Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Steven Jones published in a peer-reviewed journal.

A paper written by Steven Jones and others has finally been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It has been a long time coming, but it was something that was bound to happen eventually. This publication seems to have sent some in the debunking community into an apoplectic rage. This is understandable because their strongest argument against us was the argument from authority. Once this argument is lost the best they can do is engage in ad hominem attacks.

The paper contains 14 points in which the 9/11 Truth Community, FEMA and NIST(National Institute of Standards and Technology) find agreement. This seems like a good starting point. The differences emerge when we get into a discussion over the causes of the collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7. These are the 14 point of agreement:

1) WTC 7 Collapse Issue. FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue”

2) Withstanding Jet Impact. NIST: “Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity”

3) Pancake Theory Not Supported. NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon”

4) Massive Core Columns. NIST: “As stated above, the core columns were designed to support approximately 50% of the gravity loads” “The hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers, and thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft impact and subsequent fires for a much longer time—enabling large numbers of building occupants to evacuate safely”

5) Essentially in Free Fall. NIST: [Question:] “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) — speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?” [Answer:] …As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos”.

6) Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure. NIST: “NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing

7) Fires of Short Duration. NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.” “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”

8) WTC Fires Did Not Melt Steel. NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)”

9) Destruction of WTC Steel Evidence. NIST: “NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yards where the debris was sent as the WTC site was cleared. It is estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers was recovered.” “The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure…”.

10) Unusual Bright Flame and Glowing Liquid (WTC 2). NIST: “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out”.

11) High-Temperature Steel Attack, Sulfidation. FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute investigative team): “Sample 1 (From WTC 7)… Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure…. Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)… The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. …The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified… A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed…"

12) Computer Modeling and Visualizations. New Civil Engineer: "World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. …"

13) Total Collapse Explanation Lacking. NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction… we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”

14) Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues. From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] “Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel”.

It can be seen from the above examples that NIST has failed miserably in their attempts to explain the collapse within the confines of the official story. By only going up to the point of collapse initiation they absolve themselves of having to deal with the obvious evidence that explosive charges were used to destroy the towers. A real investigation should cover the entire collapse, not just the initiation. Will we ever get a thorough and complete investigation?

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Correcting Mark Roberts

Mark Roberts is considered by some to be the greatest defender of the the official 9/11 story and the greatest debunker of the 9/11 Truth Movement. His encyclopedic knowledge of 9/11 is so vast that no one should dare challenge his towering intellect. Anyone who steps into the ring with him is bound to get clobbered. He is the 800 pound gorilla who's mere presence causes truthers to run for the hills. In reality, he is more comparable to a scarecrow, from a distance he may look menacing, but upon closer inspection he is just made out of straw.

So where is Mark Roberts wrong? This was a question posed to members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Mark Roberts wrote a long paper on the collapse WTC7, or more to the point, the "lies" of the 9/11 Truth Movement and their beliefs regarding WTC7. The goal of his paper was to attack people for asking questions about WTC7, not to discover how the building collapsed. In fact, Mark Roberts does not devote a single sentence to explain how WTC7 collapsed. This is not surprising since the government has yet to offer an explanation for the collapse. If someone does not have an explanation for something, then it is not possible to say where their explanation is wrong. So I will move on and show where Mark Roberts is wrong regarding the Pentagon attack.

Where did the right wing impact the Pentagon? Mark Roberts has this picture on his website.














