this, says, “The Collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field. The façade was pulled downward, suggesting internal failure and implosion.” It’s a very interesting term they use there. “Implosion” is the term used for controlled demolition, when you pull the core and force the building to collapse. Now FEMA is not talking about explosive demolition I assure you. They are talking about fire. But nevertheless, they use the word “implosion.”

Now over here, we have a description of how buildings are demolished using explosives. Demolishing the building so it collapses straight down into its own footprint -- this is the total area at the base of the building -- this is the goal of controlled demolition. That’s what they shoot for. They work real hard to set the charges so that the building will collapse straight down and rapidly. This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it, using explosives of course.

If you can get buildings to collapse that way using fire, we should patent that. And then we’ll set a few fires, and make a lot of money doing that. But it’s not so easy. Here’s what happens when you have uncontrolled collapses. This is what you expect from earthquakes. In fact, these buildings were toppled by earthquakes. They fall over. They topple over. They don’t’ fall straight down. And so again, it’s just not reasonable that Building 7 fell seven hours after the collapse of the towers. That could not be due to seismic waves. And if it were, it would have fallen immediately, and toppled to the side that was damaged. That’s not the case of course. This is what you would expect from uncontrolled fires, something like this. You’d expect it to topple, twist, bend, and cause much more damage than it did.

By the way, the surrounding buildings didn’t collapse. A number of them were damaged also. I’m talking about non-WTC buildings. And so it is curious that Building 7, about 350 feet away -- that’s over a football field away from the closest tower -- should collapse in this way.

It collapsed fast. And if you study this videoclip, I’ve got it here second by second from my friend Jim Hoffman at http://www.WTC7.net , which is an excellent place to get detail by the way about 9/11. Jim has done a lot of research. In timing this, and with some students, we had a number of students time this, it took 6.6 seconds to fall. And the free-fall time, if you dropped an apple off the roof without any air resistance, would be 6.0 seconds. With air resistance, it works out pretty close to the same time as the building collapsed. Now how do you do that? You’ve got all this material in the way. You’ve got these enormous steel columns, 24 of them, and then the concrete too, resisting the collapse, slowing it down if it’s the pancake theory that the official reports talk about. So they talk about one floor hitting a stationary floor, and then that would slow the fall down. Those go together again and hit the next floor, and it slows her down. I did a calculation -- you have to make some assumptions -- it was over 10 seconds for the collapse. And I ignored the steel columns. I was just looking at the mass of the concrete floors, and the conservation of momentum. It was looking impossible to me as I did this calculation that the official theory could be correct. It violates laws of physics, and in this case conservation of momentum.

On the other hand, explosive demolition is very fast. You knock the material out of the way below, and the building collapses very rapidly. To many onlookers, the speed of destruction is the most incredible aspect of an implosion (note the word for controlled demolition). How can a building that took months and months to build, and stood up to the elements for 100 years or more, collapse into a pile of rubble as if it were a sand castle? Following the blast, a cloud of dust blows out around the wreckage, enveloping nearby spectators as we observed on September 11th.

Now in the 9/11 Commission report, they said they would give the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11. But they didn’t even mention the collapse of Building 7. I can almost rest my case. I’m not going to. This is very sad. It is very suspicious. And of course, not good science to neglect data that’s just so in your face there. It’s so important. FEMA admitted that their best hypothesis, which is the only one they considered, which is fire and some damage, they admitted it had low probability for explaining the collapse of Building 7.

Now this is the latest. NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, another government-sponsored agency like FEMA. And at first they "decoupled their analysis" -- that’s their word, “decoupled” -- their analysis of Building 7 from the towers study. And now, just last month, just a couple of weeks ago, there is an announcement from NIST that they are asking contractors to study and analyze and figure out the collapse of Building 7. You can almost rest your case again. So there’s a good question here: “What is going on that they don’t just look at explosive demolition?” And we should consider this possibility. None of these studies looked at that seriously. At least, not in writing.

Now we’re going to shift over to the towers. As you can see, in this view while the towers are being constructed, you see the central core columns, 47 steel core columns. Look at the size of these columns. Huge and interconnected. I had an email from a mechanical engineer who read my paper and agrees with me, and she teaches at a major university. And she’s a little worried about her job. And she said, “It’s true. These buildings were solidly built." And this core, the way it’s put together, the comparison is to a biological organism, like to a tree. So you have these interconnected fibers, and when wind or other stress is put on this building, just like on a tree, it absorbs that stress. It picks it up.

Now the designers of this building, actually both towers, said that they were designed to withstand being hit by multiple Boeing 707 collisions. That was the big jet in those days. And as we see in the official reports, it wasn't hitting the towers with the jets that caused them to collapse. That’s not it. You’re talking about fire again. So this professor I referred to, Judy is her name, sent me this photo of a stove which she shows to her mechanical engineering students. And she has the temerity to talk about the collapse of these buildings in her class of mechanical engineering. She points out that when we burn wood, and in this case it would be office materials and jet fuel too -- but the jet fuel burned off very rapidly -- when we burn organic materials we don’t expect the stove to collapse. It can stand. And she got a laugh too. And I thought she’d made a good point there. You can imagine building a huge bonfire under here. Would you expect the thing to just give up? So let’s be a little more specific, though.

Let's quote Professor Eager from MIT. Now he is trying to explain how the building could come down by fire, but he’s laying out facts. And his factual presentation is really very helpful. The fire, he said, is the most misunderstood part of the collapse. Even today, the media reports, and many scientists believe, that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. And then he goes on. This is not true. I’ve seen many other scientists, including Dr. Barnett that we quoted earlier, and Frank Gale, and other scientists and engineers, saying this is not true. The temperature of the fire at WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. Now the reason is, as he goes on, the temperatures here were around 500-650 C. The 650C is important. At this temperature of 650C, the steel loses about half its strength. But he goes on. Even with the strength halved, the steel in the World Trade Center towers could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by this 650C fire. So it’s not enough just with these fires. They aren’t hot enough, certainly not to melt the steel, which has to get around 1500 C. Much hotter. And at 650C, which is red hot, they would still support the structure. Now another paper says 800 C is what they believe is required for failure. So somewhere in that range.

