Q: What caused the "squibs"? Could they have been just puffs of dust being pushed out of the Towers by falling floors? Are they visual evidence of explosive charges?

A: The isolated ejections 20-60 stories below the demolition front appear to be composed of pulverized building materials, including concrete. There was no known mechanism by which pulverized building materials being created up at the zone of destruction could have been transported so far down through the building and to the exterior. Air conditioning vents would not have tolerated such pressures, and there was no other "channel" in the building to deliver “compressed air”.

There is no reason, on the “dust puff” theory, for such blasts to be as isolated as they were. Massive air pressure which would delivered by the (missing) “pile driver” down through the elevator hoist ways and out through a given floor would have broken most or all windows on that floor – not created the highly focalized pin-point ejections that are seen on the videos. The breakage of one or two windows on a given floor would not have relieved enough pressure across an entire floor area to prevent the breakage of many other windows nearby.

Images like this one reveal that the squibs were not
merely puffs of air, as they have the same hue
and consistency as pulverized solid building materials.

Another problem with the “dust puff” theory is that the pulverized building materials would not have been transported so quickly. Air would have been pushed ahead of such materials, resulting in transparent puffs of air flowing through the freshly broken windows.

Physicist David Chandler has also shown that some of these ejections came from the corners of the buildings. Since there are no windows on the corners, these ejections could not have been the result of air pressure.

Furthermore, calculations performed by Dr. Crockett Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the floor and debris descent speeds that are allegedly responsible for them. As Kevin Ryan has shown, the ejection speed of the squibs from the Towers also matches the speeds recorded for ejections caused by explosives.

As to these ejections appearing only after the collapse initiation, it should be noted that the North Tower's antenna dropped before any other building movement is seen, which is evidence that demolition devices were working on the core before any squibs were seen emerging out of the perimeter walls. There is also video showing that some of these ejections occurred even before the collapses began. See "Visible Explosion at World Trade Center" and "WTC1 collapse initiation - visible signs.

This muddle headed, government-appointed chair of the 9/11 Commission does not even know what his government found to be the cause of the collapse of WTC 7. For me, this is the final nail in the coffin of the "official" 9/11 narrative.

The ignorance and impudence of this man is breathtaking. He appears not the least bit concerned that he is making up stories about crimes against humanity that launched the world into wars that have in turn killed millions.

He doesn't know or care. That is reminiscent of the attitude of the Nazi war criminals who were hanged at Nuremburg.

There will be justice.

November 19 and 20, 2011. In front of the rebuilt World Trade Center Building 7.

DEMAND an investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers

September 11, 2001 - the The United States was hijacked and a permanent war was launched that will not end in our lifetime unless we the 99% stop it.

Ten years later the War on Terrorism has diverted trillions of dollars from more important uses and sunken our country into debt.

Building 7, which most people don’t know about, came crashing to the ground at 5:20pm on September 11th. Today, millions of citizens and 1,600 courageous architects and engineers are demanding an investigation into the suspect destruction of this skyscraper.

The government's absurd story that "normal office fires" felled this 47-story skyscraper is only the tip of the iceberg of the anomalies and inconsistencies we've been given about 9/11.

Why can't the experts get their stories straight? A condensed summary of all the conflicting expert theories that make no sense, purporting to explain the collapse of the twin towers.

Kevin Ryan | 30 October 2011
http://digwithin.net/2011/10/30/no-evidence/

When Underwriters Laboratories fired me for challenging the World Trade Center (WTC) report that it helped create with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it said “there is no evidence” that any firm performed the required fire resistance testing of the materials used to build the Twin Towers. Of course, that was a lie.

With this experience in mind, I checked to see how many times the 9/11 Commission Report used the phrase “no evidence,” and noted in particular the times the Commission claimed to have “found no evidence” or that “no evidence was uncovered.”  I discovered that the phrase “no evidence” appears an amazing 63 times.  An example is the dubious statement — “There is no evidence to indicate that the FAA recognized Flight 77 as a hijacking until it crashed into the Pentagon (p 455).”

Of these 63 instances, some variation of “we found no evidence” appears three dozen times.  This seems to be an unusually high number of disclaimers begging ignorance, given that the Commission claims to have done “exacting research” in the production of a report that was the “fullest possible accounting of the events of September 11, 2001.”

The number of times these “no evidence” disclaimers appear in the report is doubly amazing considering how infrequently some of the most critical witnesses and evidence are referenced.  For example, the FAA’s national operations manager, Benedict Sliney, who was coordinating the FAA’s response that day, appears only once in the narrative (and twice in the notes).  And the FAA’s hijack coordinator, Michael Canavan, appears only twice in the narrative, with neither of those citations having anything to do with Canavan’s assigned role as the key link between the military and the FAA, a role whose failure the Commission says caused the attacks to succeed. Similarly, the testimony of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who says Bin Laden worked with the U.S. government up until the day of the attacks, is mentioned only once in the notes. William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor who has publicly testified to basement level explosions, is not mentioned at all despite having given testimony to the Commission.

It seems a good idea to look more closely at the instances in which the attorneys, myth experts and military intelligence operatives who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report said that they did not find evidence.  Here are a few of the most interesting examples.

• “We found no evidence, however, that American Airlines sent any cockpit warnings to its aircraft on 9/11.” p11
• Concerning the hypothesis that one of the alleged hijackers was sitting in the cockpit jump seat since takeoff on Flight 93:  “We have found no evidence indicating that one of the hijackers, or anyone else, sat there on this flight.” p12
• Within minutes of the second WTC impact, Boston Center asked the FAA Command Center (Benedict Sliney’s team) to advise aircraft to heighten cockpit security, but the Commission said:  “We have found no evidence to suggest that the Command Center acted on this request or issued any type of cockpit security alert.” p23
• With respect to requests to warn aircraft to heighten cockpit security — “While Boston Center sent out such warnings to the commercial flights in its sector, we could find no evidence that a nationwide warning was issued by the ATC system.” p455

Article Continues »

19 September 2011 | Svein Tønseth | Source

According to a theory advanced by a SINTEF materials scientist, a mixture of water from sprinkler systems and molten aluminium from melted aircraft hulls created explosions that led to the collapse of the Twin Towers in Manhattan.

Just before the two New York skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001, powerful explosions within the building could be heard, leading many people to believe that overheated steel beams in the building were not the cause of the collapse.

The explosions fed the conspiracy theories that someone had placed explosives inside the towers.

At an international materials technology conference in San Diego, the audience heard senior scientist Christian Simensen of SINTEF Materials and Chemistry (picture) present an alternative theory based on the physics of materials of what happened in the towers when they were attacked by the aircraft. The SINTEF researcher believes that his theory is much more likely to reflect the actual situation than the official explanation of the collapse.

In the wake of the conference Simensen had an article published in the journal "Aluminium International Today", describing his theory.

Explosive meeting of molten aluminium and water

Simensen believes that it is overwhelmingly likely that the two aircraft were trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the skyscrapers. This leads him to believe that it was the aircraft hulls rather than the buildings themselves that absorbed most of the heat from the burning aircraft fuel.

The SINTEF scientist believes that the heat melted the aluminium of the aircraft hulls, and the core of his theory is that molten aluminium then found its way downwards within the buildings through staircases and gaps in the floor – and that the flowing aluminium underwent a chemical reaction with water from the sprinklers in the floors below.

“Both scientific experiments and 250 reported disasters suffered by the aluminium industry have shown that the combination of molten aluminium and water releases enormous explosions,” says Simensen.

Just before the two skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001, powerful explosions within the building could be heard, Photo: Jim Collins / AP / SCANPIX

“Explosions demolished the towers”

Simensen continues: “I regard it as extremely likely that it was these explosions that made the skyscrapers collapse by tearing out part of the internal structure, and that this caused the uppermost floors of the buildings to fall and crush the lower parts. In other words, I believe that these were the explosions that were heard by people in the vicinity and that have since given life to the conspiracy theories that explosives had been placed in the skyscrapers.”

Practical use

“Could your theory be used to protect human life and material values if other skyscrapers are ever hit by large aircraft?”