Mark Roberts states this regarding the "hole", "The hole made by flight 77 extends along the wing line, left and right of the fuselage hole. It is not a cookie-cutter hole: that simply cannot happen when a plane hits a heavily- reinforced concrete building. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at a 43-degree angle to its west wall. It came from the right of the photo below." If the right wing hit within the area shown by the rectangle, then this contradicts the information in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR). At the moment of impact the plane was tilted to the left between 7 to 9 degrees. The PBPR states, “The left wing passed below the second-floor slab, and the right wing crossed at a shallow angle from below the second floor slab to above the second-floor slab.” It goes on and reports, "The right wing was below the second-floor slab at the fuselage but above the second-floor slab at the tip, and the left wing struck the building entirely below the second-floor slab, to the north of column line." So the right wing could not have damaged all of the area within the rectangle. Somewhere between column line 17 and 18 the right wing should have impacted the second floor slab and gone up from there. Mark Roberts has the all impact beneath the 2nd floor slab. So for Mark Roberts to be accurate, he should show the rectangle at a slight upwards tilt. If he does, will he refer to this as the “hole” and no longer refer to the damage on the first floor as the “hole”? The area beneath the first floor slab appears to be more damaged so maybe that is why he chose to show the impact there. If the right wing is sloped upwards slightly a "hole" becomes less obvious.

This also brings up another important issue. Regardless of where the right wing impacted the building, how were the columns behind the facade, where the right wing hit the Pentagon, damaged? If the wing disintegrated or folded back what caused the damage to the columns behind column lines 15 to 18. If the wing never punctured a clear hole through the facade, how were the columns on the other side damaged?

Of course, I don’t know if Mark Roberts is wrong, because I don’t presume to know everything that happened that day. However, we can say that his claim contradicts the information in the PBPR.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

The Games People Play

What are the best arguments against the claims made by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement? Well, if you actually try to debate with "debunkers" you will find that few actually discuss the evidence or provide proof for their assertions. They will often use straw-man arguments and avoid debate by appealing to certain philosophical principles, namely Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor, also known as the principle of economy, can been described several ways, "Entities should not to be multiplied beyond necessity... Plurality should not be posited without necessity... All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best" etc. The appeal to Ockham's razor is frequently made by defenders of the official story. It is usually made when someone has no evidence to support their assertion.

I had a discussion with Totovader, someone who is skeptical of the claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Totovader posted on his website a column entitled, "Why should the 'Truth' be divided." He stated that members of the Truth Movement do not base their explanations on evidence, therefore, different people will come to radically different conclusions regarding the events of that day. An example would be the debate over how the towers collapsed. Was it a space beam, or explosive charges? Totovader wrote, "They don’t seem to understand that each of these theories contradict each other and any act to resolve those contradictions will lead to the conclusion they must avoid: that they’re all horribly, horribly wrong." Actually, we do understand that these claims contradict each other, that is why Steven Jones left Scholars for 9/11 Truth and founded his own group. The space beam hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited(assuming it had credit) by physicist Gregory Jenkins. It should be expected that the 9/11 Truth Movement will have disagreements. We aren't claiming that we know they entire truth, we want to know the truth. When individuals are trying to understand a complex event it is natural that alternative explanations will arise. A social, political or scientific movement that has no internal disagreements is a cult. This describes people who believe the official 9/11 story.

So what about contradictory explanations made by the defenders of the official story? I provided a specific example to Totovader, the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon. What was the cause? People defending the official story have provided several explanations, the nose of the plane; one of the engine's; a shockwave from the impact; a ball of energy, the plane's landing gear, the plane becoming like an artillery shell or tank round. Which one is true? Totovader didn't know. He responded, "I reserve the right to change my position- and in fact often do- based on the available evidence. That’s what science is." So then I asked him what pieces of evidence caused one explanation to be accepted and another to be discarded. He had no answer. If the explanation is changing based on evidence this should be easy to do. So by what criteria are defenders of the official story changing their explanations? The explanations change based on the principle of the least absurd. There might be many explanations one could posit to explain a given phenomenon, so the goal is to come up with the least absurd that is compatible with the government's story. Once it is shown that this explanation is to implausible, the goal is to try to find another less absurd explanation.

The original explanation was that the nose cone made the hole in the C-ring. After all the hole is round and the nose of the aircraft is round so that sounds plausible. However, the nose is quite fragile and it is unlikely that it could have punched a hole completely through the C-Ring. The Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR) states, "These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact..." After this explanation became to ridiculous to maintain others scenarios were given. The most famous one was by Popular Mechanics. They stated as fact that the hole was caused by the landing gear of the plane. However, the PBPR report does not tell us what caused this hole, they only mention its existence. They do state that the landing gear was found 300 ft. into the structure, but that the hole in the C-Ring was 310 ft. from the impact point. This explanation now seems to have been dropped as well. In the History Channel Documentary, "9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction", a new explanation is given. Allyn Kilsheimer states, "The plane became almost like an artillery shell or tank round." I wonder how long this new theory will last?