Now in NIST's report on the towers -- they did do a report on the towers, just not on Building 7; I like to say they punted on Building 7, let the other team, the contractor, see if he can figure it out -- anyway, using a metallographic analysis, NIST determined -- remember this is a government lab -- determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600C. Not hot enough. And indeed, if I look closely, and I read through their paper -- that’s hundreds of pages; most of it is on the evacuation of the towers and that sort of thing; interesting though when they talk about the physics here -- they show the temperatures. And there were some columns knocked out. Not the whole building, you understand, just on those few floors where the jets collided. It’s like puncturing a screen on your screen door with a pencil. It doesn’t make the whole thing fail. That was what one of the experts on the towers said. He said when the plane hits, we designed for that. It’s like punching a hole through a screen door. It doesn’t really hurt much, okay? Anyway, so for these temperatures, you see, we need to be up here in the yellow and orange temperatures, and red to get failure. But instead, they are all down in the green and blue. It’s just not hot enough. And NIST did some tests, and in their report they point out that jet fuel was mostly consumed during the first few minutes. I keep getting people saying, “Oh, it’s the jet fuel.” No! And of course, Building 7 wasn’t hit by a jet. But even in these towers, when you look at the science, the jet fuel burns up very quickly. That’s not the problem.

By the way, the steel has to get to 650C, not just the fire.

Now these steel structures are interconnected, and when heat gets whipped away, it’s called heat transport. As you heat up one piece, that heat carries over and goes through this structure. And so it’s hard to heat up one area to the temperature required for failure. And indeed, NIST sponsored WTC floor models, and tested with actual fire and actual models, to get this thing to fail. It wouldn’t fail. Oh my goodness! They couldn’t get the temperatures high enough with fires and damage! They can’t get actual models to fail!

By the way, my wife thought I should mention this. This is where the plane went in. I believe it’s the north tower. And in this little red box, there is a brave woman standing there who came to the edge, standing, holding on. Admittedly, I’d be crawling. In fact, there’s another person over here laying down. That’s me. I mean, that would be me. I’m not going to be standing up. But this is Rachel. Her last name is known. There is enough detail. She did not survive the collapse, but she did testify: “It’s not that hot, folks. I’m holding on here. It’s not like a red hot oven.” And so her testimony is received.

Now let’s see what Kevin Ryan -- he works at Underwriter Laboratories -- said: “Performing tests on the models” – this is where the tests were done, at Underwriter Labs – “the results of these tests indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by burning jet fuel and office materials.” And he goes into some detail. He’s writing to a scientist. “Your comments” – and this is to Frank Gale – “suggest the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 250 C, way below the heat needed for failure. And that is what one would expect from a thermodynamic analysis.” And then he says: "The temperatures are not enough. Can we admit this?" And he says, “The official story just does not add up.” And there are many engineers and scientists now awakening to that fact. Mine was one of the first peer-reviewed papers for some reason. And what do you think happened to Kevin Ryan writing this to NIST saying, “Look, we’ve got to face the facts here. The floor models did not collapse due to the fire. The official story of fire and damage, it just doesn’t work. We’ve got to face this, and look at what else could have caused the collapse of these towers.” What happened to Kevin Ryan? He was fired. I’ve been in email contact with him. He said it was because this letter of his went public, and disclosed this glaring discrepancy. So I don’t know if I’ll spend too much time on this. David got the joke. So you’ve got fire here, you’ve got damage, and over here you’ve got collapse. But how do you get from here to here? Well, some sort of miracle must have happened. And this is kind of what’s going on.

So I read through the NIST report, and what they do is they do a computer simulation. If you can’t get actual models to fail, go to the computer. Middle cases, and what they thought would be reasonable -- less severe, middle, and more severe -- upon examination of the middle cases, it remained clear that the towers would likely remain standing. So what do you do? You go to the severe case, and then you adjust the input. That’s what they admitted they did. You adjust the input, but you stay within the range of reality. They talk about pulling forces on the perimeter of the columns by the sagging floors. UK experts immediately jumped on that. I’ve read what they said: "The core columns cannot pull the exterior columns, the perimeter columns, via the floor." So the NIST model, they are struggling here. And then as it came out in October, the final NIST report, we have structural engineers criticizing the NIST work. They say: “The investigators at NIST are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the towers, despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers. Visualizations of collapsed mechanisms are routinely used.” I’m quoting from this journal. It’s a well-respected journal, "The New Civil Engineer." You can look it up there, and there is some detail. Notice what the professor of Civil Engineering at Manchester says, Colin Bailey: “NIST should really show the visualizations. Otherwise, the opportunity to correlate back to the video evidence, and identify any errors in the modeling, will be lost.” But NIST is not doing that. Furthermore, there is now a leading U.S. Structural Engineer -- not named – that says, “the software used by NIST has been pushed to new limits. There have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations, and judgment calls.”

Image

This does not make me want to believe the NIST report. And in my report you can see other reasons why I don’t believe that report is correct. But I’m not alone, you see, in complaining about this approach. It is like they are looking at it with blinders on: "We’ll consider fire; we’ll consider damage; Building 7 wasn’t hit by a plane, but we’ll consider fire." NIST does have a preliminary report on it, and that’s all they talk about there. They say, “We see no evidence for explosives in Building 7.” And I’m saying, “Open your eyes. It fell straight down very rapidly. There’s squibs coming off. What do you need?”

FEMA report. This is another journal, Fire Engineering, January 2002: "Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags." That’s what I’m doing here. I should have brought a red flag. "The structural damage from the planes, and the explosive ignition of jet fuel, in themselves, were not enough to bring down the towers. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the official investigation blessed by FEMA is a half-baked farce.”

Now these are not polite terms that we usually use. They feel very strongly about this. These are engineers saying, “Look, you’ve got to do more than what you’re doing.” “And furthermore, a half-baked farce that may have already been commandeered by political forces whose primary interest, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.” He hit the nail right on the head. This is what we’re seeing throughout. These are burning questions that need answers. He’s calling for an investigation. The steel beams were destroyed very rapidly after the collapse of these buildings. They were cut up, they were shipped off to Asia for recycling. And the engineers are saying, “Wait, we got to look at those so we can understand how fire could possibly have brought these buildings down.” The evidence at the crime scene was rapidly destroyed. This is over the objections of engineers.

Here’s a civil engineer’s comment which I just really appreciate. It was sent to me by someone else. He’s writing to someone else about reading my paper. He said, “Initially, I was a bit incredulous.” He did not believe me. “The sheer number of players that would have been involved is extraordinary.” I’ll come back to that. It’s not true. It’s a common misconception. “I downloaded all of the official reports” – which we’ve been talking about – “basically expecting to find holes in the good professor’s hypothesis. I’m a professional civil engineer with a lot of experience in the construction of major structures. And I was just astounded at what I found. In my COO days, if my staff had put up reports like that, there is no way they would have been accepted. And I would have been asking some very tough questions.” Which I hope we’re all starting to ask. The official reports, he concludes, are not at all convincing. That they are not, is a serious worry. Take care. Yes, it is a concern.

Now let me come back to this misconception that you would need an extraordinarily large number of players. If you look at controlled demolition for these large buildings, the towers, it would take only about 4,000 pounds. That sounds like a lot: two tons. But ten trips by ten men, 40 pounds each, and you’ve got the explosives that you need. This is now again my friend Jim Hoffman talking about how this could be done. The charges could be hidden in elevator shafts, set off via radio signals. The elevator shafts were right next to the core columns, you see. It could even be done by foreigners. However, you have to have access to the buildings.

