Patrick Henry said:

“The CIA needs to be pared down if not dissolved completely, That agency has caused this nation trouble since its inception and has an agenda contrary to the U.S. Constitution.”

Harry Truman agreed with you in December 1963:

http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry Truman’s CIA article.html

Just after Kennedy’s assassination, Truman wrote that in the Washington Post.  I found this so hard to believe that I want to my university library and found it on microfiche.  The timing is interesting, but it’s possible Truman was talking about, or also talking about, CIA involvement in overthrow of regimes in Iran in 1953, installing the Shah, and Iraq in 1963, installing the Baathists.  Who knows.  Regardless, the president that established the CIA said it’s covert operations were not what he intended.

Jeeze…this is gonna seem really boring after reading all of your comments and the associated links.

But, I’ll post it anyway. This included the explanation for why the CIA destroyed the tapes of the interrogation and torture of the detainees who supposedly provided the information on 9/11, even AFTER the federal judge had told them NOT to destroy anything.

This is the White Houses’ explanation for why they did it anyway:

......” Federal Judge Told Not to Ask About CIA Tapes
  By Matt Apuzzo
  The Associated Press

  Saturday 15 December 2007

  Washington - The Bush administration told a federal judge it was not obligated to preserve videotapes of CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists and urged the court not to look into the tapes’ destruction.

  In court documents filed Friday night, government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about the tapes would interfere with current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department.

  It was the first time the government had addressed the issue of the videotapes in court.

  Kennedy ordered the administration in June 2005 to safeguard “all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.”

  Five months later, the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos. The recordings involved suspected terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri

  Government lawyers told Kennedy the tapes were not covered by his court order because Zubaydah and al-Nashiri were not at the Guantanamo military prison in Cuba. The men were being held overseas in a network of secret CIA prisons. By the time President Bush acknowledged the existence of those prisons and the prisoners were transferred to Guantanamo, the tapes had been destroyed….”

Here’s the link to the rest.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121507A.shtml

It’s all here folks. The clues to 9/11, torture, rendition, secret CIA prisons, Mukasy - now AG would would never denounce waterboarding as torture..

You get the gist. Same old shit.

The only coup we need to be concerned about today is this one:  http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2920

antispin, if you read “Plausible Denial” you will see that findings made by the Warren Commission are exceedingly suspect, including those purporting to reflect Jack Ruby’s movements.  For example, one of the key Commission findings has Oswald visiting the Soviet & Cuban Embassies in Mexico City.  The CIA did not turn over any cables in part because the cables reveal that Sylvia Duran, whose statement placing Oswald at the Cuban embassy, was arrested by Mexican police at the direction of the CIA, which instructed the Mexican police not to inform their own government of the arrest.  After she signed the statement, Duran was released and instructed to never speak about the incident.

The evidence placing Oswald at the Soviet embassy consisted of a tape recording and a photograph, which was given to the FBI by the CIA just hours “before” the assassination.  (“Plausible Denial,” at p. 61). 

When an FBI agent showed the photo to Oswald’s mother, she initially said she did not recognize the man in the photo.  After her son was murdered, she said it was Jack Ruby.  The first comprehensive FBI report on the JFK assassination reveals that the DCIA, The Deputy Director of Plans [Richard Helms], and the officer in charge of the Western Hemisphere all conspired to lie to the Warren commission about Oswald’s alleged presence at the Soviet embassy.  (Id., at p. 62). 

During a Sept. 1977 debate with Lane, the CIA’s David Atlee Phillips admitted “there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City….Lee Harvey Oswald never visited….there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet Embassy.”  (Id. at 82).  Lane obtained through discovery a world-wide CIA dispatch directing its media assets to destroy Lane’s credibility, something for which Phillips apologized during his debate with Lane. 

The key CIA man on the Warren Commission was Allen Dulles, the former DCIA whom Kennedy had fired in the wake of the Bay of Pigs.  The FBI’s man was a then obscure Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford.  A 12/17/63 memo details items Ford illegally passed to Cartha DeLoach, assistant FBI director.  Ford reported to DeLoach that two commission members had serious doubts that the president had been shot from the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository but he predicted they could be brought to the FBI’s view.  (Id. at p. 43).