I asked Totovader if a Rapid Wall Breaching Kit(RWBK) could have created this hole. His response was predictable, "It is irrational and entirely contradictory to claim that the hole in the wall has some other cause. If nothing else, Occam’s razor should tell you that." Why should Occam's razor tell me that? If a theory can't do justice to all the available evidence then it is entirely appropriate to try to find other explanations. He goes on, "Therefore, it is not incumbent on the “government” to explain this hole-" Why not? If it is not incumbent on the government to explain this and other events of that day, then who is responsible? According to Penn Jillette, "A real skeptic demands to be convinced with evidence." Does Totovader sound like someone who is demanding to be convinced?

The other issue this topic brings up is where does the burden of proof lie? Does the burden lie with the government or with the Truth Movement? What about the claims by the Bush Administration that Iraq was producing WMD? I asked Totovader, "Did the burden lie with the Bush Administration officials to prove its claims, or for Scott Ritter to prove that Iraq did not have WMD? After all, the fact that Saddam was producing WMD was the widely accepted version of events." Naturally, he did not answer the question.

The "debunkers" survive by avoiding honest debate, not answering questions and by engaging in irrelevant philosophical meanderings.

"Galileo wrote to Kepler wishing they could have a good laugh together at the stupidity of 'the mob.'; the rest of his letter makes it plain that 'the mob' consisted of professors of philosophy, who tried to conjure away Jupiter's moons, using 'logic-chopping arguments as though they were magical incantations'" Bertrand Russell

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Skeptics: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective.

At the end of the column by Michael Shermer he has a link to an article written by Phil Mole for the Skeptic magazine. It was published for the fifth anniversary of the attacks. The majority of the people who attempt to write about the 9/11 Truth Movement do not know the first thing about it or the events of that day. They start off with the premise that our ideas are absurd and there is no reason to take our claims seriously. Any claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement is instantly discarded and any claim made by a "debunker" is accepted as legitimate. There is no skepticism applied to the claims made by those defending the government. This is also the case with Phil Mole which I will demonstrate.

Phil Mole attended a Truth Conference in Chicago sponsored by 9/11truth.org. He stated that the goal of the conference was for "attendees to consolidate their group identity..." What is this suppose to mean? He appears as though he is trying to give the impression that we are some kind of cult, maybe not that much different from the one headed by Jim Jones. Wasn't "The Amazing Meeting! 5.5" a way for "skeptics" to consolidate their group identity as well? He goes on to say, "As someone who does not share the views of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I have another objective. I want to listen to their arguments and view their evidence, and understand the reasons why so many likable and otherwise intelligent people are convinced that the United States government planned the murder of nearly 3,000 of its own citizens. "

His first topic is the destruction of World Trade Towers 1 & 2. He lists the evidence made by the conspiracy theorists that WTC1,2 were destroyed by a controlled demolition. This includes the fact that the collapse looks like a demolition, the speed of the collapse, the fact that jet-fuel fires do not melt steel, and the demolition squibs(i.e. mistimed explosions). He attempts to counter each one. His argument against the collapse resembling a controlled demolition is the fact that controlled demolitions begin at the bottom, not the top. This is a weak argument. A controlled demolition means that explosives are precisely timed. They can go off in any order. This is ultimately a straw man argument, as no one in the Truth Movement is saying that WTC1,2 were blown up from the bottom, or that they resembled an implosion. He goes on to state, "but what are the chances that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?" The planes were probably remotely piloted into the buildings. Therefore, there could be great precision on where they would impact the towers.