So let me emphasize that point: it does not take a large group. There might be a dozen or 20 leaders in the know of all that’s going on. The rest are just following orders, you see, in a secret combination like that.

This is a mechanical engineer at Clemson University. She says, “As far as I know, I’m the only person in my department that doesn’t buy the official story. And this bothers me. I’ve approached a few others, but they have each thought I was crazy, yet were unwilling to look at the facts.” Now this is a problem I’ve run into. Are there any physicists here tonight? So we have one, I appreciate that. And another back here. So there are a couple of physicists. Anyway, I have this same problem in my same department. Though I did have a number when I was first talking about this way back in September of last year. So I can’t say they were totally unwilling. But in her case, they wouldn’t look at the facts. "So far I’ve not been called to the Dean’s office, or the Chair’s office for covering this material.” I cannot make that same statement. However, they were kind. They said I could go ahead with the investigation, and please give academic seminars and write papers, and that’s what we’re doing tonight. It’s okay. It’s not BYU that’s trying to shut me up. That’s not the case. And there are a number in my department that think there are serious questions, and that seriously doubt the official story that fire brought these buildings down.

Then she says a little more. She didn’t contact me last fall because: “I was afraid of what might happen with my career. Now I’m more afraid of what is happening with the world than with my career.” That is admirable. We have this group, Scholars for Truth, she joined us. And those two physicists and others, if you want to join us, go to ST911.org. It’s really easy to remember.

We’re halfway through, folks, but I’m not halfway through. I might look at one of these collapses. You’ve seen this one that we started with. Let’s look at towers for fun. These are some towers, and you’ll see squibs. See the plumes coming off the sides. Now that doesn’t take a lot of explosives. You pull or “cut” – the term demolition experts use is “pulling” the building -- you pull these core columns. You get them out of the way and the support is gone, and then gravity brings her down. I had a mechanical engineer say, “Man, you need to have so many tons of explosives.” No, no, no, you just don’t understand how demolition works.

Here’s another one. This one, you’ll notice it dips in the middle first, and then down she comes as you pull the support. That’s all it takes to bring them straight down, onto their footprint, just like Building 7. And the towers also came down, pretty much straight down. But there the explosions were at the top, so it’s a little different there. But it certainly could have been explosive demolitions.

Here’s the collapse of Building 7 once more, the collapse that MSNBC declined to show for some reason. I’m sure a lot of you have looked at this before as you started studying these issues. And this is the central issue, this collapse of Building 7. But I’m just curious, for how many of you is this the first time you’ve seen Building 7 collapse? Quite a few. Cool. Kind of neat the way it comes down.

So here’s a demolition expert, and this is published in the New Scientist the day after, on September 12th: “It looked like a classic controlled demolition.” That’s Mike Taylor, Demolition Contractors. “If there’s anything good about it, it’s good that the towers did not weaken to one side. They would have toppled onto other buildings.” That’s what you expect from uncontrolled demolition. This again is the law of physics, the law of increasing entropy or disorder. You expect it to topple over. However, the collapse of the towers mirrored the strategy used by demolition experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors, but also at the higher floors. On several consecutive floors. “The explosions on the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum, as gravity pulls the full weight of the unsupported higher floors into the lower floors like a snowballing effect.” It’s actually pancaking, but where you’ve pulled the material out of the way below. “It cascaded down like an implosion.” There’s that word again.

So here you see Building 7 in the upper right, and we saw the squibs. Remember the towers in the controlled demolition, you saw the plumes of gas and debris come out? An explosion causes those plumes.

Now if you look here at the tower -- this is one of the towers, this is the other -- you see these plumes way below the area where there’s destruction up here, and pulverization, which is also interesting. You see these plumes, and if you look closely, there is substantial debris in there. We’re hoping to get a close-up of this and see if that isn’t actually a beam that has been severed and is being hurled out.

But these plumes, and I had a civil engineer who is otherwise very skeptical of my paper say, “That really does look suspicious.” This plume coming off here.

Let’s look again here. This is Building 7 now. You’ll see the plumes. They are smaller, and they are going up, not down, which is significant. See how quickly they go up?

Now if it’s collapsing floors, a floor making air pressure, that should go down not up. So this does look like what you expect. And you see some in the front, too, over here in this area. You see? And over there.

There is testimony from firefighters reporting explosions, and it was on the lower level of the building, not just the upper. I’m moving along now because I’m 15 minutes behind.

Here’s a building fire expert saying, the Editor-In-Chief of Fire Engineering saying, “Look, we’ve got to stop destroying the evidence.” He’s complaining about this structural steel that has been, and continues to be, cut up and sold for scrap. “Crucial evidence that could answer many questions” -- which we all, or at least many of us, apparently some don’t -- “the destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance” – this guy tends to speak rather boldly, he was upset – “shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough scientific investigation.” He finds nothing to justify this behavior. “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.” And then he calls for a thorough investigation.

Destroying evidence: Why did they do this? This is kind of a famous cartoon, depicting what we call pathological science. He’s written a paper saying no two snowflakes can be alike. And then here come these two snowflakes, and he sees that they are exactly alike. So what does he do? He destroys the evidence. So that’s what we call pathological science. And in this case, I would call it unethical, because it was a crime scene.

Now I would like to talk about thermite, one of my favorite topics. This is a demonstration at the University of California with thermite. The reaction is iron oxide, rust, plus powdered aluminum, plus sulfur. Well, this didn’t have sulfur, but if you put sulfur in it, it cuts through steel faster. Thermite: Fe203+Al (+sulfur: fast cutter). And now you see the white hot steam. Now this reaches temperatures hot enough to evaporate steel. Does that sound familiar? Remember, evaporated steel was seen in the rubble pile. And this is the collapse of the North Tower. Here we see this aluminum oxide coming off, and the glowing hot metal. We’re trying to get more photos, but it looks like this is a steel structure. Now, from the North Tower, something glowing there. And then this trailing-off smoke coming off of that. It certainly looks like thermite. But there’s more.

There was molten metal found beneath both towers and Building 7. Now the temperature, according to Eager and others, of these fires were about 650 C. To melt steel requires 1500 C. Thermite gets you up well past that, to 2500 C. And as you look at the molten stuff being pulled out -- we have photographs and so on of this -- you see that you’ve got this yellow hot stuff. Now the color of the metal tells you the temperature. It’s physics, independent of the metal. So this has to be something that can hold together even when it’s salmon and yellow hot. What is that? Structural steel can handle that, lemon and salmon temperatures, no problem. Aluminum melts at 660C. If this had been aluminum, it would just be liquid. It can’t be solid at those temperatures. And it was also weeks after 9/11.

