At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training's official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.
The petition, demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation, states, in part:
"...the 9/11 investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."
This alarming statement is based on evidence from many sources, including observations of the structural behaviour of the towers as they collapsed, the known characteristics of steel framed buildings, eyewitness testimony of explosions, and research into the chemical composition of dust recovered from the collapse zone.
Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed.
Chemical analysis has been conducted by a multi-disciplinary team led by
Professor Steven E. Jones and the results published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
The membership of Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth is worldwide, and qualified Australians have made contributions. Dr. Frank Legge, a chemist, has co-authored a peer reviewed paper, and Dr. David Leifer of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Sydney is a registered member of the group.
A major focus of research is the mysterious collapse of the
47 storey WTC 7 (Salomon Brothers) Building, which was not hit by any plane, yet suddenly collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.
Building 7 came down in six and a half seconds, generating a massive dust-cloud similar to the one that had enveloped Manhattan when the Twin Towers collapsed earlier the same day.
Researchers contend that only explosives could have provided enough energy to cause the pulverisation of thousands of tons of concrete into dust, and they highlight the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of the building through the path of greatest resistance, indicating that the supporting columns offered no resistance to the falling mass above.
Historically, the only way a modern office building has ever been made to collapse vertically in free-fall, as observed in WTC Building 7, is through the use of shaped cutter charges detonated in a timed sequence.
This procedure is known as controlled demolition, and requires a precise placement of explosives which are designed to cut through supports successively, usually from the bottom up, pulling buildings down under their own weight.
The collapse of Building 7 is visually identical to a controlled demolition, as illustrated in a side by side comparison on Youtube. Demolition expert Danny Jowenko has gone on record confirming this observation. "A team of experts did this", he said.
The essence of why we need a new investigation into the World Trade Center collapses is summed up in a recent paper by Dr. Frank Legge:
"As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur.
The organisations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and ignored contradictory evidence. This is in defiance of the scientific method and flouts the ethical standard of behaviour which the public is entitled to receive from their paid servants."
The hypothesis of controlled demolition finds further support in many eyewitness accounts, including live TV coverage, which described massive explosions in the lower levels of the World Trade Center prior to the collapse.
William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair.
The New York Fire Department's oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission.
There is a groundswell of public pressure from family members of victims and ordinary people the world over, to re-open the investigation of 9/11. As seen in the groundbreaking film 9/11: Press For Truth, it was due to the pressure of a group of victim family members, known as the Jersey Girls, that the 9/11 Commission was created, and yet that same commission failed to answer the majority of questions raised by these courageous women.
Films such as Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries have been viewed by millions on the internet, and opinion polls have consistently shown that a large proportion of the public does not accept the official narrative of 9/11. Many believe there has been a major cover-up, while others believe that September 11 was an "inside job".
As an Australian, I believe there is an urgent need for a new investigation for several reasons.
First, there is the war in Afghanistan, which has already claimed thousands of lives, and appears to have no end in sight. If the 9/11 official narrative proves to be false, then the attack on Afghanistan may be a war crime.
Second, there is the continued erosion of civil liberties in the form of anti-terror legislation, and increases in police powers of surveillance and detention, which relies largely on 9/11 as the primary justification.
Finally, there are core values of truth, decency and justice at stake, which I wish to uphold and which I ask all Australians to join me in upholding as I say to our elected leaders, with all due respect, we need a new investigation.
9/11 - Key Issue of our Time
Corrs Guitarist - "9/11 was an inside job"
Each time a major entertainer steps out on the side of 9/11 truth there is ripple in the media blackout. Jim Corr is clearly very committed, and we can expect more ripples to come.
By Richie Taylor
Friday May 30 2008
CORRS guitarist Jim Corr has claimed that there was overwhelming evidence that the 9/11 attacks in America were carried out by "rogue elements" of US President George Bush's "neo-con administration".
In a rare intervention into the political arena, the male singer with The Corrs band came out against the Lisbon Treaty claiming that it is "tip-toe totalitarianism in the West".
In an interview with Matt Cooper on Today FM's 'Last Word', Corr made the case for voting 'No' to Lisbon, claiming it could introduce the death penalty to Ireland and contribute to a "new world order".
Corr's opposition is based on his three years "studying the New World Order which the European Union is a part of".
He said "the EU is a stepping stone towards a world government, they will merge it with the Asia Pacific Union, the African Union and the North American Union". The Lisbon Treaty itself will introduce "a scientific technocracy" to Europe which will erode national sovereignty.
Corr claimed that The Charter of Fundamental Rights allows for the introduction of the death penalty.
"It makes provision for the introduction to law for the death penalty in times of war or imminent threat of war.
"What we are seeing is tip-toe totalitarianism in the West with 9/11 the key to understanding this.
"When you study 9/11 it becomes very apparent... it was a staged terrorist attack, what they call a false flag operation."
Corr said overwhelming evidence suggests 9/11 "was carried out by rogue elements in the Bush neo-con administration".
The Philosophy of Conspiracy - by David Coady
From the ABC:
In our final installment on conspiracy theories, David Coady looks at the philosophy of conspiracy...
22 May 2008, 10:00
People in the "9/11 truth movement" are often dismissed as "conspiracy theorists". They typically respond by saying that there's nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist, since, after all, conspiracies do happen. This is a reasonable response.
But a little reflection reveals the expressions "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" do not deserve their bad reputation.
After all, "a conspiracy" is simply a secret plan by a group of people to bring about some shared goal, "a conspiracy theory" is just a theory according to which such a plan has occurred or is occurring, and "a conspiracy theorist" is just a person who is disposed to believe conspiracy theories.
Most people can cite numerous examples of conspiracies from history books, the media, or their own personal experience. Hence most people believe numerous conspiracy theories, and so are, to one degree or another, conspiracy theorists.
But very few people would actually describe themselves as conspiracy theorists, nor would they describe any of the things they believe as conspiracy theories.
When asked to identify examples of conspiracy theories most people immediately think of theories that are clearly irrational.
Some will refer to theories involving conspirators who are virtually all-powerful or omniscient. Others will mention theories involving alleged conspiracies that have been going on for so long or which involve so many people that it would implausible to suppose that they could have remained undetected. Others cite theories involving conspirators who appear to have no motive to conspire - unless perhaps the desire to do evil for its own sake can be thought of as a motive. The theory that the United States' government planned the September 11th attacks appears to be irrational in each of these ways.
This theory, and others like it, are irrational conspiracy theories, but it does not follow, and it is not true, that they are irrational because they are conspiracy theories.
Thinking of such irrational theories as paradigms of conspiracy theories is like thinking of numerology as a paradigm of number theory, or astrology as a paradigm of a theory of planetary motion. The subject matter of a theory does not generally determine whether belief in it is rational or not.
But conspiracies not only exist, they are widespread. Most people conspire some of the time (think of the things we tell our children about Santa Claus) and some people conspire most of the time (think of the intelligence organizations of any country).
Furthermore, many events cannot be explained without appealing to a conspiracy. The only question in such cases is "Which conspiracy theory is correct?"
In the case of 9/11 the question is "Who are the conspirators, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, or George Bush and the American security services?" The correct answer to this question is so well established by now that nothing further I can say here could be expected to convince the 9/11 truthers.
The problem with the 9/11 truthers is that they are committed to an irrational and false theory (a theory which happens, like its true rival, to be a conspiracy theory).
Of course it seems strange to think of the "official" explanation of 9/11 (or the official explanation of any event) as a conspiracy theory. We are accustomed to contrasting conspiracy theories with the official non-conspiratorial version of events, but quite often, the official version of events is just as conspiratorial as its rivals.
When this is the case, it is the rivals to the official version of events that are inevitably labeled dismissively as "conspiracy theories". So, "conspiracy theory" has come to refer to virtually any belief which conflicts with an official version of events.
It should be clear what is wrong with using the expression in this way. It allows politicians, bureaucrats, and more generally defenders of officialdom the world over to abuse and ridicule anyone who doubts their truthfulness.
Yet it is vital to any open society that there are respected sources of information which are independent of official sources, and which can freely contradict them and not be dismissed without argument. The widespread view that conspiracy theories are always, or even typically, irrational is not only itself irrational, it is dangerous.
It promotes complacency in the face of official or institutionally endorsed versions of events, which makes it easier for conspirators in positions of power to remain undetected.
I am not denying that there are people who have an irrational tendency to see conspiracies everywhere. And we could restrict the expression "conspiracy theorist" in such a way that it only referred to such people.
But if we do this, we should also remember that there is another widespread form of irrationality, namely the failure to believe in conspiracy even when confronted with powerful evidence for it.
We need a name for people who irrationally reject evidence of conspiracy, to give our political discourse some much needed balance. The expression "coincidence theorist", which has gained some currency on the Internet, goes some way to meeting this need.
A coincidence theorist fails to connect the dots, no matter how suggestive of an underlying pattern they are.
A hardened coincidence theorist can watch a plane crash into the second tower of the World Trade Centre without thinking that there is any connection between this event and the plane which crashed into the other tower less than an hour earlier.
Similarly, a coincidence theorist could be aware that all 175 editors of Rupert Murdoch's publications around the world endorsed the invasion of Iraq, without seeing any connection between their expressed views and those of their boss.
Coincidence theorists are just as irrational and at least as widespread as conspiracy theorists. They are equally prone to error, though their errors are of different and opposing kinds. The errors of the conspiracy theorist, however, tend to be less dangerous than the errors of the coincidence theorist.
The conspiracy theorist usually only harms himself. The coincidence theorist can harm us all by making it easier for those in power to conceal their conspiratorial machinations.
ABC "Unleashed" Publishes a Rebuttal to Hereward Fenton & the 9/11 Truth Movement
Conspiracy theory lunacy
by Hugh Tobin
21 May 2008, 10:00
The September 11 terrorist attacks were arguably the most watched event in human history. As a result, the facts about what happened seem indisputable. We have all seen the footage of planes flying into the World Trade Centre towers over and over.
Yet, a group of conspiracy theorists continue to claim that the official account of what happened that day amounts to the greatest cover up in the history of modern civilisation.
ABC Unleashed last week published the claims of Hereward Fenton of the 9/11 Truth Movement in Australia, a movement which disputes the official story and claims that the World Trade Centre did not actually collapse as the result of planes hitting the towers, but rather as the result of a controlled demolition.
When I last wrote about the lunacy of this theory in March 2007 my opinions were later attacked on the website that Fenton is a researcher for. Anonymous posts on the website www.911oz.com accused me of being a Mossad agent, telling me to go "back to Israel and fortify your bunkers". These comments highlight some of the prejudices that can often fuel these theories.
The 9/11 Commission set up in 2002 interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents before releasing a 571-page report explaining how and why the World Trade Centre buildings collapsed.
The report found 'no corroborating evidence' for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.
So why do these theories continue to have support in the community? The theories are motivated from a variety of factors sometimes relating to anti-Americanism and most commonly from a psychology of mistrust and paranoia.
Those involved establish their conclusions first, and gather their evidence later. Contradictory evidence is either ignored or discredited.
Popular Mechanics, who have debunked the theories surrounding the attacks, argue that conspiracy theories 'share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons'.
In the most watched documentary promoting the conspiracy theories, Loose Change, which has been viewed by millions of people on Youtube, the narrator reflects … 'That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interruption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory.'
We all wondered on September 12, 'How could this happen?' But just because something seems implausible does not provide evidence of a conspiracy. It's strange that the moon and the sun appear to be exactly the same size from the earth, but so what?
The conspiracy theories have been able to gather a strong following because they explain elements of the story that the official account is unable to explain easily to a lay person.
The main concern of those in the 9/11 Truth Movement is that they think it would be impossible for the World Trade Centre to fall in the uniform fashion that we all witnessed without it being the result of a controlled demolition. It is true that the temperatures inside the towers would not have reached levels that would have melted the metal, thus causing the buildings to collapse.
Steel's melting temperature is 1,500°C and there is consensus that temperatures inside the World Trade Centre would not have likely exceeded 1,100°C. However, the theorists fail to mention that steel that is heated to over 1,000°C softens to such an extent that its strength is reduced by up to 90 per cent.
They also fail to look at factors such as the internal damage to the building support structures and fire-proofing insulation which inevitably led to the collapse of both towers.
The conspiracy theorists are oppositional by nature. They will believe 11 different versions of what occurred, even if they are all contradictory, but only as long as they are not related to the official version of events.
One theorist who claims that a missile was fired into the Pentagon will associate himself with another theorist who is certain that the attack was carried out by an unmanned remotely controlled plane.
To account for this problem groups such as the 9/11 Truth Movement have tried to classify themselves under two main headings. They identify themselves as either MIHOPs (Made It Happen On Purpose) or LIHOPs (Let It Happen On Purpose).
Both these groups believe that the US government had something to do with the attacks but divide themselves over whether the government let it happen or made it happen.
Perhaps the CIA did plant explosives inside the World Trade Centre and demolish it by controlled demolition. And maybe the military did fire a missile into its own headquarters at the Pentagon. Or maybe 19 terrorists, with links to Al Qaeda, hijacked four commercial airliners and used them as weapons to kill almost 3,000 people.
It is clear from the report into the attacks that the Bush administration was incompetent in stopping the terrorist attacks, but that does not mean that they were involved. To suggest that they were disrespects the lives of every person who died as a result of the attacks.
Perhaps the story would make a great Hollywood blockbuster, but in the real world it has less credibility than the idea that Prime Minister Harold Holt was captured by a Chinese submarine whilst swimming off Point Nepean.
Unanswered 9/11 Questions - by Hereward Fenton
US drops charges against Saudi in Sept. 11 attacks
By BEN FOX, Associated Press Writer
Tue May 13, 12:49 AM ET
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - The Pentagon has dropped charges against a Saudi at Guantanamo who was alleged to have been the so-called "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks, his U.S. military defense lawyer said Monday.
Mohammed al-Qahtani was one of six men charged by the military in February with murder and war crimes for their alleged roles in the 2001 attacks. Authorities say al-Qahtani missed out on taking part in the attacks because he was denied entry to the U.S. by an immigration agent.
But in reviewing the case, the convening authority for military commissions, Susan Crawford, decided to dismiss the charges against al-Qahtani and proceed with the arraignment for the other five, said Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, the Saudi's military lawyer.
Crawford dismissed the charges Friday without prejudice, meaning they can be filed again later, but the defense only learned about it Monday, Broyles told The Associated Press.
The attorney said he could not comment on the reasons for the dismissal until discussing the case with lawyers for the other five defendants. Officials previously said al-Qahtani had been subjected to a harsh interrogation authorized by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, confirmed the case was proceeding against the five defendants and that their arraignment will be within 30 days of the charges being served at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Gordon declined further comment since the Office of Military Commissions had not yet released the formal announcement about the legal developments.
The five defendants include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the terrorist attacks in 2001 that killed nearly 3,000 people, and Ramzi Binalshibh, who is said to have been the main intermediary between the hijackers and al-Qaida leaders. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for all of them.
Their trial is the first capital case thus far before the military tribunals at Guantanamo, where the U.S. holds about 270 men on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban. The military has said it plans to prosecute about 80 prisoners in the first U.S. military war crimes tribunals since World War II.
Authorities have said they plan to broadcast the trials to military bases in the United States so relatives of the victims of the attacks can see the proceedings.
Critics of the tribunals have faulted a rule that allows judges to decide whether to allow evidence that may have been obtained with "coercion." U.S. authorities have acknowledged that Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding by CIA interrogators and that al-Qahtani was treated harshly at Guantanamo.
Al-Qahtani in October 2006 recanted a confession he said he made after he was tortured and humiliated at Guantanamo.
The alleged torture, which he detailed in a written statement, included being beaten, restrained for long periods in uncomfortable positions, threatened with dogs, exposed to loud music and freezing temperatures and stripped nude in front of female personnel.
The U.S. has alleged that al-Qahtani, who military records show is about 28, barely missed becoming the 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001. The Saudi was denied entry into the country by immigration agents at the airport in Orlando, Florida.
At the time, he had more than US$2,400 in cash, no return plane ticket and lead hijacker Mohamed Atta was waiting for him, the military has said.
Separately Monday, Gordon said the Pentagon has not decided whether to appeal a ruling that ousted a top legal official from a detainee case scheduled to become the first to go to trial at Guantanamo Bay.
In a ruling last week, a military judge at Guantanamo found that Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the legal adviser for the tribunals, lacks neutrality and should not participate in the case against a Yemeni who is a former driver for Osama bin Laden. His trial is set for June 2.
WeAreChange.org Puts Hard Questions to Larry Silverstein
Fear was apparent in Larry Silverstein's eyes as members of the audience began questioning him at the end of a public lecture titled "Building the Future of Lower Manhattan".
Silverstein was grilled about a recorded recollection of a conversation with the fire department chief, in which he claimed to have said that the smartest thing to do with Building 7 was to "pull it". He was questioned on why he used the specific words "pull it" to refer to a firefighting team, especially in light of the fact that that there were no firefighters in the building for several hours before the building came down.
In this new clip Silverstein makes the startling claim that Building 7 was struck by the antenna of one of the towers, slicing through fuel lines and setting off a fire which eventually caused the building to crumble.