He next discusses whether or not the fires could have weakened the steel to lead to a collapse of the buildings. He states, "engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F. Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse. " This is another bad argument. First, he is confusing the temperatures of the fire with the temperatures of the steel. Also he does not say what percentage of the steel would have to heat up to 1,000° F for structural collapse to ensue. NIST found that only 2% of the steel tested on the perimeter columns got over 250C(482F) and none of the core columns. They also found, "Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C, 1112 F)." Besides, if fire temperatures of only 1,000° F can cause an entire building to be destroyed, then why hasn't this happened before?

His next discussion is whether or not there was molten steel found in the rubble pile of the collapsed buildings. He states, "However, the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results." This is not entirely true. In Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination of the FEMA Report, they found, “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent INTERGRANUAL MELTING, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”

What about the "squibs"? He states, "these are plumes of smoke and debris ejected from the building due to the immense pressure associated with millions of tons of falling towers." This cannot be true, as many of the "squibs" were emerging from floors that had no smoke. If it was due to increased pressure, it would be uniform across the floor. It would not emerge from localized points.

His discussion of WTC7 is weak. A lot of the discussion has to do with what did Larry Silverstein really mean when he used the phrase, "pull it." It is incumbent on the government to prove how WTC7 collapsed. This they have not done. Shyam Sunder, the head of the NIST investigation said, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.… But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7." Maybe a similar level of humility would be good for the "debunkers" to exhibit every now and then, instead of pretending they have all the answers.

His next topic of discussion is the Pentagon. The government has yet to show conclusively what happened there. He devotes a lot of attention to the statement made by Jamie McIntyre. As in the case of WTC7, interpreting what someone actually meant is largely a waste of time. What the physical evidence shows is far more important. Why is there no tail damage to the facade? This issue is not even brought up by Phil Mole. Yet the problem is clearly mentioned in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR). It states, "The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade." Then it drops the issue as it is not important to explain. What about the hole in the C-Ring? The PBPR gives no explanation for it. All of these important anomalies are not even mentioned, but they are critical if we are to understand the events of that day.

His discussion of Flight 93 does not focus on the size of the debris field, only on where the engine was found. What about a second debris field at Indian Lake, and third one near New Baltimore over eight miles away? There is no mention of this. He also fails to mention that there was little evidence of a plane crash.

Konicki: "Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there."

Wally Miller: "The smoking crater looked, he says, 'like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.'"

Reporter Jon Meyer: "There was no plane to be found."

Pat Madigan: "Where was the plane crash?"

Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville, "There was no plane."

Regarding the issue of a NORAD stand down, he does not mention the numerous contradictions within the government's own story, nor does he explain why NORAD generals apparently lied under oath. He also does not mention the testimony made to the 9/11 Commission by Norman Mineta while he was in the PEOC.

Phil Mole concludes, "This article has analyzed the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement and found them lacking." Maybe he found them lacking because his research was very poor and superficial. He goes on, "any theory needs evidence in its favor if it is to be taken seriously." This is true. The evidence that the 9/11 Truth Movement has accumulated against the government's story is overwhelming. Phil Mole did not set out to learn about the evidence. His goal was to write another hit piece against the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Michael Shermer strikes back!

Michael Shermer wrote a column for the Huffingtonpost yesterday where he describes his encounters with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement while on his book tour. The name of the article is, "9/11 'Truthers' a Pack of Liars". Then at the end of the article he attempts to compare us to the Holocaust denial movement. Since he calls us a "pack of liars", it would be helpful if he would actually mention some of the lies we routinely make. This he did not do. He details his conversation with a Truther,

"There has been a disinformation campaign going on ever since 9/11."
"How do you know?" I inquired.
"Because of all the unexplained anomalies surrounding 9/11," he answered.
"Such as?"
"Such as the fact that steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees Fahrenheit. No melted steel, no collapsed towers."


Shermer goes on to state, "At this point I ended the conversation and declined to be interviewed, knowing precisely where the dialogue was going next--if I cannot explain every single minutia about the events of that fateful... day...that lack of knowledge, in his mind at least, equates to direct proof that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the CIA."

Maybe Shermer decided to the end conversation, because he knows very few facts regarding the events of that day. Why does Michael Shermer consider the destruction of 3 buildings, to be a "minutia" of the events that day? The government's theory is that two jetliners caused three buildings to be destroyed that day, and other buildings to be significantly damaged. This is not "minutia", this is the government's whole case. If they can't prove this, their whole theory and explanation for what happened that day falls apart. NIST(The National Institute of Standards and Technology) was tasked with investigating and explaining the collapse of WTC1,2 and 7. They released their final report on Towers 1 and 2 in October 2005. However, they only carry their analysis until the point of collapse initiation. They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that they were, "...unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." They have yet to release their report on WTC7.

Michael Shermer stated at the end of his column, "No holes, no Holocaust. No melted steel, no Al-Qaeda attack. " This is a bad analogy. We aren't denying that people were killed, only how it happened. The government has yet to provide answers.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Lies, Lies and More Lies.

A study was released this past week by two non-profit journalism organizations, the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism, which detailed the number of false claims made by top administration officials during the run-up to the war in Iraq. This study showed that,

"The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion."

This shows that the false statements were clearly a propaganda technique used by the administration to drum up support for the war. The study found that,

"President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

It is important to show the most egregious claims made by members of this administration and how the evidence at the time contradicted their statements.

Dick Cheney stated on August 26, 2002,

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

However, in September of 2002 the DIA, the intelligence branch of the DOD stated, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Right before the invasion of Iraq on March 17, 2003 Bush stated,

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A United Nations Document states, "Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team."

The most famous false statement was made during the State of the Union Address in January of 2003 in which Bush stated the following,

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

The idea that Saddam was shopping for uranium in Niger came from a collection of documents now known to have been forged. Many people within the intelligence community did not believe these claims at the time. Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, John E. McLaughlin, stated this in Oct of 2002 regarding the uranium issue,

"The one thing where I think they(British) stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We’ve looked at those reports and we don’t think they are very credible."

Bush was also warned by the CIA not to include the uranium claim in a speech he gave in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002. The memo sent by the CIA reads, "More on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa...The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities..."

This, however, is the speech where Bush states,

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

No one within the administration has been formally held accountable for the lies, distortions, propaganda, and fear mongering that led to our War in Iraq.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

The Ground Zeros

I had the misfortune today of watching a video made by Mark Roberts, a man who attempts to "debunk" all the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The 52 minute video is certainly not entertaining, but I thought I would watch it nevertheless and write some of my observations.

Mark Roberts is obviously not being paid by any nefarious part of the US government to promote the 9/11 lie. He is merely a useful idiot who is regurgitating government propaganda.
Mark Roberts asked Les Jamison what law was violated by the removal and recycling of large amounts of steel from the towers. Is Mark Roberts saying that it is not illegal to destroy crime scene evidence?

Bill Manning wrote in his article "$elling out the Investigation"

"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."

Rep. Joseph Crowley(D) called the destruction of evidence, "borderline criminal."

If an individual tampers with evidence it is usually considered to be a felony.

Regardless, of the legalities of the issue, someone who is not concerned about the destruction of evidence in a crime that killed almost 3,000 people is a contemptible human being.

Later in the show Mark Roberts asked a lady what were the reasons that NIST gives for the collapse of the towers. She stated, "they claim that the twin towers pancaked."

It is true that NIST does not specifically state that the towers pancaked. However, it is easy to see how one might have come to that conclusion. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics,

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, but it is the floor PANCAKING that leads to that perception."

Mark Roberts states on his debunking page that 9/11Myths is, "The best all-around site on the internet for examination of 9/11 conspiracist claims."

Mike Williams, the author of the site, states regarding the collapse of the towers, "A PANCAKE-STYLE collapse isn’t quite as rare as some sites want to portray."

Why isn't Mark Roberts interested in correcting the Popular Mechanics piece, or 911Myths?

Because he isn't interested in the truth. He is interested in ideological conformity to the government's position. As long as someone believes the government's story, then they can believe whatever they wish about the collapse of the towers. If someone strays from this position then he is interested in attacking them. Mark Roberts is good at repeating government propaganda, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength."

In summation, Mark Roberts is a useful idiot.