Image
Molten metal slag: high iron content (aluminum does not make red rust)

And after this slag solidifies -- we finally got a picture of this -- you see that it’s covered with a red material which certainly looks like rust. Again, the end product of the thermite reaction is molten iron. And you see the entrained cement and rebar here, of course. I’ve had people say, “Well, it’s just aluminum from the planes.” Well, I’m sorry, first of all there was molten metal beneath Building 7 and there was no plane there. And plus the fact that we’re building the evidence here. We’re hoping to analyze some of this stuff, and really nail it. Does it have high iron content and aluminum oxide as well?

An explosive specialist says, “I have read your paper regarding the towers’ collapse, and agree that military thermite" -- which is the type with sulfur as an accelerant to make it cut through steel much faster -- "is the only explanation for the molten slag found weeks after the collapse. Thermite charges, used in conjunction with small linear charges.” Now I want to emphasize that. I believe that if thermite was used, there were also explosives like HDX or RDX used as well.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17989
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: PROFESSOR STEVEN E. JONES, 9-11 LECTURE AT UTAH VALLEY S

Postby admin » Sat Jan 16, 2016 8:51 am

Part 2 of 2

FEMA talks about the sulfidation. This is in the FEMA report. This is Professor Barnett again. He’s a good guy out in Massachusetts who said, “Look, we found this steel under Building 7 and it’s got sulfidation.” That means sulfur attacked the steel, which it does. “Where did this sulfur come from?” Good question. Used in conjunction with thermite, it’s called “thermate.” It’s a military form, and it’s used to cut through steel rapidly.

Hot spots in the rubble corroborate reports of the deep down molten metal. F-G, this is the South Tower, and then the North Tower is C-D, in this area. The red color. And this is Building 7. The red-orange implies these very high temperatures. This is five days after 9/11.

“There is an explosion at the base of the building.” This is Building 2. White smoke from the bottom, white smoke again consistent with thermite. Something happened. See, what you want to do is cut these core columns, these huge steel cores, down low. And this is what the demolition experts say. “If I were going to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” Gosh, that sounds just like what happened, particularly to Building 7. But in the towers also there were reports of explosions.

Now we get to a little thing that’s kind of important. A puzzle piece. I brought along a puzzle, which my wife got for me. We’re putting out these puzzle pieces, you know, molten metal at the bottom of both towers and Building 7, and rusty when you look at the slag, the rapid collapse of Building 7 straight down, the fact that the fires were not hot enough. We’re trying to put these pieces together and figure it out.

Here’s another one of these puzzle pieces. In Building 7 was the CIA’s undercover New York station. And also offices of the Department of Defense and FBI. Now this is a high security building. It’s not like you can have hijackers running in there -- it was cordoned off on 9/11 -- and start planting explosives that day. No. Or the towers, either, of course. And this is a particularly high security building.

And here’s another puzzle piece, which I think will interest you. I mentioned this briefly. The towers were old and loaded with asbestos. There was much discussion about how they’re going to get this asbestos out of the towers, or take the towers down. It was prohibitively expensive. The owner / leaseholder of these buildings, Larry Silverstein, insured the World Trade Center buildings against terrorist attack less than two months before 9/11. I’m not sure, but he did receive an estimated over $4 billion in insurance payment. Now the clean-up was out of our taxpayers' money. The rebuilding of these buildings looks like it will be largely funded by taxpayer money. This guy has pocketed a fair piece of change. And I would ask a few questions if I were in a position to do so. I am asking the questions, I’m just not in a position to get answers under oath.

Anyway, it takes weeks to plan. You should know that. Not a lot of explosives, 3,000 pounds per building, but it takes weeks to plan to bring down a building and to plant explosives to get a building to come down in this way. Who could pull it off with the CIA, FBI and DOD in a highly secured building? So questions naturally arise whether this was an inside job. It doesn’t look like the hijackers brought the buildings down. That’s what I said in my original paper. And it’s just science. It’s almost inescapable. I don’t see any way out of it.

Scott Forbes wrote that on the weekend just prior to 9/11, there was a power-down condition in Tower 2, the South Tower, for approximately 36 hours. Ben Fountain says, “Over the past few weeks we’ve been evacuated a number of times from the World Trade Center south tower. Which is unusual. I think they had an inkling that something was going on.” I suspect he’s right. Anyway, that’s what he thought.

An MIT professor wrote me, “I agree wholeheartedly with one comment” – he’s talking about my paper – “that the official inquiries are grossly inadequate, and the conclusion may well be wrong. Building engineers are on the defensive.”

Now we’re ready to move on. The toxic dust is next. Immediately following the tragedy, scientists analyzed the dust samples. And I have some dust here that was given to me by a woman from her apartment in New York City. And the dust is loaded with asbestos, heavy metals, and mercury in particular from all the fluorescent lights in the buildings. It’s loaded with mercury, and a very high alkalinity. Now let’s see what that means.

One of the scientists, Greg Swayze, says: "Tests revealed the dust to be extremely alkaline, with a ph of 12, and some of it was as caustic as liquid drain cleaner. We were startled at the ph levels we were finding. We knew it was caustic, but we were getting ph levels of up to 12 and higher. It was obvious that precautions had to be taken to protect the workers and people from this dust.”

Of course this information was sent quickly to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and other health services.

Now what happened? Here we see a report by EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley. I’m just going to read this. It was in the newspapers, and you might have seen it. This is from a Seattle Post-Intelligencer report. "At the White House’s direction, the EPA 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.” This is quoting from Tinsley’s report: “The White House convinced the EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.”

Now folks, this makes me upset a bit. As a scientist, to see politicians take perfectly good scientific data, this very hazard toxic stuff, we’ve got precautions, and to flip that upside down and say, “It’s safe,” now that is just wrong. That is unethical. I can’t call it anything else but, I’ll use the scientific term, “data falsification.” That’s the scientific term. However, what they explained was at that time: “All statements to the media should be cleared first by the National Security Council.” This is Bush’s main forum. Senior aides and his cabinet are on this council. I’d like to know who pushed for this data falsification. The Inspector General found the EPA was persuaded to omit guidance for cleaning. Originally, the EPA had a statement saying this is what you have to do because it’s dangerous stuff. Giving guidance for cleaning spaces, tips on potential health effects from this dust which contains asbestos, lead and glass fibers. You can see the chips of glass even in that lady’s apartment in this stuff. It’s not like you want to touch this stuff or breathe it.