Lane also covers in depth how the House Select Committee was similarly compromised, with the committee forced to replace its chief counsel Richard Sprague with Robert Blakley of the DOJ who had ties to organized crime figure Mo Dalitz.  (Id. at p. 34)

EC -  First, I knew Carl Oglesby as a boy, but, while he is an expert, I am no expert on the JFK assassination.  I did a quick look see and found this site, which attempts to debunk Lane’s book:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm

Here’s a excerpt:

“During 1977 and 1978, Lorenz’ claims were extensively investigated by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Chief Counsel Robert Blakey outlined the Committee’s conclusions:

We also rejected the story of Marita Lorenz, who told us she had driven from Miami to Dallas on November 15, 1963, with Oswald and several anti-Castro activists, including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Orlando Bosch, a terrorist . . . Pedro Diaz-Lanz, the former Cuban Air Force chief, and Frank Sturgis, who was arrested in the Watergate break-in in 1972. All four men denied Lorenz’s charge emphatically, and we could find no evidence to refute them. Lorenz, who claimed to have been Fidel Castro’s mistress as well as the instrument of an attempt by the CIA to poison Castro . . . did not help her credibility by telling us that when she arrived in Dallas with Oswald and the anti-Castro activists, they were contacted at their motel by Jack Ruby. 
G. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, Fatal Hour (New York, Berkley Books [paperback], 1992), p. 200.

“Jack Ruby’s whereabouts were tracked in meticulous detail by the Warren Commission, and there is no possibility he could have gone to any motel as Lorenz described. 
Warren Commission Report, pp. 333-334.

“Likewise, Oswald’s whereabouts were also well accounted for during the days before the assassination, and a car trip by him from Miami to Dallas was entirely out of the question.  Warren Commission Report, pp. 129-131, 740.”

So there you have it.  The Warren Commission trumps all, according to this debunker.

I’m not saying it is fiction, but for someone like me, it’s Norman Mailerish.  Who can say?

My gut tells me that we suffered a coup d’etat in 1963 and that Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have been part of the occupying government.  Not sure what to make of Carter and Clinton.

niloroth, about molten aluminum. The visible appearance of molten aluminum is dull gray with faint reddish/pink glow. It does not glow a hot orange/yellow, as is seen in several images of the towers immediately before collapse. The visible attributes of molten metals are pretty standard stuff. If you are implying that the bright orange/yellow droplets or glows caught in photographs or in videos is molten aluminum, I would say the visible attributes of molten aluminum disqualify it from consideration. Just as Jones says. I have had enough training in science to know certain physical properties under normal conditions are quite constant. The “glow” a molten metal emits at certain temperatures being one of them.

antispin, meeting with Jack Ruby blends fact into fiction only if you reject the sworn testimony of Marita Lorenz.  She stated, under oath, that Ruby arrived at their motel room around forty minutes after E. Howard Hunt left.  Are you aware of some credible evidence that would rebut Lorenz’s sworn testimony?

niloroth, Jones paper was anonymously reviewed by four PhD’s, two of whom are physicists. It was published on the Journal of 911 Studies website, as you probably know, after revisions. Other articles published on this site are reviewed by the same method. Those reviewing the papers are not necessarily in agreement with the conclusions of the papers but review them to ascertain the methodology used is as free of bias as possible and advance their thesis according to scientific method. I find the process credible, especially as the results they point to are not exaggerated or mistreated. The results are very plausible, except to those who find no reason to even consider the possibility they have merit.

It is true that none of these papers have been, to my knowledge, published in established peer-reviewed journals. Given the subject matter, and given that controversial subjects are often more rigorously examined before publication in such journals, that comes as no surprise. When sufficient data has been amassed, on going work, I believe the findings will be published. A very similar public statement has been made by a representative of a Congress member. When the evidence is air-tight it will be given its due.

The lengths those who are critical of any thing to do with the Truth Movement, while ignoring the gaping holes in official investigations, the limitations artificially imposed on avenues of inquiry in the official investigations, the unscientific conclusions is a motivating factor for me. If there was not reasonable doubt, there would nothing to fear in facing a truly independent investigation.

Truthdug, the video you refer to contains no seismic data.  It contains words written over essentially nothing but a partial collapse of the penthouse roof about thirty seconds before the entire 47 story structure collapsing into its own footprint in the span of 6.6 seconds.  Where is the seismic data?  Who was recording it? 

As a Californian who has lived through a number of quakes, I have, shall we say, some experience with seismic events.  I do not know of a single instance in which a high rise building collapsed into its own footprint in the manner depicted in the very video which you “think” debunks the controlled demolition theory.  But then you are so blatantly stupid that you mistook a post containing the sworn testimony of Fidel Castro’s testimony about her peripheral role in the JFK assassination as an assertion that JFK killed Castro’s former girlfriend, so why would I expect anything resembling a coherent thought to flow from your computer keyboard.

#120548 by Truthdug on 12/16 at 7:42 am
(Unregistered commenter)

* * *

I am not saying this to insult you Ernest Canning,
==================================
Our country (the former USA) has been shifted off its foundation and onto a false premise.  In logic, if you assume a falsehood, then any implication is possible.  For example, if we assume a cow jumped over the moon, then it may follow that George W. Bush is a bougainvillia.  Well, boogey villain, for sure.  But Bush is, in fact, a master of injecting cognitive dissonance into the national psyche and then reaping riches from the ensuing chaos.  This is the preemptive war doctrine, for instance.  The one percent doctrine.  The war based on lies doctrine.  Any sane person should be going mad at a time like this.