“Yes, as a matter of fact it could. One lesson is that we could develop means of rapidly emptying sprinkler systems in the floors under the point of impact. Another possibility would be to fire in a rocket carrying a fire-retardant that would overlie the aircraft body and prevent the metal alloy from becoming overheated.”

Day of unreality

It was in the morning New York time on September 11, 2001, when two Boeing 767 passenger planes flew into the World Trade Center’s “Twin Towers” in Manhattan in New York. One hour later, WTC2 collapsed, followed after half an hour by WTC1.

Neighbouring buildings were bombarded by flying debris when the towers collapsed. The 47-storey skyscraper called 7 World Trade Center also caught fire and collapsed several hours later at 17.20.

Article Continues »

On this sad anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in post-war history I am reminded of the prophetic words spoken by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation in 1961: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”.

Eisenhower was the supreme commander in western Europe who had led America to victory against one of the most evil regimes in history, a man who had witnessed the depths of human depravity, and wanted finally to warn us that the war machine which had been created to defend freedom in WWII could equally be used for the opposite purpose, and that it was up to the American people to guard against this possibility.

Eisenhower coined the phrase “military industrial complex” which became the catch-cry of the anti-war movement of the 1960s, describing an economic and political fusion of power involving armaments manufacturers, construction companies, banks, democratic governments and puppet dictatorships.

As Marine Major General Smedley Butler put it, “War is a Racket”. In his seminal book on the subject Butler declares, “I spent 33 years in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.”

These and other observations about the racketeering, lying and theft that is the essence of war have informed many of us around the world who today call ourselves “9/11 truthers”.

The central argument of the movement is that 9/11 was a staged, false flag operation designed to propel the US and its allies into war for the sake of profit, oil and empire. False flags are defined in Wikipedia as “covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities”.

There are numerous examples in modern history where clandestine government agencies or rogue operatives have acted in this way, collaborating in the hatching of staged terrorist plots, the launching of self-inflicted military assaults to be blamed on the enemy, and in the formation of domestic terrorist organisations.

There is not enough space here to address these complex cases, but I encourage the reader to do an internet search on phrases like “false flag”, “strategy of tension”, “operation gladio”, “operation northwoods”, “attack on the Maine”, “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, “reichstag fire”, and “the power of nightmares”, to find historical precedents which have a chilling resemblance to the events and aftermath of 9/11.

Some readers may be indignant at the suggestion that a modern democracy would permit its military arm to sacrifice innocent citizens for the sake of a political, economic or military imperative. If you are one of those people then I’m sorry but you have some hard lessons to learn. Use the search terms above and you will discover that I am not lying . You will find this information confirmed by many scholarly sources, and in some cases by impeccably researched BBC documentaries.

Article Continues »

Tonight I am joined by Josh Jackson as we go through some of the 9/11 anniversary news for the week. In particular we look at the new BBC hit-piece 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip, which is looking more and more like an attempt to brainwash a group of young people into accepting the official 9/11 story. This production features Charlie Veitch who famously did an about turn on the subject after the filming of this show.

Here is a snippet from the BBC's own description:

Andrew Maxwell, a comedian, believes in the findings of the official investigation, which claim the responsibility for the attack lies with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He thinks the conspiracies theories are unsubstantiated nonsense. So in this film he offers to take five young Brits, who believe some of these conspiracy theories, on a road-trip from New York to Washington. They visit Ground Zero where two planes hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, home of vast American defence HQ and Shanksville in Pennsylvania where United 93 crashed.

We also take look at Triple J's lame attempt to discredit 9/11 truthers, which dishonestly claims to be "exploring alternative viewpoints".

In the final segment we play a short snippet from John Bursill's recent debate of 9/11 questions on Sydney's 2GB radio.

John Bursill was on one of the biggest radio shows in the country yesterday, debating Mike King from the UK on the the subject of 9/11.

Download the audio here.

Sydney Town Hall
Saturday, September 10, 2011, 11:00 AM

483 George St, Sydney (map)
We will be outside the Town Hall