So there have been people now who have died. You may have noticed this. It was just a few weeks ago. Now it’s in the news again. A man, a retired police officer who helped clean up, he developed black lung disease -- which is expected from the toxicity and caustic nature of the dust -- and mercury on the brain. And mercury from the dust. Now that combination says very clearly, “This is the dust.” And he’s there breathing this. He worked 470 hours in the first month helping people, rescue and recovery. He gave his life to help people. And he was told it was safe. Some of these rescue workers were asked not to wear dust masks because it might frighten people. This is not nice. This is very bad stuff.

The majority of residents and ground zero workers have reported worsening respiratory problems in the years since the attacks. Tim Keller died also at the age of 41 clearly because of this dust. It’s actually difficult to say for sure in some of these cases. These people have respiratory problems, but I mean, you’ve got black lung disease and mercury on the brain, and you worked for many hours in the financial district. This was obviously one of the prime concerns of politicians. They want to get the financial district going again. EPA administrator Christie Whitman, who has since resigned, announced that the results of air and drinking water monitoring indicate that these vital resources are safe.

And then we have a scientist, and I’m proud of this man, Thomas Cahill at UC Davis, said" “Look, we felt that based on the measurements that we had made a mile away from the site, that the materials coming off the hot collapse pile” -- there’s that heat again -- “were much more dangerous in fact than we had been generally led to believe.” Yes, much more dangerous. Certainly not safe. And of course, they’ve been hit with a lawsuit for people unnecessarily exposed to potentially hazardous levels of asbestos and other carcinogens and toxic substances. The lawsuit accuses the EPA of a shockingly deliberate indifference to human health. Again, that bothers me. I don’t like it when they falsify data. I’m trying not to say “lie.” I’m trying to say “data falsification.” Why? Because people don’t like it when you say your government lied to you. Clearly, this is data falsification. It was very dangerous stuff.

I asked students about this. We had a class. We were talking about science and ethics. Obviously, this is a topic that I raised to them, because it’s an ethical question. And it relates to science as well. Here’s what the students responded to me. I had them send emails. “The public should definitely have been warned about the dust, but what would happen if they were? This could have caused a major impediment in the rebound of the economy.“ Very practical person. “I guess it’s just a question of what is more important to those in authority.” I think the student hit it on the head. What is more important, you see, to those in authority. “Is it right to sacrifice some lives for the national good?” a student asks in this context. My point of view is that honesty is the best thing for the people. “Losing lives due to the toxic dust can be thought of as a propagation of the terrorist act.” That’s an interesting point of view. “I’ve been thinking a lot about this” – one girl wrote – “our political leaders basically have our lives in their hands. I’ve been paying more attention to the news, and I think I will actually take the time to vote next time.”

Yes! Yes! Pay attention to the news and do your own research, too. Go a little deeper than just what you get in these news releases. And then vote. I had other people’s rationalizations. One person told me, just adamant, “There was no asbestos.” Hint: There was asbestos, okay? I mean, there’s no question. She wouldn’t yield on that point. Must be safe because there’s no asbestos. Another one said, “If the Administration said this dust was safe, it’s okay. Only liberals or democrats would complain.”

Look, these issues transcend party politics. I’m not talking about democrat-republican, whatever. I’m talking about people’s lives here. “It was unethical to deceive people in this way, but surely it was an isolated case.” I wish that were so. It’s not an isolated case. Okay, now here’s a question. These neoconservatives, some of you have heard about them, we’ll quote them a little while later, one of their leaders, Michael Ledeen said, and this is in his book that he published, "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership,": “In order to achieve the most noble achievements” – I don’t agree with this guy – “the leader may have to enter into evil. This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging.” I don’t admire this thought at all. Paul says it’s wrong. You can look in Romans, Paul talks about overcoming evil with good. Jesus talks about doing good that good may come. We don’t do evil that good may come. Where does it stop if you take that philosophy? Where do you draw the line? I’m sorry, I’m getting passionate again. It just annoys me. I agree with Paul. We stay on the Lord’s side of the line and we do good. Whether we believe in God or not, we know we don’t lie to people and hurt them.

Now Bin Laden was blamed. This is interesting, I think. Here’s some pictures, another one of these Sesame Street: “Which one of these is not like the others?”

Image

And there are five. And I put one more in here. So let’s sing out -- and you’ve seen Bin Laden through the years; we’ve all seen him, I’m sure -- Which one of these just does not look like your bin Laden? Sing out the letter. “E!” Now we did some analysis:

Image

I worked with a student on this because it looks pretty obvious, but if you do some detailed work on it -- we looked at the length of the nose, and nose to the width; we looked at the nose-ear distance as well – this guy’s ear is tilted quite a bit. The picture, unfortunately, is not real clear from this, but it’s clear enough that this measure, this ratio, is about half of Al Jazeera’s. This is the Osama Bin Laden released by the Pentagon and the Bush Administration in December.

Now I don’t know why more people didn’t say, “Wait a minute. That’s not Bin Laden.” But here’s what Bin Laden himself said five days, and then 17 days after 9/11. He said, “I stress that I have not carried out this act” -- this is the videotape now, Al Jazeera, and this is the fellow that we’re all familiar with – “which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation.” And on the 28th of September, just 17 days after 9/11, he said, “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie.”

Now I’m not saying he’s a good man, but I’m just saying, “Give him a chance, okay, and see why do we all think that he’s responsible? Did you know that he denied this?” What happened was the U.S. Administration urged American media not to broadcast these words, because they said perhaps he’s giving signals to cells of terrorists that are still in the United States, which is possible. But as you actually look at what he says, he is denying that he was involved. He says, “The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks to those persons who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own nation can survive.” That’s quite a statement, but I’m not saying it’s right, either. But it’s something to think about.

This is again from the Bin Laden so-called “Smoking Gun” video. And it’s true that he does say that this guy calculated the number of casualties of the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower. He’s clearly talking about that. I asked a bin Laden expert, Duke University Professor Bruce Lawrence, if this was bin Laden. He replied emphatically, “This is not bin Laden.” And he went on to tell me in his email, just within the last couple of weeks, that he doubts the bin Laden tape. Remember the one aired in January? He said again, “That doesn’t sound like bin Laden.” But that was an audio tape. This is video, and we can clearly rule out bin Laden.

And this is after the release of the so-called “confession tape.”

Image

He says again, “The United States has attacked Afghanistan and killed many people who are innocent. But on a mere suspicion the United States has launched this fierce campaign. We have witnessed the true crimes of those who call” – I mean, should I not give this guy a chance to speak?

Image

I think I should. Okay. “We have witnessed the true crimes of those who call themselves humanitarians and claim to be defenders of freedom.” Certainly not for these people who’ve died.

Now here’s what the Muslims did say. They said that this does not look like bin Laden to us. And this is the tape released Thursday. This is back in December, 2001, by the Bush Administration. What happened was that as our soldiers went into Afghanistan, they found this tape in a large city. So I guess they were looking at a lot of videotapes, and they found this one, and immediately they said this was bin Laden. The Muslims tend not to agree. They say it’s still not a proven case that he directed this 9/11 attack, that he planned it or funded it.