I believe we have the whole team here, the buttons and those who push them.  I’m sure there are some other middle men who connected the two parties together , however they would be the first ones to be silenced and thereby the link between the two groups would be un-provable.

PatrickHenry, your link to the prisonplanet site includes a History Channel program exploring the evidence for LBJ’s complicity in the JFK assassination/coverup.  Juxtaposing that with the Plausible Denial book has not led to any discrepancies that I notice, though they are quite distinct.  One group is in Texas (LBJ, Oilmen, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon) and the other is coming from Florida (Sturgis, Hunt, and the German girl…Lorenz). 

They meet with Ruby?  This is where fact and fiction begin to blur in uncertainty. 

There are so many yarns to unravel, but it seems worth it.  Any lawyers out there?  Isn’t possible there are plenty of people still alive who participated in the cover-up, no matter whether they were in on the dastardly deed or not?  Rumsfeld?  Cheney?  Bush? 

Nixon is dead, right?  So are most of the principals…with the notable exception of g herbert walker b?  Don’t we have ways of making these people talk?

sdemetri,

Thanks for the Nader link.  Seems things are worse than we thought, whoever we are.  If that’s truly the reason for not impeaching, and I don’t doubt it much, then the federal democracy is dead.  Are we now to blindly throw our individual bodies on the gears of illegitimate government, or is there a more concerted, organized form of resistance available?  I can’t say I wouldn’t mind going to jail.  I would mind.  I sure admire all those Code Pink people, bless there brave souls.

sdemetri, I hate to borrow a line usually used by the right-wing, but Representative Olver’s line of reasoning for “not” impeaching—fear that it would push the cabal into attacking Iran—sounds very much like Neville Chamberlain thinking he could prevent WW II by appeasing Hitler, handing him a part of Czecholovakia.

Every time these spineless Dems surrender another piece of the Constitution we move that much closer to dictatorship.  Their historical antecedent can be found in the Weimar Republic’s social democrats who could not appreciate the gravity of the danger until it was too late.

troublesum:  Are you dense?  No one suggested that JFK knocked off Castro’s girlfriend.  Marita Lorenz testified under oath as to her role in the plot to assassinate JFK—testimony which directly implicated two of the Watergate burglars, E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis.  Although he denied it throughout the federal court litigation in Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, Hunt eventually admitted his guilt in a recorded, death bed confession.

There is a rather curious link to Watergate that goes beyond Lorenz’s identification of the convicted Watergate burglars, Hunt and Sturgis.  It was provided to none other than HR Haldeman in “The Ends of Time” (1978).  Seeking the CIA’s protection from the escalating Watergate scandal, Nixon dispatched Haldeman to meet with Richard Helms.  When he met the usual CIA stonewalling, Haldeman told Helms that the “president asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs….”  Helms came unglued, gripping the arms of his chair and shouting there was no connection.  Haldeman, initially perplexed by Helms’s overreaction, observed, “It seems that in all those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs he was referring to the Kennedy assassination.”

Once again we find Truthdig’s resident debunker and con-artist, niloroth aka nilbrains, spouting a lie about Dr. Steve E. Jones.  He states flat out that Jones “never submitted any of his papers for peer review”—a point which he knows full well is utter rubbish.  (Elsewhere at Truthdig, nilbrains claimed that Dr. Jones resigned to avoid peer review.)

As reflected in a wikipedia reference site that nilbrains himself has previously cited:

“Some of Jones’ colleagues have defended his work on 9/11 to varying degrees, and Project Censored lists his 9/11 research among the top mainstream media censored stories of 2007.

“Jones maintains that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication, though it has never been published in an independent peer-reviewed journal.”

Wikipedia goes on to note that on “September 7, 2007 Jones removed his paper from BYU’s website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave” with BYU citing “concern about the ‘increasingly speculative and accusatory nature’ of Jones’ work and the concernt that perhaps it had ‘not been published in appropriate scientific journals.”

“Jones placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of university Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.  Both oerganizations are long time critics of BYU’s record on academic freedom.  Jones ‘welcomed the review’ because he hoped it would ‘encourage people to read his paper for themselves,’ however the review was abandoned when Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E_Jones

nilbrains is a shameless fabricator of disinformation about the subject of 9/11.  He has repeatedly shown elsewhere at Truthdig that he cannot be relied upon to accurately state the facts.  The BYU response to scientific criticism of official theory, unfortunately, is but a part of a wider assault on academic freedom led by the likes of David Horowitz, Bill O’Reilly, and Alan Dershowitz against any who would dare challenge the official line be it on 9/11, Israel or any other neocon project—an assault that can already count Norman Finkelstein and Ward Churchill amongst its victims.