Now Mayor Giuliani, regarding this tape, said it showed Osama Bin Laden was the personification of evil. President Bush became aware of these doubts and suspicions, mostly in the Muslim world, and he said: “It is preposterous for anybody to think this tape is doctored. That’s just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man.” Well, my own conclusion is that this is not Bin Laden. This is the smoking gun confession tape, but it’s not him.

Image

What happened then is that bin Laden was convicted on TV. The question is, what other suspects were even investigated? The evidence from the crime scene, as we’ve seen, has been destroyed as the steel beams were cut up and shipped quickly away, the dust was declared safe, and surveillance videos and flight recorders have been seized and not released to the public. I’m talking here about the surveillance videos at the Pentagon in particular. They released five frames, which don’t show a jet going into the Pentagon at all. It’s very suspicious. And so again, if I were to talk about good science, we start from the facts and draw conclusions. Bad science is we start with the conclusions, I wrote it here, I put this on myself, "Muslims did it," and then we look for facts or whatever we can find to support it. That’s bad science. We start with the data, okay, and then we build our conclusions. That’s what I’m trying to do here, to lead to conclusions.

Image

So what happened? The U.S. immediately attacked and occupied Afghanistan to kill al Qaeda, as they said, and get Bin Laden. I believe Bin Laden is apparently still on the loose. Al Qaeda is growing throughout the world, and very rapidly in fact. There was an editorial by Paul Roberts, Dr. Roberts, who worked in the Reagan administration. He’s very concerned about all this. He has emailed me and he agrees that there is something very wrong in the official story of 9/11. He said that 95% of the terrorists have developed – the Muslims are angry for some reason for us attacking their country. They feel it was without being attacked. They say Iraq didn’t attack the United States, so what are you doing? Iraqis are saying we are defending ourselves. Anyway, 95% of the terrorists have grown, built up, since our attacks on Afghanistan.

I noticed in U.S. News & World Report that the opium trade in Afghanistan has taken off too. Tripled they say. Why is that? We got our military in control of the country, why are we allowing this opium trade? It’s big business, I supposed, but people are more important than business. I think that’s true. Anyway, I don’t know all the details, but there are some questions there.

Now this is an admission by FBI director Robert Mueller: “The hijackers left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere” – not a single piece of paper – “that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.” Basically all they have is the so-called “confession tape,” which isn’t even Bin Laden. There are many question about that tape, by the way. The statements made there don’t ring true to the Muslim religion.

Okay, I finished bin Laden. Now the hardest part: Did officials know about the impending attacks in advance? And then I’ll talk about the United States Constitution. So here we have evidence, and not proof. And I made that clear, you may have seen the letter to the editor in Deseret News that was published this morning, in which I said the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Group is pursuing these questions. We have evidence that there was foreknowledge, that before 9/11 officials in our government knew that there were impending attacks, but did not stop them. We don’t have proof, we just have evidence. And I’ll show you some of that evidence.

But I’m going to back up now to a timeline, going way back to September 2000. And so this is just before President Bush was elected, which was in November, 2000. A group put together a document, and it’s available now on the Web so you can read it, and I’ve read a fair amount of it. The Project for the New American Century, these are the people who are involved. You recognize some of these guys: Vice President Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, who was Assistant Secretary of Defense with Don Rumsfeld who is also on this, Richard Perle, Lewis Libby was recently indicted, Jeb Bush is the brother of President Bush, and Michael Ledeen, the guy who said we have to enter into evil to achieve noble etcetera.

From the document you can read: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in the Gulf” – we’re talking about the Persian Gulf, in Iraq – “while the unresolved conflict with Iraq” – this is 2000, he’s saying the conflict there is unresolved, hmmm – “provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf, transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” They are itching to get the United States military into Iraq back then. “The process of transformation” – you have to read this document; they are talking about a transformation of war; essentially they mention it’s a revolutionary change in American society, and they want it to be more militaristic, and I think that’s a good summary of what they are talking about: they are after much more money for the military -- “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, unless or absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.” Again, that’s a little bit chilling that they should say this is what we need to get this process going, or at least that would do it.

Here’s some more. I just quoted what they’re after: "personnel strength, increased defense spending dramatically, reposition U.S. forces" -- Iraq is specified -- "defend the American homeland" -- which is now called the Homeland Security -- "control the new international commons of space and cyberspace." You know about our program to send missiles and so on, but cyberspace is not yet under control. "Exploit the revolution in military affairs, and American global leadership." Some of this sounds okay except when you say the Global Security Order that is uniquely friendly to American prosperity. Now I don’t read in the Constitution that we should have some kind of global security order that is uniquely friendly to ourselves. The term my friend Professor David Griffin uses for this is “American Empire.” That’s what it sounds like. It’s a little scary. The Constitution does not say we can establish a global security order to maintain American prosperity! Which is what this document calls for. The military’s job during the cold war was to deter Soviet expansionism; today it’s task is to secure and expand zones of democratic peace. Does that sound familiar? "To deter the rise of any power competitor and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of" – you notice how often these guys talk about a “transformation.” What are they talking about? A revolutionary change in American society. I’m saying, “Whoa, what happened on 9/11?” It’s a revolutionary change, but I’m not sure I like it. I’m not sure it’s ethical. I’m not sure it’s right to use pre-emptive war which followed from the change in our policy.

And again, I quote this: “The process of transformation, since it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event.” I sure hope we don’t need another one of those. But here’s what President Bush wrote -- and reporter’s learned this on the night of 9/11 -- “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today.” Now that connection is not necessarily strong, but I think we would all agree that that was like Pearl Harbor getting us into war and into other changes.

I’ve already talked about most of this. These men are called neo-conservatives, but they call themselves that, and they are now in the Administration: Richard Armitage, Bill Bennett, Jeb Bush, Alan Bork, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby was indicted, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, who is now the President of the World Bank, appointed by President Bush. And to me, this is information we need to know. More puzzle pieces. I wish it wasn’t that they had this plan. We’re seeing it coming out. But folks, we can read about this plan. We can stop it if we want to. If you want to have American Empire, then you can continue to support this group. They are called Neo-Conservatives.

Now this is Secretary O’Neill who was fired later, but he’s writing a book about his experiences in the Bush Administration. "At the first meeting of the National Security Council" -- we talked about that before; this is Bush’s department heads and closest advisers; this is from a CBS news report; and it’s in his book, “The Price of Loyalty” he calls it; Paul O’Neill’s a very honest man; he was fired but he said, “From the very first instance it was about Iraq.” Now this is back in January of 2001. This is before 9/11 by nine months or so. “Day 1 it was about what we could do to change this regime of Saddam Hussein. Day 1 these things were laid and sealed.” Did you know that? They are talking about how to get into Iraq. The President was saying, “Go find me a way to do this.” And then O’Neill comments: “For me the notion of preemption” -- attacking a country without having been attacked first, because they may have weapons of mass destruction and so on; they might; they didn’t, it turned out -- “that the U.S. has a unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap.” And it’s an enormous change of policy. It’s called the Bush Doctrine. This policy of preemptive war was enunciated at West Point after 9/11, before we attacked Iraq. Is preemption a fact? Just look up “Bush Doctrine” on Google, and you’ll learn a lot about the preemptive war doctrine that O’Neill is complaining about.

Also in this CBS News report they talk about Ron Suskind who says there was a plan for post-Saddam Iraq. Now this is way back before 9/11. They discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February, 2001. These are painful truths to me. I admit it, I’ve been a lifelong Republican, but I don’t associate with that party at this time. Or any party, to tell you the truth. I’m looking for facts and for someone who will support the Constitution. We’ll see. They discuss an occupation of Iraq in January and February, 2001. They plan and envision peace-keeping troops – we have those in Iraq – war crime tribunals – we have those in Iraq – and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth was discussed. Interesting, we haven’t done that. That’s not a popular thing to talk about.

This is a quote I put in here: Dick Cheney famously said at a cabinet meeting, “Deficits don’t matter.” Maybe many of you heard that. Secretary O’Neill objected to that. He said they do matter. We can’t just keep ballooning our national debt, which has grown by about 30% in the last four years. One-third. But Cheney said, “We won the 2002 midterms, this is our due.” I don’t know if you’ve noticed how the national debt has grown, but I worry about it.

Now, forewarning. There are reports in foreign newspapers and by BBC broadcasting, that U.S. officials were warned of imminent major attacks by terrorists, especially during the summer of 2001 -- this was before 9/11 -- by Britain, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, and so on. There were names of four of the terrorists. I don’t recognize all of these, but I do recognize Mohammed Atta, who was one of the principal hijackers. Can anyone tell me which tower he flew into? I’m not sure. South Tower I think. North Tower. We’ve got a consensus. He didn’t survive. His passport was found. Okay, another question.

This came out of course after 9/11, the fact that these warnings were given to the United States Government. And Jane’s Intelligence Digest says, “It is rather strange that the U.S. media seems to be ignoring what may well be the most explosive story since the 11 September attacks.” The foreknowledge. Well, there are a lot of explosive stories, including explosions that were heard by many people, and you see the squibs and so on.

Now I support Curt Weldon. He’s a Republican out of Pennsylvania. He is pursuing this question of the foreknowledge by the government of Mohammed Atta. And the intelligence operation which pursued Atta is called Able Danger. You may have heard of that. And Curt Weldon is spearheading this investigation. And here’s what he says, and he rises last summer: “I rise because information has come to my attention during the last several months that is very disturbing. I have learned that in fact one of our federal agents had in fact identified the major New York cell of Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11."

There’s an editorial about this. And here’s a man who I think respects the Constitution, Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania. To his credit he is pursuing this. An editorial about this which was in the Wall Street Journal says, and I’m just quoting from the editorial, “The final 9/11 Commission Report released in July, 2004, concluded that American intelligence agencies were unaware of Mr. Atta until the day of the attacks. This now looks to be embarrassingly wrong. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know the name and photo I.D. of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded it was not historically significant. This astounding conclusion” – See these words that people use? What is going on here? How could they make a conclusion like that? Initially, the 9/11 Commission people said, “Well, we didn’t know,” and then later they said, “Well, yeah we did. But we didn’t think it was that important.” Gosh, it’s very important. “This astounding conclusion, in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into the findings of the Commission, raises serious challenges to the Commission’s credibility.” There’s a book about the 9/11 Commission by David Griffin, which I recommend and I’ve got, and I’ve read a lot of it, which challenges more than just this oversight.

9/11 families are of course concerned about this. One woman says: “I’m angry that my son’s death could have been prevented.” Now this is a very serious thing, and it needs to be pursued. And I support Representative Weldon in his investigation.

Here’s some more. It’s September 10th, the day before, a number of things happened that could be coincidences, but it could be that there was foreknowledge. Newsweek reported: "On September 10th Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. On September 10th, Donald Rumsfeld admitted at a press conference that over $2 Trillion in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Quoting Rumsfeld, 'According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 Trillion in transactions.'” Ordinarily you’d get some interest out of that. But on the 11th, the next day, there was of course this tragedy, and all of this was essentially, as it is said, forgotten. All but forgotten. And some of this has been found, but apparently not all of it. I understand there’s still hundreds of billions missing. Nobody seems to be worried about it. The day of September 11th, that evening, Rumsfeld went to Congress and asked for more money for the military to fight terror. And of course, the money was soon allocated in fulfillment, remember, of this strategy, this roadmap, of the Neo-conservatives, that we need to have more money for the military, and beef up, effectively have a transformation in our society.

Okay, this is interesting. FEMA was Johnny on the spot on 9/11. How did that happen? You remember, after Katrina, they were slow. But on 9/11, they were right there. In fact, they were there the day before. That’s true. And it was admitted by Mayor Giuliani. He says that on September 12th, his city was going to have a drill. So the people gathered on the 10th, you see, and this guy was one of the drill members. “We arrived late Monday night on the 10th, and of course went into action on the 11th.” They had hundreds of people here from FEMA, and so on. They were ready for a drill on the 12th. They came in, and of course the equipment was already there on the 10th. Now that to me is a bit suspicious. In Manhattan, folks, in downtown New York. I mean, the drill was at the right time and the right place, the day before.

“The match is about to begin.” This is a bit of intelligence that leaked out of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was a communication to Mohammed Atta saying “The Match is About to Begin.” This was again on the 10th. And I would like to know who is the message from? Right? And why don’t we know more about it? Michael Ruppert has written a book in which he tells a lot of these issues that indicate foreknowledge. But when this intelligence came out, the White House was infuriated says Michael Caine, a partner of Ruppert. The Intelligence Committee had released this bit of information, and they were threatened with polygraphs and office searches for disclosing classified information. It seems to be -- what was the most recent one? domestic wiretapping? -- so what do we do? Apologize? No, we try to find out and punish the person. And Nikki Tinsley, the one who said the dust was toxic, she was also criticized for her report by the Administration.