To further a thought, this clip is of Ralph Nader explaining why Mass. Rep John Olver would not honor the request of 2/3’s of his constituents to impeach Bush and Cheney. Olver said he would not support that effort because he believed if the Democrats pursued impeachment, Bush and Cheney would attack Iran, declare a national emergency, impose marshal law, and cancel elections.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA

The deathbed confession of Johnsons mistress implicated him and Oil Tycoon Hunt, who brought Johnson to power.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/15010 7ciaman.htm

Why has the attorney general given up on this?  There is no statute of limitations on this crime. History demands the truth.

Could it be because Bush 41 is involved up to his ears? and I suspect Nixon, Reagan and Ford were involved too.

sdemetri:

You mentioned that there were only a few peer reviewed papers about the events of 9/11.  This is true, but i think you are listing one to many when you quote Steve E. Jones, he has never submitted any of his papers for peer review, and they have never been published in any peer reviewed journals.  However, i can point you to some that have, but i have to tell you, NONE of them support either Jones or the truthers.

You are also correct that the NIST said that at no time did the fires melt the steal.  There is no evidence for that, and their does not need to be.  What temp does aluminum melt at? 

Looking forward to your comments, maybe you will be the first person on this site who might actually know what he is talking about?  Wrong, obviously, but still at least informed?

I meant, of course, coup d’etat, pardon my French.

Someone said that the only difference between a coup d’etat in a banana republic and the one here is that the banana republic gets a lot of attention by the MSM.

There will be those who contend this is off-topic, but the link from “missing tapes” to “cover up” to “coup de tat” tends to lead back to the assassination of JFK.  So one is compelled to look at it. 

Here is the Spartacus compendium of info:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlorenzM.htm

...and here is an attempt to debunk the Denial book:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm

JFK knocked off by Castro’s girlfriend - that’s a new one!

The best book on the Kennedy Assassination is Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi.  Only in the US is everything a conspiracy.  This doesn’t happen in other countries.  Why?

sdemetri:  The death bed confession to which you refer came from E. Howard Hunt—a point that makes Mark Lane’s central thesis in “Plausible Denial” all the more compelling.  Lane’s book was grounded in his defense of a small publisher, Liberty Lobby, in a libel action that Hunt had brought against it for publishing an article by former CIA agent Victor Marchetti which implicated Hunt in the assassination of JFK.

After demolishing Hunt’s story that he had been in Washington DC on the date of the JFK assassination in cross examination, Lane read the transcript of the deposition of Marita Lorenz into the record. 

Lorenz was Fidel Castro’s girlfriend until the former head of the Cuban Air Force, Frank Fiorini, aka Frank Sturgis (who would later, along with Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy, be convicted for the Watergate burglary), lied to her, convincing her that Castro intended to kill her and her son.  She fled to Miami where she was recruited into the CIA.

Lorenz testified under oath that in November 1963 she traveled in a heavily armed, two-car caravan from Miami to Dallas together with Sturgis, Patrick Hemming, Orlando Bosch and Jack Patrick Hemming.  Shortly after Lorenz and Sturgis arrived at a Dallas motel on Nov. 21, 1963, Hunt arrived; handed an envelope stuffed with cash to Sturgis.  Within an hour of Hunt’s departure another individual arrived at their motel room—Jack Ruby!

Lorenz, who had not been provided the identity of the target of their operation only knew the operation was “big” and that she was to act as a decoy.  Having second thoughts, she persuaded Sturgis to take her to the airport.  She flew back to Miami.

Hunt’s lawyer, concerned with the impact this had on his client’s denial he was in Dallas, made the mistake of asking whether Sturgis later spoke to her about the assassination.  He had.  He told her she missed “the really big one.”

“We killed the president that day.  You could have been a part of it—you know, a part of history.  You should have stayed.  It was safe.  Everything was covered in advance.  No arrests, no real newspaper investigation.  It was all covered, very professional.”

On Feb. 6, 1985, a federal jury rendered its verdict favoring Liberty Lobby.  Although jury foreperson Leslie Armstrong, when approached by the press, made it clear the jury was convinced that the CIA killed JFK & Hunt was a part of it, a reporter pressed her about “actual malice” being a part of a libel case.  Armstrong noted, per the judge’s instruction, actual malice is a part of every libel case, the jury did not reach the issue because it was convinced the Marchetti article was true.

That evening, a Miami TV station owned by the Washington Post & Newsweek, reported only Armstrong’s remark about actual malice being an essential element in a libel case.  Testimony & a jury verdict which should have produced banner headlines, screaming across the front pages of every newspaper was treated as a non-event by the corporate-owned media.

Also, I am not a student of JFK’s killing, but accept as credible reports of a deathbed confession, and a recent audio analysis with newer, sophisticated techniques that support multiple shooters.

Ernest, I wish I had optimism about next year’s election. The charade of the rather pointless debates, the corporate media coverage sustaining the charade, the hollow shirts on parade, is all very disheartening. I expect another attack. I wish it were not so, but there it is. I hope we are both wrong on this account.

toublesome, I would recommend that you read Mark Lane’s “Plausible Denial.”  The CIA and anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK.  The FBI was not involved in the plot to assassinate but was involved in the ensuing cover-up.

Following the JFK asassination the CIA and FBI went to such lenghts to suppress the facts about their dealings with Oswald that they ended up looking like they were involved in the asassination.  Their purpose was to protect their respective agencies from being blamed for not preventing the asassination, but the result was that all sorts of government conspiracy theories sprang up.  The same kind of thing is happening regarding 9/11.  Government agencies, including the military, fuck up all the time, and then they try to cover up their fuck ups.  Witness what happened with FEMA in New Orleans when Katrina struck.

smedetri:  Thank you for providing the science.  I only wish I could share your optimism that come 2009 there will be a new administration and an opportunity to embark on an open and thorough investigation.  Unfortunately, given the level of Cheney’s ruthlessness, his desire to take us to war with Iran, the likely blow back, and the existence of executive orders purporting to extend to the president the right to declare a national emergency in the event of a new terrorist incident on U.S. soil, leading to martial law, a suspension of the Constitution, a closing of Congress and a postponement of the Nov. 2008 election, an actual end to this fascist regime is by no means insured by the mere presence of a constitutional provision that would call for it to peacefully surrender power, any more than the constitutional provisions against unreasonable search and seizure have prevented the NSA from spying on Americans without a warrant.

Verne, do you take any time to actually “think” before you post?  Aside from the fact there is no evidence that the temperatures were sufficient to melt any portion of the steel columns, your comment that it would only have taken sufficient temperature to melt a small core area of the steel columns ignores location.  As the fires burned near the tops of WTC 1 & 2, one would anticipate that the hottest temperatures would be near the source of the flames—far from the base of the buildings.  How then do you explain a collapse of steel columns near the base of the buildings resulting in their precipitous free falls into their own footprints?  Your thesis ignores that the 47 story WTC 7 was “not” struck by an aircraft.  Why is it that there is no other recorded instance of a high rise structure collapsing in this manner due to fire? 

Like you, I am a skeptic.  I apply that skepticism not only to those advancing theories of official complicity but also to those who would advance the official version of what happened.  The term “conspiracy theorist” does not just apply to those who believe there was complicity within the same neocon sector which had stated that acceptance of the policies actually put into place after 9/11 would take “a new Pearl Harbor.”  The words “conspiracy theorist” applies equally to those who accept the line that 9/11 was exclusively the product of 19 men armed only with box cutters.

Use of dismissive denigration—“conspiracy theorist,” “tin foil hat”—is a far cry from the presentation of scientific proof necessary to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish the official theory as being accurate.  Indeed, this form of dismissive denigration reveals a lack of appreciation for the true meaning and purpose of “theory” within its use as part of scientific methodology—as defined by Webster’s, “theory” means “systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.”

Frank began this current colloquy by dismissing all alternative theories of 9/11 that do not square with the “official theory” as “paranoid ramblings”—a point with which you concurred, based on the written overlay of a video depicting the collapse of the roof of the penthouse of WTC 7, an overlay that made the unscientific claim the penthouse roof collapse more than a half minute before the sudden free fall was somehow related to a loss of support from the underlying structure.

The essence of the scientific method is that “all theories” be they official or alternative must be subject to the same rigorous standards of examination and testing.  You can’t come onto the site, make unsupported claims and then, when those claims are challenged by competing science, say, “I’m tired all over and will not post again on this subject” and actually expect that “yours” will be the last word.

You are absolutely correct. “Belief is the end of knowledge.”  You and Frank come to the table with a core “belief” that the “official theory” is correct, and nothing anyone can say, no level of rigorous application of science to challenge the efficacy of your belief will change your mind.  After all why should you be open to the suggestion that anything this government has told you could possibly be less than the unvarnished truth?

Sorry, Verne and Frank, while there are a number of holes in competing theories—many due to the absence of an exhaustive impartial investigation—there are even greater gaping holes in the “official theory.”  For me, being the skeptical atheist that I am, I will not be satisfied with any of the theories advanced to explain this pivotal event absent the science to back it up.  Dismissive denigration is not science.

Back to topic:  For the specifics on the democratic “leadership’s” complicity in Bush’s reign of terror go to http://counterpunch.com/mcgovern12122007.html

Verne, as a blacksmith, perhaps this will pique you curiosity:

“One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides “An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7.”  This brief but important letter states:
  While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel.  Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
  ANALYSIS   Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.  This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.  (Barnett, 2001)
How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved?  As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel columns where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure.  So the high steel (not just air) temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are indeed remarkable. 
       
Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper— What is the origin of this sulfur?  No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
       
Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite).  Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the military. 
       
Finally, sulfidation was observed in structural steel samples found from both WTC7 and one of the WTC Towers, as reported in Appendix C in the FEMA report. It is quite possible that more than one type of cutter-charge was involved on 9/11, e.g., HMX, RDX and thermate in some combination.  While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that
this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic.  The evidence for the use of some variant of thermite such as sulfur-containing thermate in the destruction of the WTC Towers and building 7 is sufficiently compelling to warrant serious investigation.” From Jones paper.

Again, the evidence calls into question the official explanation. What is more significant than the actual numbers of who believes a new investigation is warranted, is the change in those numbers. More people in positions to critically judge the matter are coming to the conclusion the official story is unsupported. When one honestly applies the test: was there opportunity, means, and motive?, the answer is yes. There is reasonable doubt. Given the direction those likely responsible for the events of 911 have taken the country it is extremely important all reasonable doubts be dispelled.

It looks very likely the Republicans will be losing in a big way in next year’s election. If 911 was an inside job, with the intent the US enters the middle east on a permanent “constabulatory” basis, from the 2000 PNAC report, what would stop them from another black ops operation, blamed on terrorists, to call off elections after marshal law is declared, and a state of emergency called? There is little to prevent such a scenario from taking place. In the event of a major domestic “terrorist” strike, in the ensuing confusion, chaos, and panic, we would not be able to discern the difference.

Knowing what happened on 911 in truth, not the half truths and outright falsehoods of the official explanation, is of immediate importance.

Verne, with a small nod to your blacksmithing experience, here is what the “experts” say about the jet fuel and temperature of the fires burning before the total destruction of three steel framed buildings. Again, with due respect for your blacksmithing, your view is based on some common misconceptions:

“The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams—then where did the molten metal pools come from?  Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
 
And in an a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states:  “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.html
      None of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal pools. Yet this is clearly a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse.  So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel.  This could well become an experiment crucis.
        Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:  “The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse.  Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted.  It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present.  This is not true….  The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. 

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre- mixed flame, and a diffuse flame….  In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range.  A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.  Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types…  The maximum flame temperature increase for
burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.”

“But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame.  There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio…  This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992].  It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke….  It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. 

This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range.  But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse… The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable… Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire.”  (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

Eagar is an MIT professor and doesn’t believe the towers collapse by controlled demolition.

These quotes are taken from Jone’s paper:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Wh yIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pd f

Until the matter is proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” any attempt at explanation is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. That applies to the Truth Movements explanations, as well as the “official” explanation. The science, the circumstantial evidence, the word of whistle-blowers, gagged and sidelined, the eyewitnesses provide prima facea evidence of “reasonable doubt” in the official explanation.

#120419 by antispin on 12/15 at 10:33 am
(44 comments total)

“Think about how much energy it would take to raise the temperature of 200,000 tons of steel”.

No, not 200,000 tons, just one small area in a few main columns.  When one wants to bend a large rod of iron or steel, one heats the area of the bend and then bends it.  It’s a local area heat application.  To heat the whole rod or bar would be to loose control of the bend, not to mention a waste of energy.  We “blacksmiths” heat the area to be worked not the whole piece.  So, if an area on the upper levels of a building were to reach critical heat the columns would fail thereby bringing down the whole structure.  Pancaking as has been described before.  I’m tired allover and will not post again about this subject.  You seem to be an honest broker, so for the last time I have addressed this subject with you.  Einstein said something like, “The only thing more infinite than the universe is the ability humans have to delude themselves.”  If possible, don’t fall into that category.  Belief is the end of knowledge.

RE: #120306 by Ernest Canning on 12/15 at 12:06 am
(1358 comments total)

“There is a need for an independent commission, one that has no connection to the administration, one with subpoena powers and full access to classified information.  If calling for an independent inquiry so as to insure that we get the whole truth makes one the wearer of a “tin hat,” then perhaps I should send in my hat size.”

Well said, Ernest, and it really cuts to the chase. A more condensed version is:

“If there is nothing to hide, and with credibility of numerous government agencies & individuals at stake, why so much opposition to a truly independent investigation?”

Oh yes, with the CIA illegally destroying evidence (the recent tape controversy) it appears there actually IS something to hide…many somethings.

Verne, better quit before you get too much further behind.  It is obvious that you have no clue as to how a building subjected to controlled demolition falls.  The 6.6 second free fall collapse of the 47 story WTC 7 building is precisely what you see in controlled demolition, a pointed repeatedly demonstrated by examples shown by Dr. Jones.

Paraphrasing Daniel Ellsberg here:

It seems clear that Rodriguez got advice from CIA counsel Rizzo that he could destroy the tapes. Who told Rizzo he could give such advice?  People in the WH and DOJ - so what Mukasey would like to do is find out who leaked and punish them, but he’s got pesky Congress interfering.  DOJ would like to investigate their own crimes. Ridiculous, constitutionally.  The need for a special prosecutor could not be more clear.  Could even John Yoo condone the destruction of the tapes? 

What would be revealed on those hundreds of hours of tapes?  What exactly is shown?  Is waterboarding what they’re most worried about?  Probably the Abu Zabeida interrogation will show that he is a minor crazy man.  He admitted to Pearl Harbor and the Yalta Agreements - and this, as Scheer has pointed out, totally discreditw the basis for the whole WOT.  They claim that Zabeida led to KSM who has admitted (under torture) to a wild pot pourri of unsolved crimes.  According Suskind’s book, http://books.google.com/books?id=gV3m6sYhnrsC&prin tsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:Ron+inauthor:Suskind&si g=WBSAObFR5F4Q8dZSnHn-P-W58Ac#PPR1,M1 they got KSM from a walk-in who has collected a $25 million award.  These interrogation tapes will not at all support the idea that they got useful information.  If it did, they would have shown them to McCain and Warner and Graham…all people who don’t support torture.  Certainly if they’d seen convincing evidence that it works, they would support it.

Any of you spooks reading this need to work hard at getting more leaks to the NYT (or maybe more reliable venues like Truthdig.)  The Democrats have, excepting Lee, Waters, Kucinich, failed to support the necessary impeachment and given GWB everything he wants.  Pelosi has acted as if her only job is to immunize the Dems from the charge that they haven’t given Bush want he wants.  The failure to filibuster Mukasey, for example.  41 votes.  The man who had given every signal that he will be just like Gonzalez in resisting honesty and lawfullness.  As Greenwald in Salon has pointed out, the Dems will not filibuster.

The public elected the Dems but the Dem leaders have sabotaged the voter’s will.  Will pressure help change the leadership’s behavior?  The NIE was released because there were people in line to face jail if it wasn’t put out.  That’s some courage in Spookville, but we need a lot more of it.

The whole idea of free speech and separate independent branches of government is based on distrust of the executive and the tendancy to tyranny.  Who would have expected Congress, the Judiciary and the MSM to all simultaneously support tyranny?  A perfect storm, perhaps.

Questioning 911 was another post.

The issue of waterboarding as a moral one makes me laugh.  Remember the Dresden fire bombing and Hiroshima event were withing living memory for my parents, so much for morals.

The CIA needs to be pared down if not dissolved completely,  That agency has caused this nation trouble since its inception and has an agenda contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

If we use waterboarding as an across the board technique, then expect the worse for our troops when captured in battle.  I see no problem with it as a tool in battlefield interrogation against an enemy who chooses to cut off our soldiers heads, however, if we weren’t “over there” this would be a mute point.

I fear that the technique will transcend military interrogation and enter the civilian arena as a method to extract information much like the taser has been adopted as supposed non lethal force.

#120415 by antispin on 12/15: “As I was walking on the stair ...I met a man who wasn’t there…”

Yeah, ha ha! Just watch out for those “spooks”, eh!

Verne Arnold,

I also watched the 911 unfold live - before giving my 8am lecture.  One of my students was a dog handler and was called out of class to go to ground zero.  Never saw him again.

The South Tower, the second one hit, was much more of a glancing blow than the first one and the majority of the jet fuel can be seen burning off in the air.  Firefighters actually reached the floor where the impact occurred and were assisting the wounded there http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,76 9307,00.html.  They describe “two pockets of fire” and the videos show only black smoke coming out of the building.  How hot can that have been?  As a metal worker, you know how well metal conducts heat.  Think about how much energy it would take to raise the temperature of 200,000 tons of steel (see http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/harvey.html to corroborate that) to a temperature anywhere near that necessary to precipitate such an explosive collapse.  And WTC2 was the first to collapse. 

I agree it begs credulity and was very slow coming around to my current opinion, but the MSM story about those (3) collapsing buildings is a lie. 

Furthermore, what do you make of weirdness like this: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html ?

How is it the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened and - ironically - with the building itself evident in the backdrop?  That’s like being caught with your pants…still up?

I’ll add one more thing; controlled demolition is bottom up.  The towers were very plainly seen to be top down.  WTC7 was bottom up because the lower floors were compromised by damage from the other collapsing structures.
Say what you will, I’m really and truly done with this; over and out!

Douglas Chalmers,

As I was walking on the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today.
Oh, how I wish he’d go away.

-Hughes Mearns

Not sure how to interpret your Scottish Prayer, but it’s similar to this bit doggerel I recall from my youth.  If there are no goulies and beasties, as you may suggest, then we certainly don’t need deliverance.  But from the secret societies like the CIA/NSA/DIA that Frank is so chummy with - yes, please!  I’m calling all haints and saints and supernatural and/or natural beings alike - whoever’s within earshot and gives a fig: please!  Deliverance!! 

As for valkyrja, I don’t think Pelosi or Clinton or Harman are up to it.  McKinney?

#120402 by Ernest Canning on 12/15 at 9:14 am
(1354 comments total)

Ernest, as you said in a previous post, you and I generally agree.  As an iron worker, blacksmith, coppersmith, and engineer; I know a little about the behavior of metals when heat is applied.  In certain structural situations, especially compression, wood is actually stronger than steel (up to a point), when there is heat approaching 900F.  Steel when stripped of its fire-retardant insulation, can become “plastic” (not my term) at temperatures approaching 900 deg. F.  The hard parts of the planes blasted the fire retardant insulation off of the support pillars.  There were many tons of J2 fuel (high grade kerosene) vaporized into the towers.  This created temperatures high enough to plasticize the steel support columns.  Vaporized fuel will burn at higher temperatures than the liquid form of the same propellant (fuel air mixture).  This has been explained by people far more qualified than myself, but to know avail.  I just don’t get why these outrageous theories keep making their rounds.  I saw the live broadcasts on that fateful morning and have no doubt whatsoever about the result.  We will destroy ourselves if we cannot get over this divisive idea of a conspiracy that never was.  There are so many pressing issues; this needs to go away so we can battle the real enemies of our country.  Remember; education is no guarantee of competence; there are a lot of nut jobs out there with Phd’s.

It is intriguing how, in these Orwellian times, the 9/11 debunkers come up with terms of dismissive denigration—conspiracy theorist, tin foil hats—to evade inconvenient facts as they blindly buy into “official” reality. 

We are asked to buy into the “official theory” that three high rise buildings collapsed into their own footprints due to flames overheating steel columns when, in the history of the planet, there is not one other documented instance of a massive structure behaving in the same manner, yet hours and hours of footage demonstrating that what we saw is precisely what we would expect from controlled demolition.

Here come Verne and Frank linking to a video which makes the tenuous claim that the penthouse (actually the roof of the penthouse) on WTC 7 collapsed prior to the the precipitous event in which a 47 story structure dropped straight down, vanishing before our eyes.  The makers of this video claimed the penthouse collapse can be attributed to the structure beneath it giving way.  What rubbish! 

As someone who resides in California I have watched thousands of structure fires.  Usually the roof of the structure is the first to collapse due to the flames immediately beneath.  News flash!  Heat rises.  There are many occasions where the roof collapse is the “only” damage prior to the structure being saved. 

Of course, residential structures are built on wood frames whereas high rises stand on solid steel columns, but as we can see on videos provided by Dr. Steven E. Jones, there are documented cases of high rises in flames for days at end but no documentation of such high rises experiencing a precipitous free-fall collapse into its own footprint either prior to or subsequent to 9/11.

Verne and Frank would have us ignore these inconvenient facts, forget the basic laws of physics and buy into the “official theory” without further questions.  Forget the tin foil hats.  Guys like Verne and Frank need to be fitted for straight jackets.

120250 by Frank on 12/14: “Antispin, you figure I must be part of a government coverup operation, which apparently is gravely concerned about the goings-on here in the Truthdig.com forums, based on the fact that I know people who work at the Pentagon…... And here comes the best part: My grandfather was a Scottish Rite Freemason…!”

From ghoulies and ghosties
And long-leggedy beasties
And things that go bump in the night,
Good Lord, deliver us!

-Traditional Scottish Prayer

Sorry Verne, you and I usually agree on matters, but if you go to the web sites posting the presentations from Dr. Steven Jones, I think you will find them far more convincing.  I would love to see a video, just one, of another high rise building (other than the WTC buildings) that experienced this calamitous drop strait into its own footprint as the result of fire.  The postings over this video do not amount to a scientific explanation and I am nothing less than astounded that you and Frank accept it as such.

As to the tin hats, looks like a lot of former high officials from the Reagan & Bush I administrations, hundreds of engineers and architects, scores of pilots and former intelligence officials must all be wearing them, because they don’t buy the “official theory.”  As much as I would like to believe that no American could possibly have been complicit in this heinous act, on the present state of the evidence I cannot, in good conscious, say that, even