Lack of air defenses. This is an important point, and it bears scientific analysis. There is a lot of data here. Building 1, WTC 1, the plane crashed into it at 8:46. We knew we were under attack at that time. At 8:46, coincidentally the same time, American Airlines 77 was taken over. You know that because it goes wildly off course at that time, at 8:46. FAA tracks planes, and when they go wildly off course like that, the typical response is to scramble military escorts. That doesn’t mean you are going to shoot it down. No, it’s a graduated response. It means you try to get the plane to land if it looks like it’s hijacked. And of course, the transponders are off. So you know that this plane really looks hijacked. It’s not just off course. But even off course, the military routinely scrambles jets. In the year before 9/11, it scrambled 67 times. Near D.C., it only takes about five minutes to scramble a jet, because as you see there are two airforce bases right near, north and south of Washington, D.C. So we’re talking about five minutes.

Now the takeover was 8:46. 52 minutes later is the collision of the plane in the Pentagon, or something. I’ll just leave it at that. 52 minutes. Where were our air defenses? Now this is a very important question. It just takes minutes. We routinely scramble aircraft. Where were our defenses that day? This concerns me deeply. The 9/11 Commission report deals with this – of course, they can’t ignore it – the Washington Post says this is how they handled it: ‘Portray a discombobulated government that can’t even keep track of the hijacked planes. Fighter planes flying in the wrong directions, pilots have no idea why they are in the air.” Well, that may be, but I’m afraid there’s a little more to it than that.

I’m going to read what people say. “Generally it’s impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday.” That’s a Russian airforce commander. “As soon as something like that happens here, I’m reported about that right away, and in a minute we are all up.” Well, that used to happen in the United States, but not on September 11th. And I’d like to know why.

Secretary Mineta in his testimony to the 9/11 commission, and I’m quoting it here in yellow -- so the Commission is saying, let’s see what happened on 9/11; that’s their job; good -- Mineta says, and let’s read it and think about it, please: “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who had come in and say to the Vice President” – now the scene is, we’re under the White House in a bunker; the President is flying because he’d been in Florida, and he’s not back in Washington until about 7:00 p.m. that evening of the 11th, so the Vice-President is in charge down there; Secretary Mineta is there and he reports what he observed. “ A young man would come in and say to the Vice President, ‘the plane is 50 miles out’” – there’s plenty of time folks to scramble a jet. Next, “’the plane is 30 miles out.’ When it came to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the Vice President, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ The Vice-President turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’” Now my question would be what orders? For heaven’s sake, there’s plenty of time to shoot the plane down, the plane was not shot down, and it didn’t have to be shot down, it could have been forced down, okay. This is a common misperception that when you scramble a jet, you’re going to shoot the plane down. No, no. Those 67 times in the year prior, not one of those was shot down. So you escort the plane. You try to get it to land. I mean, shooting down is absolutely the last recourse, of course. In this case, there’s plenty of time to scramble a jet. There was no jet scrambled. The plane was not intercepted. And it crashed into the Pentagon killing many people, including a Latter Day Saint. I read in the Deseret News that a woman was in the Pentagon when this plane hit. Where were our air defenses? And what are these orders? And why didn’t the commission ask about these orders?

You know, Mineta’s testimony -- he seems like an honest man to talk about this -- his testimony was not even included in the 9/11 Commission Report. I’d like to know what is going on!

Flight recorders. This fellow, Nicholas DeMasi, firefighter, worked with federal agents: “We loaded up about $1 Million worth of equipment. There were a total of four black boxes, and we found three.” According to the government, zero were found. This is in the towers. See, we want to know what’s happening on the flights, what’s really happening. So that’s just another puzzle piece. I don’t know if that’s as important as what those orders were.

Image

Here’s another puzzle piece. President Bush was in Florida at an elementary school during the attacks reading a book about goats with children. And we’d already had an attack. Remember, it’s 8:46. And he told a reporter that he’d heard about the attacks. But he goes ahead and heads to the school. He said, “I saw an airplane hit the tower.” The TV was obviously on. But this is the first tower now, and that was a private person who filmed that, and that was not shown on TV. People didn’t even know that this private person had captured that first plane hitting the tower. It was not shown for I think three or four hours after the first tower had been hit. And then this person came forth with his video evidence. It was long after. So this is puzzling. Maybe President Bush made a mistake there. Andrew Card came in at 9:02 and whispered in Bush’s ear, and he said, “America is under attack.” This is now the second tower being hit. And Bush continues to sit there for another 20 minutes or so until about 9:25.

Now my main question is, and I can understand that this is shocking, and he might not have known what to do, but where were his handlers, the security agents of Bush? He’s in a public place; we’re under attack; he’s in danger, and the children are in danger. Let’s get him out of there. For 20 minutes he sits there. This is puzzling, and disturbing in the sense that it’s unexplained. I don’t know how to explain it unless they knew beforehand, but maybe not. There are some questions there, certainly.

These are the puzzle pieces. There are many more, some of which are in our papers. And finally, I’d like to point out the United States Constitution provides for defense, not wars of aggression, when we haven’t even been attacked by Iraq. The core principles of the Constitution are limited balanced government, reserving powers and rights to the states and the people; protection of inalienable rights are given by God, not by government. I wish I could read through this, but I won’t. This is just a recent editorial. Paul Roberts worked under President Reagan. He’s very concerned about what is happening in the current administration. He is, or was, a good Republican. I really respect President Reagan. Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more affect in reducing the threat of terrorism as spying with a warrant? The law permits the President to spy first, for 72 hours, three days, and then come to the court afterwards for permission. So there’s really no excuse not to have a warrant. You can get it after the fact. President Bush has said he’s not going to do that. Many people are saying that’s against the law. I’m wondering why not do it legally? The law allows this. And who’s being spied on?

And then I want to point this out, too. Americans need to desperately understand that 95% of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the last three years by Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Prior to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a large majority of Muslims had a favorable opinion of America. Now only about 5% have a favorable opinion. This is sad. Why are we doing this?

Image

So the Constitution provides for a common defense. I think we need to question wars of aggression. I’ve noticed that there is sword rattling relative to Iran lately. Fox News seems to be giving various reasons for this. But I don’t think we should attack Iran if they haven’t attacked us. I don’t believe in preemptive war. I believe this is a very dangerous and oppressive policy. It’s contrary to international law. It was never the policy of the United States until the Bush Doctrine, which was enunciated, I think, in 2002. Well, actually you find it in the neo-conservatives' writings before that. They wanted this preemptive war. We’ve got it. I think it’s illegal. We need to get back the rule of the Constitution and law. No one should break the law with impunity, including warrantless wiretapping. We have a law, it allows you 72 hours to get permission.

Torture. I can’t understand why Vice President Cheney and the President were wanting the CIA to be able to have torture. Do we have secret prisons in Eastern Europe? WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS?! I’m saying, “Whoa, what is going on?” I guess there’s no proof yet, but it saddens me that we’ve evidently strayed so far from the Constitution.

There are three branches of government, not one or two. The legislative branch is charged with declaring war, not the President. The oversight investigations are also the responsibility of Congress, and I hope they will get doing it. Thank you.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17989
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Another View on 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron