« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »


Evidence indicates Bush wire-tapped alternative media

Is Bush using warrant-less spying as a pretext to monitor U.S. “enemies” list?

by Tom Flocco

WASHINGTON—December 22, 2005—TomFlocco.com—There is evidence that President Bush’s executive order authorizing eavesdropping on phone conversations of U.S. citizens, monitoring email and gaining access to private computers while failing to follow the law requiring court-ordered warrants may amount to criminal activity.

Internet IP address logs from this writer’s computer firewall security system provide evidence that the Department of Defense (DOD) is conducting surveillance, since logs show DOD internet identification numbers during specific occasions while we conducted phone interviews with intelligence agents and sources, and also while reports were being word-processed for stories regarding White House crime family activities.

DOD intrusion attempts to monitor the contents of our computer, track key-strokes or install a surveillance device were listed in our firewall security log as “high-rated attacks” by the U.S. government, the circumstances about which this writer and other witnesses would be willing to testify if subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury or Congress.

In a move reminiscent of President Nixon’s secret “enemies list,” Mr. Bush’s domestic surveillance program raises questions whether he is employing the Defense Department to spy on Americans not only for the “War on Terror,” but also as a pretext to conduct warrant-less monitoring of political enemies, anti-war activists, whistleblowers and unfriendly alternative journalists without a paper trail—both inside and outside the USA.

The reason the Patrick Fitzgerald grand jury may question Mr. Bush’s sidestepping the courts for domestic spying on Americans lies in the fact that according Senator Joe Biden, Bush could have conducted electronic surveillance for 72 hours without even telling the court; but then he would have to tell a judge who he wiretapped—leaving a legal paper trail.

Keeping “the list” covered up prevents publicizing presidential abuse of power; but the issue of shredded documents becomes problematic for a grand jury, even as Bush summoned New York Times executives to the oval office on December 6 to ask them not to make public his secret spying program—10 days before the story ran.

Notwithstanding the oval office meeting, how did Mr. Bush know that the Times story was going to be released?

Curiously, Mr. Bush intimated in passing during questioning at a Monday morning press conference that phone/email surveillance also emanated directly out of foreign countries.

During one recent series of four TomFlocco.com reports, the day after each story was placed online we lost phone service for between 8 to 30 hours—on clear summer days—culminating with the
classified report on the assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr. when phone service was disconnected and the computer hard drive was destroyed.

Interestingly, our hard drive was rendered useless after previous phone conversations about high-rated Defense Department attacks showing up on firewall logs.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the a  Lake Worth, Florida anti-war meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

NBC reported that DOD spokesmen said domestic intelligence is “properly collected,” but the news outlet added that critics said “...the Pentagon now collects domestic intelligence that goes beyond legitimate concerns about terrorism or protecting U.S. military installations,” and “two-hundred and forty-three other incidents in the database were discounted because they had no connection to the Department of Defense—yet they all remained in the database.”

The secretive National Security Agency (NSA), which had generally been forbidden from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mails, telephone calls, and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, The New York Times also reported.

Consequences of controversial news reports

A few days after witnessing a Verizon telephone repairman climbing the utility pole in
front of our house, we have experienced periodic heavy telephone echoes, hums and multiple clicks when talking with certain intelligence agents, sources and others during phone interviews for stories appearing during late spring through this winter.

Reports indicate that federal agencies employ vehicles bearing logos of U.S. companies to disguise surveillance operations; thus contract agents in such vehicles—normally having access to public utility poles—like Verizon or Asplundh tree trimming, etc., could facilitate wire-taps on unsuspecting citizens reporting in alternative media.

Verizon employees told us the government did not authorize nor require them to divulge whether there was a wiretap placed on a customer’s phone lines.

Moreover, Verizon personnel blamed our four separate phone service disconnection incidences during clear summer weather, approximately once a week each time, as “squirrels chewing on wires,”—within hours after placing a story online which shed light on varying aspects of White House crime family activities via intelligence agents and sources.

Within five minutes after a phone conversation with Stew Webb and placing “Who killed John-John?” online at the website, this writer’s computer was attacked, resulting in damage costing $300 to reformat the hard-drive and nearly a week without a computer.

Several witnesses can attest to the phone service failures when attempting to call each time about the new stories, and there are two witnesses to our hard drive attack with whom we were discussing the JFK Jr. assassination story who would also be willing to testify before a grand jury or congressional hearing about these issues.

The strong echoes, hums and clicks could constantly be heard during conversations with key sources, including some connected to U.S. intelligence—and in one particular case, one of the agents who participated in the actual writing of the classified report on the JFK Jr. murder just prior to the 2000 election season.

The coincidence on several occasions in losing telephone service, then a destroyed hard drive immediately after releasing controversial stories and DOD high-rated government attacks showing up on firewall logs, would seem highly suspect—especially while receiving millions of hits from some 100+ countries.

Consequences of microwaves during phone surveillance

Federal whistleblower Stewart Webb—whose infant daughter was taken from him by Bush family associates 21 years ago—told TomFlocco.com that his computer was also taken down seven days prior to the release of our JFK Jr. assassination story, at a cost of $300 to repair a locked up hard drive.

It was Webb’s online copy of the leaked preliminary report on the murder of John Jr. at
StewWebb.com that led to our series of three interviews with a U.S. intelligence agent named “Delbert,” who was one of six participants in writing the JFK Jr. assassination report implicating three Presidents, an FBI Director, an Attorney General and a current U.S. senator—classified by the Clinton administration until the year 2025. The report is online at both TomFlocco.com and StewWebb.com.

So nuclear are Webb’s documents and store of knowledge regarding government corruption that just yesterday the administration sent an unmarked black helicopter to circle his house during daylight hours while on the phone with a New York reporter who simultaneously confirmed his server company’s call that his website was taken down.

The company told Webb that the $15,000 server hosting his website was destroyed on Monday by a strong electronic current.

On another occasion Webb was talking to a contributor to his website when both heard a loud pop over the telephone, wherein the contributor complained, “oh my ear—my ear hurts,” after which massive pain and a doctor visit proved the pop caused a perforated ear drum—a broken drum which had also destroyed the phone handset in front of another witness.

Webb told us that federal whistleblower Tom Heneghan’s telephone/fax machine was destroyed by electronic interference while also having his hard drive locked up—during this same recent time period.

Webb told us that his hard drive was destroyed last winter and he had received electronic microwaves through the telephone, destroying both handsets—while also revealing the microwaves caused him to have chest pains and he could see the electric current coming out of the phone.

Grand jury secrets of White House spying

Webb also revealed that secret White House wiretaps have continued going back before Bush 41 was president and when he was CIA Director, and then the Clinton and current Bush 43 administration: “House and Senate members, judges and police chiefs across the nation…local ‘red-squad’ hit teams via the ‘True Colors’ transcripts…have all been subjected to secret wiretaps for the purpose of political and criminal blackmail.”

Webb said his revelations about surveillance of United States congressmen, senators and other Americans can be confirmed in the explosive “
Colonel Cutolla affidavit.”

Much of the secret surveillance Webb described emanated “from the West-Star satellite systems appropriations—also known as KH-11 audio communications satellites—covertly transferred from the congressional budget by the Bush-Clinton secret shadow government within the government into the control of E-Systems Dallas, a subsidiary of the Raytheon Corporation.”

Fox News / Iran contra figure Colonel Oliver North called the operation “the company,” what Webb described as “a system involving government-organized narcotics, weapons and child-sex trafficking, and there are scores of witnesses willing to testify before the Fitzgerald grand jury about how this is continuing up to the present time.”

“The satellites have almost instant voice recognition ability to monitor any telephone in the world within one minute, and the White House can abuse this ability to spy on Americans even when their computer is turned off…a phone can act as a speaker unless it’s unplugged from the wall,” he said, adding, “they can hear everything you say.”

“But it gets worse,” said Webb. “High-frequency transponder devices can listen to and see Americans through their own television screens via cable transmissions.”

Operation Orpheus

Besides asking congressmen and Bush-Clinton officials about the explosive
True Colors transcripts detailing Bush-Clinton finance linked to Oklahoma City and 9-11, White House hit-teams and 150 witnesses interviewed in the JFK JR. probe, the Fitzgerald grand jury may have interest in the current status of “Operation Orpheus” and its implications for Mr. Bush’s secret domestic spying on American citizens—particularly the subpoenaed testimony of a certain U.S. Naval Intelligence officer.

Retired U.S. Navy Lt. Commander and former officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence Alexander Martin described a Miami meeting in late 1984:

“It was one of the regular bi-weekly meetings which Jeb Bush chaired. But in this meeting Oliver North was present. This was one of the few meetings that Donald Gregg himself was present, and Frederick Ikley and his sidekick, Nestor Sanchez.”

Martin’s list of meeting attendees represents what Fitzgerald grand jury deputy prosecutors would call a mother-lode of White House crime family witnesses still living:

“These were all the top people. [Donald] Gregg was the National Security Adviser to Vice President Bush, His aide, Lt. Colonel Samuel C. Watson, Frederick C. Ikley, then Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for Caribbean and Central American Theater Operations, etc.”

“In this meeting, North gave an extensive speech about the Orpheus Operation and how monies were being diverted from narcotics operations to rebuild, reinvigorate, and to refurbish these various Civilian Inmate Labor Facilities (CILFs), most of which had been built early in the 1970s under the guise of housing Iranian Americans should there be a problem down the line.” [
The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran contra insider, Al Martin, 2001, pp 337-340]

In describing the meeting, Lt. Commander Martin said “Orpheus actually went to the point where if the liability could not be controlled, it would be necessary for [CIA Director William] Casey, North and George Bush Sr. to secretly formulate and potentially launch an outright coup d’ etat against the Government of the United States…the pretext was going to be a limited nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union.”

“CILFs were also built for those American civilians who would be incarcerated. These were a combination of citizens who knew too much and citizens, whom they felt would be difficult to control under a provisional military government,” wrote Martin.

“This is the only meeting I actually attended, where I was actually searched to see if I had a tape recording device on me. We were not allowed to make any notes at this meeting. But fortunately I did make extensive notes about it directly afterwards, and I hid those notes over the years,” said Martin, adding, “I know where certain individuals were on a certain day, where they were, and what was said. They would have to prove that they were somewhere else on those days. Oliver North has tried to prove that before—and unsuccessfully—thanks to me in some cases.”

“On the morning he was scheduled to testify before Congress and expose the shadow government and national programs office,” said Webb, “CIA Director William Casey was rushed from his Langley, Virginia office to the Bethesda Naval Hospital with needle marks in his temple which caused a cerebral hemorrhage, according to agents I talked to.”

“The hospital floors above and below Casey were closed off according to my intelligence sources, and Casey told all the nurses and doctors to call people and have congressional investigators and members of congress come to see him right away, but he died—and all the doctors and nurses attending to him have died mysteriously—all the shifts…suicides, car crashes, accidental deaths,” said Webb.

“There are scores of intelligence agents who would testify to this information if Patrick Fitzgerald subpoenaed them to appear before the grand jury,” said Webb.

Shredding documents

It remains to be seen whether Congress or a grand jury will protect the privacy of all Americans by subpoenaing Mr. Bush for a complete and un-redacted list of all Americans spied upon from within the U.S. and from foreign countries since entering office—while certifying via witnesses that no lists were shredded to obstruct justice.

We have already reported that intelligence sources implicated senior presidential advisor Karl Rove and former vice-presidential advisor Mary Matalin as having knowledge of a paper shredding operation in the White House—a matter reportedly before a grand jury.

This, as legal authorities and reports said Mr. Bush may have also obstructed justice to affect news reports and polling, and violated his oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution as to 4th Amendment privacy rights regarding search and seizure.

MSNBC Hardball reported Monday that Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) sent a sealed letter for the record last July to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee complaining about Mr. Bush’s domestic spying; and other committee members were reportedly not informed that Bush would spy on American citizens, which may also have obstructed justice if Congress and the courts decide to find Bush in criminal violation of U.S. law.

Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor and specialist in surveillance law, said “The President’s dead wrong. It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear.” Turley’s analysis referred to the 1978 Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and court oversight as to warrants for electronic intercepts targeting terrorists.

Congressman Curt Weldon (R-7-PA) said, “It certainly wasn’t my intent to give the administration the right to tap the phone conversations of Americans,” when he voted for the Patriot Act.

During this writer’s private meeting in the Capitol Hill office of a U.S. congressman last spring regarding issues of government involvement in the September 11 attacks, the House member went over to the sound system and turned it up louder before we began to converse, indicating the member’s suspicions that House offices are bugged too.

“If this [United States] were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier…just so long as I’m the dictator.”  George W. Bush, president-elect, December 18, 2000



December 28, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Virgin Mary - Queen of Hearts on Ebay

Auction for a good cause:

Virgin Mary - Queen of Hearts





December 28, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

MSNBC Poll and Bush Impeachment Question

Vote MSNBC Poll Should Bush be impeached - 88% Yes So Far

(Let MSNBC and the rest of the World {even people who still have jobs and may be afraid to speak up} know how the Majority of Americans who believe in fair and honest government feel about Bush / Cheney)

Live Vote: Should Bush be impeached? - Politics - MSNBC.com



December 22, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

150+ 9/11 Smoking Guns! + 9/11 Lecture by David Griffin 213 Screens

(1) Dutch Television documentary on 9/11
(2) Two new lectures by David Ray Griffin
(3) The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account
Cannot Be True, by David Ray Griffin

(1) Dutch Television documentary on 9/11 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:48:23
contact@iwtnews.com 9/11 TRUTH ACTION BELOW: Subj: A Query about your
willingness to cover hard news. To: contact@iwtnews.com I am in touch
with tens of thousands of activists who have contributed to various
causes generously in the past few years. However, if I suggest your
Network to them to contribute, their first question would be "Are they
willing to cover the hard facts regarding the events on 9/11/2001,
because that is what transformed our nation and world?" Dutch Television
just released a documentary on 9/11 that raises some of the below
questions. View it online at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm What are some
of the hard facts? 1) Physicist Steven Jones just released a study for
peer review that shows that jet fuel could NOT have brought down the
WTCs on 9/11. Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriter Laboratories (the
company that inspected the WTC steel), reported months ago the same
thing, that the jet fuel could NOT have brought down the WTCs. 2) Why
has no one been held accountable for the worst air defense failure in
the history of our nation, when 4 commercial jets flew around highly
protected air space for nearly one and a half hours on 9/11/2001 with
not one fighter interceptor jet turning a wheel until it was too late.
In 2001 before 9/11 sixty-seven commercial craft had been routinely
intercepted by Air Force jets when they strayed more than 15 degrees off
course. 3) Why were FBI agents efforts to warn the White House of coming
attackes quelled? Why is former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel
Edmonds being gagged by the Bush Justice Dept.? 4) Why did Bush & Cheney
order the Senate NOT to investigate 9/11 and drag their feet trying to
block the release of documents requested since? 5) Why has the massive
insider stock trading made the week before 9/11 against United and
American Airlines, some by CIA connected institutions, never been
-- these are but a few of the unanswered questions. David Ray Griffin's
books: - The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush
Administration & 9/11
- The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions
(2) Two new lectures by David Ray Griffin Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005
19:07:44 EST From: Jazzycatwanda@aol.com From:
Dear 9/11 truth activists and concerned citizens, Many people have asked
to be informed when David Ray Griffin's two new lectures would be
available online. These are the lectures he delivered in Connecticut,
Vermont, and New York City this past October. Well, they are now online,
in somewhat revised form (complete with notes). "Flights 11, 175, 77,
and 93: The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales," 911Truth.org, December
5, 2005
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051205150219651 "The
Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot
Be True," 911Review.com, December 9, 2005
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html The second essay is also
to be printed in Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11-2001,
Vol. 23 of Research in Political Economy (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006),
which should appear in March or April. Towards peace and truth, Emanuel
(3) The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account
Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin
Authorized Version (with references & notes)
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html In The New Pearl Harbor:
Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I
summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official
story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports
were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply
omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its
cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11
(Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect
of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective
challenge to the official story.
But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation,
especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment
of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People
can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any
particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after
all. In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers
and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of
this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable
detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one
of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this
focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the
9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department
shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005. I
will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then
raise the same question about building 7.
1. The Collapse of the Twin Towers
Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate
"outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September"
(Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11
Commission, has likewise warned against "outrageous conspiracy theories"
(Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot
mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because
the government's own account is a conspiracy theory, with the
conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we
should reject outrageous theories.
But what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one?
This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When
confronted by rival theories---let's say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and
Intelligent Design---scientists and philosophers of science ask which
theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can
explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts
and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is
contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would
be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. With
this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the
Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined
effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The
report put out by FEMA said: "The structural damage sustained by each
tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the
total collapse of each building" (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly
belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is
contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this
statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not. No Prior
Collapse Induced by Fire
The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The
first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after
9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of
the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the
supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute
for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced
collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman,
2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never
occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11. Defenders of the
official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not
simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the
airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of
airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the
construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: "They were over-designed
to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, ... bombings and an
airplane hitting [them]" (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT
professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory,
says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant,
because "the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large
and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant
structure" (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report,
in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse,
focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the
fire-proofing from the steel.[6] The official theory of the collapse,
therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too
much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to
collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the
world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never. One might say, of
course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly
extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea.
What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of
steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very
long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these
characteristics, let alone all three. There have been claims, to be
sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed
that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the
steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as
saying: "steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the
steel." Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: "It was
the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could
survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. ... The
columns would have melted" (Barter, 2001).[7] These claims, however, are
absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost
2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such
as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700°F,
which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We
can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because
their steel columns melted.[10] Most defenders of the official theory,
in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire
heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength
that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses
80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300°F, argues that
this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires
would have still had to be pretty hot. But they were not. Claims have
been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up
very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the
buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the
flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were
struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires
were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the
fires were "probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F" (Eagar, 2002).
There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even
that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even
spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This
photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by
NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, "only three
columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C
[482°F]," and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached
even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).
NIST (2005) says that it "did not generalize these results, since the
examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and
1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors". That only such a
tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the
fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold
and shipped off. In any case, NIST's findings on the basis of this tiny
percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any
speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher
temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any
empirical evidence.
Moreover, even if the fire had reached 1,300°F, as Eagar supposes,
that does not mean that any of the steel would have reached that
temperature. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Put a fire to one
part of a long bar of steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to the
other parts and to any other pieces of steel to which that bar is
For fires to have heated up some of the steel columns to anywhere close
to their own temperature, they would have needed to be very big,
relative to the size of the buildings and the amount of steel in them.
The towers, of course, were huge and had an enormous amount of steel. A
small, localized fire of 1,300°F would never have heated any of the
steel columns even close to that temperature, because the heat would
have been quickly dispersed throughout the building. Some defenders of
the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big,
turning the buildings into "towering infernos." But all the evidence
counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower,
which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84,
so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet
Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor:
"You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames ... just
licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and
smoke sort of eking through the wall."[14] Likewise, one of the fire
chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only "two isolated pockets
of fire."[15]
The north tower, to be sure, did have fires that were big enough and hot
enough to cause many people to jump to their deaths. But as anyone with
a fireplace grate or a pot-belly stove knows, fire that will not harm
steel or even iron will burn human flesh. Also in many cases it may have
been more the smoke than the heat that led people to jump. In any case,
the fires, to weaken the steel columns, would have needed to be not only
very big and very hot but also very long-lasting.[16] The public was
told that the towers had such fires, with CNN saying that "very intense"
fires "burned for a long time."[17] But they did not. The north tower
collapsed an hour and 42 minutes after it was struck; the south tower
collapsed after only 56 minutes. To see how ludicrous is the claim that
the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural
collapse, we can compare them with some other fires. In 1988, a fire in
the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours
and gutted 5 of this building's 62 floors, but there was no significant
structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia's
One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building's 38
floors, but, said the FEMA report, although "[b]eams and girders sagged
and twisted ... under severe fire exposures... , the columns continued
to support their loads without obvious damage" (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas
in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely
gutting the building's top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse
(Nieto, 2004). And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56-minute fire
caused the south tower to collapse.
Unlike the fires in the towers, moreover, the fires in Los Angeles,
Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows. Another
important comparison is afforded by a series of experiments run in Great
Britain in the mid-1990s to see what kind of damage could be done to
steel-frame buildings by subjecting them to extremely hot, all-consuming
fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, having reviewed those
experiments, said: "Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching
800-900°C (1,500-1,700°F) in three of the tests... , no collapse was
observed in any of the six experiments" (1988, Appendix A). These
comparisons bring out the absurdity of NIST's claim that the towers
collapsed because the planes knocked the fireproofing off the steel
columns. Fireproofing provides protection for only a few hours, so the
steel in the buildings in Philadelphia and Caracas would have been
directly exposed to raging fires for 14 or more hours, and yet this
steel did not buckle. NIST claims, nevertheless, that the steel in the
south tower buckled because it was directly exposed to flames for 56
A claim made by some defenders of the official theory is to speculate
that there was something about the Twin Towers that made them uniquely
vulnerable to fire. But these speculations are not backed up by any
evidence. And, as Norman Glover, has pointed out: "[A]lmost all large
buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No
major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the
location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with
minor damage and was repaired and returned to service" (Glover, 2002).
Multiple Evidence of Controlled Demolition There is a reverse truth to
the fact that, aside from the alleged cases of 9/11, fire has never
caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse. This reverse truth is
that every previous total collapse has been caused by the procedure
known as "controlled demolition," in which explosives capable of cutting
steel have been placed in crucial places throughout the building and
then set off in a particular order. Just from knowing that the towers
collapsed, therefore, the natural assumption would be that they were
brought down by explosives. This a priori assumption is, moreover,
supported by an empirical examination of the particular nature of the
collapses. Here we come to the second major problem with the official
theory, namely, that the collapses had at least eleven features that
would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used. I will briefly
describe these eleven features.
Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is
sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next
moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not
suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any
examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and
trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong
forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show,[19] there
were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the
damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly
motionless up to the moment they began their collapse. Straight Down:
The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building
close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at
least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other
buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented
primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of
Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, "to bring [a building] down
as we want, so ... no other structure is harmed," the demolition must be
"completely planned," using "the right explosive [and] the right pattern
of laying the charges" (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin Towers
had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to
buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down.
Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced
collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been
produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.[21]
Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition
collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports
for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come
down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the
towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned
indirectly by The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the "South
Tower collapsed in 10 seconds" (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22]
The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this
collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the
"pancake" theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors
that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor
below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors "pancaked" all
the way down.
But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and
concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not
have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through
air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling
inside the building's profile falls at the same speed as the rubble
outside[23] (Jones, 2006). As architect and physicist Dave Heller (2005)
the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too
quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach
the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?... In [the method
known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed
at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the
floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass
Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by
the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings
collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high. How was that
possible? The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box
columns.[24] According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel
supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had
happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11
Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply
denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: "The interior core
of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and
stairwells were grouped" (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note 1). Voila!
With no 47 core columns, the main problem is removed. The NIST Report
handled this most difficult problem by claiming that when the floors
collapsed, they pulled on the columns, causing the perimeter columns to
become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the
core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the
core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832°F, and this combination of
factors somehow produced "global collapse" (NIST, 2005, pp. 28, 143).
This theory faces two problems. First, NIST's claim about tremendously
hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. As we saw
earlier, its own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns
had reached temperatures of even 482°F (250°C), so its theory
involves a purely speculative addition of over 1350°F.[25] Second,
even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provides no
explanation as to why it would have produced global—-that is,
total--collapse. The NIST Report asserts that "column failure" occurred
in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare
assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the columns would
have broken or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse at
virtually free-fall speed, even if they had reached such
Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings,
explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A
representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of
the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a "razor
blade through a tomato." The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it
is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says
in its publicity: "Our DREXSTM systems ... segment steel components into
pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment."[27]
The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic
this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004),
after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of
the steel seemed to be "chopped up into ... sections that could be
easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero."[28]
Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of
controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because
explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and
most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman
(2003) reports, "nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the
towers were pulverized into fine power."[29] That observation was also
made by Colonel John O'Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "At the
World Trade Center sites," he told the History Channel, "it seemed like
everything was pulverized" (History Channel, 2002). This fact creates a
problem for the official theory, according to which the only energy
available was the gravitational energy. This energy would have been
sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But
it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to
turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the
buildings into tiny particles of dust. Dust Clouds: Yet another common
feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds,
which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great
energy. And, as one can see by comparing videos on the Web, the
collapses of the towers produced clouds that are very similar to those
produced by controlled demolitions of other structures, such as
Seattle's Kingdome. The only difference is that the clouds produced
during the collapses of the towers were proportionally much bigger.[30]
The question of the source of the needed energy again arises. Hoffman
(2003), focusing on the expansion of the North Tower's dust cloud,
calculates that the energy required simply for this expansion---ignoring
the energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and
other materials---exceeded by at least 10 times the gravitational energy
The official account, therefore, involves a huge violation of the laws
of physics---a violation that becomes even more enormous once we factor
in the energy required to pulverize the concrete (let alone the energy
required to break the steel).
Besides the sheer quantity of energy needed, another problem with the
official theory is that gravitational energy is wholly unsuited to
explain the production of these dust clouds. This is most obviously the
case in the first few seconds. In Hoffman's words: "You can see thick
clouds of pulverized concrete being ejected within the first two
seconds. That's when the relative motion of the top of the tower to the
intact portion was only a few feet per second."[31] Jeff King (2003), in
the same vein, says: "[A great amount of] very fine concrete dust is
ejected from the top of the building very early in the collapse...
[when] concrete slabs [would have been] bumping into each other at
[only] 20 or 30 mph."
The importance of King's point can be appreciated by juxtaposing it with
the claim by Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator, that although the
clouds of dust created during the collapses of the Twin Towers may
create the impression of a controlled demolition, "it is the floor
pancaking that leads to that perception" (Popular Mechanics, 2005). The
pancaking, according to the official theory being defended by Sunder,
began at the floor beneath the holes created by the impact of the
airliners. As King points out, this theory cannot handle the fact, as
revealed by the photographs and videos, that dust clouds were created
far above the impact zones.
Horizontal Ejections: Another common feature of controlled demolition is
the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those
areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of
the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that "[h]eavy pieces of steel
were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while
aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers" (Paul
and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course,
vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.
Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by
explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run
rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the
collapses of the towers.[32]
Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses
produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions. Like all the
previous features except the slicing of the steel columns inside the
building, this one could be observed by witnesses. And, as we will see
below, there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds
before and during the collapses of the towers. Molten Steel: An eleventh
feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the
steel columns would be molten steel, and its existence at the WTC site
was indeed reported by several witnesses, including the two main figures
involved in the clean up, Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction,
and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated.
Tully said that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the site.
Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the rubble was being
removed, "hot spots of molten steel" were found "at the bottoms of the
elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels" (both
statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004).[33]
Also, Leslie Robertson, the chief structural engineer for the Twin
Towers, said: "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still
burning and molten steel was still running" (Williams, 2001).
Knight-Ridder journalist Jennifer Lin, discussing Joe "Toolie" O'Toole,
a Bronx firefighter who worked for many months on the rescue and
clean-up efforts, wrote: "Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole
remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from
deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. 'It was dripping from the
molten steel," he said'" (Lin, 2002). Greg Fuchek, vice president of
sales for LinksPoint, Inc., which supplied some of the computer
equipment used to identify human remains at the site, described the
working conditions as "hellish," partly because for six months, the
ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500
degrees or higher. Fuchek added that "sometimes when a worker would pull
a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping
molten steel" (Walsh, 2002). And still more witnesses spoke of molten
This testimony is of great significance, since it would be hard to
imagine what, other than high explosives, could have caused some of the
steel to melt.
The importance of the nature of the collapses, as summarized in these 11
features, is shown by the fact that attempts to defend the official
theory typically ignore most of them. For example, an article in Popular
Mechanics (2005), seeking to debunk what it calls some of the most
prevalent myths about 9/11 fabricated by "conspiracy theorists,"
completely ignores the suddenness, verticality, rapidity, and totality
of the collapses and also fails to mention the testimonies about molten
steel, demolition rings, and the sounds of explosions.[35]
2. Testimonies about Explosions and Related Phenomena in the 9/11 Oral
Most of these 11 features---all but the slicing of the core columns and
the molten steel in the basements---are features that, if they occurred
before or during the collapses of the towers, could have been observed
by people in the area. And, in fact, testimonies about some of these
phenomena have been available, since shortly after 9/11, from
reporters,[36] fire fighters,[37] police officers,[38] people who worked
in the towers,[39] and one prominent explosives expert, who said on that
very day after viewing the videotapes, that the collapses not only
resembled those produced by controlled implosions but must, in fact,
have been caused by "some explosive devices inside the buildings"
because they were "too methodical" to have been chance results of the
airplane strikes (Uyttebrouck, 2001).[40] Some of these testimonies were
very impressive. There were, however, only a few of them and they were
scattered here and there. No big body of testimony was readily
But this situation has dramatically changed. Shortly after 9/11, the New
York Fire Department recorded over 500 oral histories, in which
firefighters and emergency medical workers recounted their experiences
of that day. [Emergency Medical Services had become a division within
the Fire Department(Dwyer, 2005a).[41]] Mayor Bloomberg's
administration, however, refused to release them. But then the New York
Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit and, after
a long process, the New York Court of Appeals ordered the city to
release the bulk of these oral histories, which it did in August
2005[42] (Dwyer, 2005b). The Times then made them publicly available
(NYT, 2005).[43]
These oral histories contain many dozens of testimonies that speak of
explosions and related phenomena characteristic of controlled
demolition. I will give some examples.
Several individuals reported that they witnessed an explosion just
before one of the towers collapsed. Battalion Chief John Sudnik said:
"we heard ... what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw
tower two start coming down" (NYT, Sudnick, p. 4). Several people
reported multiple explosions. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski said: "I heard
three explosions, and then ... tower two started to come down" (NYT,
Darnowski, p. 8).
Firefighter Thomas Turilli said, "it almost sounded like bombs going
off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (NYT, Turilli, p. 4).
Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters "heard explosions
coming from ... the south tower. ... There were about ten explosions.
... We then realized the building started to come down" (NYT, Carlsen,
pp. 5-6).
Firefighter Joseph Meola said, "it looked like the building was blowing
out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops" (NYT, Meola, p. 5).
Paramedic Daniel Rivera also mentioned "pops." Asked how he knew that
the south tower was coming down, he said:
It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see
professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and
then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? ... I thought it was that.
(NYT, Rivera, p.
Collapse Beginning below the Strike Zone and Fire According to the
official account, the "pancaking" began when the floors above the hole
caused by the airplane fell on the floors below. Some witnesses
reported, however, that the collapse of the south tower began somewhat
Timothy Burke said that "the building popped, lower than the fire. ... I
was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the
building popped. I thought it was an explosion" (NYT, Burke, pp. 8-9).
Firefighter Edward Cachia said: "It actually gave at a lower floor, not
the floor where the plane hit. ... [W]e originally had thought there was
like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession,
boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down" (NYT, Cachia, p.
The importance of these observations is reinforced by the fact that the
authors of the NIST Report, after having released a draft to the public,
felt the need to add the following statement to the Executive Summary:
NIST 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. ...
Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the
collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse
progressed from the initiating floors downward. Firefighters Burke and
Cachia presumably now need to ask themselves: What are you going to
believe, your own eyes or an official government report? Flashes and
Demolition Rings
Some of the witnesses spoke of flashes and of phenomena suggestive of
demolition rings. Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: "I
thought ... before ... No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes.
... I ... saw a flash flash flash ... [at] the lower level of the
building. You know like when they demolish a building?" (NYT, Gregory,
pp. 14-16).
Captain Karin Deshore said: "Somewhere around the middle ... there was
this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.
Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and
that building had started to explode. ... [W]ith each popping sound it
was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building
and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far
as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting
bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building" (NYT,
Deshore, p. 15).
Firefighter Richard Banaciski said: "[T]here was just an explosion. It
seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed
like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions"
(NYT, Banaciski, pp. 3-4).
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick said: "It looked like sparkling
around one specific layer of the building. ... My initial reaction was
that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those
implosions on TV" (NYT, Fitzpatrick, pp. 13-14). Horizontal Ejections A
few witnesses spoke of horizontal ejections. Chief Frank Cruthers said:
"There was what appeared to be ... an explosion. It appeared at the very
top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out
horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you
could see the beginning of the collapse" (NYT, Cruthers, p. 4). This
testimony is important, because the official theory holds that the
ejections were produced by the floors collapsing. So listen to
firefighter James Curran, who said: "I looked back and ... I heard like
every floor went chu-chu-chu. I looked back and from the pressure
everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually
collapsed" (NYT, Curran, pp. 10-11).
Battalion Chief Brian Dixon said, "the lowest floor of fire in the south
tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it
because ... everything blew out on the one floor" (NYT, Dixon, p.
Synchronized Explosions
Some witnesses said that the explosions seemed to be synchronized. For
example, firefighter Kenneth Rogers said, "there was an explosion in the
south tower. ... I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One
floor under another after another ... [I]t looked like a synchronized
deliberate kind of thing" (NYT, Rogers, pp. 3-4).[45] Why Does the
Public Not Know of These Reports? If all these firefighters and medical
workers witnessed all these phenomena suggestive of controlled
demolition, it might be wondered why the public does not know this. Part
of the answer is provided by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac.
Having said that "there were definitely bombs in those buildings," Isaac
added that "many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,
but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups'
forbid discussion of this fact" (Lavello, n.d.). Another part of the
answer is that when a few people, like Isaac and William Rodriguez, have
spoken out, the mainstream press has failed to report their statements.
3. Implications
The official theory about the collapse of the towers, I have suggested,
is rendered extremely implausible by two main facts. First, aside from
the alleged exception of 9/11, steel-frame high-rise buildings have
never been caused to collapse by fire; all such collapses have all been
produced by carefully placed explosives. Second, the collapses of the
Twin Towers manifested at least 11 characteristic features of controlled
demolitions. The probability that any of these features would occur in
the absence of explosives is extremely low. The probability that all 11
of them would occur is essentially zero.[46] We can say, therefore, that
the official theory about the towers is disproved about as thoroughly as
such a theory possibly could be, whereas all the evidence can be
explained by the alternative theory, according to which the towers were
brought down by explosives. The official theory is, accordingly, an
outrageous theory, whereas the alternative theory is, from a scientific
point of view, the only reasonable theory available.[47]
4. Other Suspicious Facts
Moreover, although we have already considered sufficient evidence for
the theory that the towers were brought down by explosives, there is
still more.
Removal of the Steel: For one thing, the steel from the buildings was
quickly removed before it could be properly examined,[48] with virtually
all of it being sold to scrap dealers, who put most of it on ships to
Asia.[49] Generally, removing any evidence from the scene of a crime is
a federal offense. But in this case, federal officials facilitated the
This removal evoked protest. On Christmas day, 2001, the New York Times
said: "The decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and
trusses from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive
answers may never be known."[51] The next week, Fire Engineering
magazine said: "We are literally treating the steel removed from the
site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence (Brannigan,
Corbett, and Dunn, 2002). ... The destruction and removal of evidence
must stop immediately" (Manning, 2002).
However, Mayor Bloomberg, defending the decision to dispose of the
steel, said: "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and
the design, that's in this day and age what computers do.[52] Just
looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."[53]
But that is not true. An examination of the steel could have revealed
whether it had been cut by explosives.
This removal of an unprecedented amount of material from a crime scene
suggests that an unprecedented crime was being covered up.[54] Evidence
that this cover-up was continued by NIST is provided by its treatment of
a provocative finding reported by FEMA, which was that some of the
specimens of steel were "rapidly corroded by sulfidation" (FEMA 2002,
Appendix C). This report is significant, because sulfidation is an
effect of explosives. FEMA appropriately called for further
investigation of this finding, which the New York Times called "perhaps
the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation" (Killough-Miller,
2002). A closely related problem, expressed shortly after 9/11 by Dr.
Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, is that "[f]ire and the structural damage ...
would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have
been partly evaporated" (Glanz, 2001). But the NIST report, in its
section headed "Learning from the Recovered Steel," fails even to
mention either evaporation or sulfidation.[55] Why would the NIST
scientists apparently share Mayor Bloomberg's disdain for empirical
studies of recovered steel?
North Tower Antenna Drop: Another problem noted by FEMA is that videos
show that, in the words of the FEMA Report, "the transmission tower on
top of the [north tower] began to move downward and laterally slightly
before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that
collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the
building" (FEMA 2002, ch. 2).[56] This drop was also mentioned in a New
York Times story by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, which said: "Videos of
the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna
began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building.
The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way
first" (Glanz and Lipton, 2002). In the supposedly definitive NIST
Report, however, we find no mention of this fact. This is another
convenient omission, since the most plausible, and perhaps only
possible, explanation would be that the core columns were cut by
explosives---an explanation that would fit with the testimony of several
South Tower Tipping and Disintegration: If the north tower's antenna
drop was anomalous (from the perspective of the official theory), the
south tower's collapse contained an even stranger anomaly. The uppermost
floors---above the level struck by the airplane---began tipping toward
the corner most damaged by the impact. According to
conservation-of-momentum laws, this block of approximately 34 floors
should have fallen to the ground far outside the building's footprint.
"However," observe Paul and Hoffman, "as the top then began to fall, the
rotation decelerated. Then it reversed direction [even though the] law
of conservation of angular momentum states that a solid object in
rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed unless acted on by a
torque" (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34).
And then, in the words of Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU,
"this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!" This disintegration
stopped the tipping and allowed the uppermost floors to fall straight
down into, or at least close to, the building's footprint. As Jones
notes, this extremely strange behavior was one of many things that NIST
was able to ignore by virtue of the fact that its analysis, in its own
words, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached" (NIST 2005,
p. 80, n. 12). This is convenient because it means that NIST did not
have to answer Jones's question: "How can we understand this strange
behavior, without explosives?" (Jones, 2006). This behavior is, however,
not strange to experts in controlled demolition. Mark Loizeaux, the head
of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said: [B]y differentially
controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure,
you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . ...
We'll have structures start facing north and end up going to the
north-west. (Else, 2004)
Once again, something that is inexplicable in terms of the official
theory becomes a matter of course if the theory of controlled demolition
is adopted.
WTC Security: The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises
the question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers
could have gotten through the security checks. This question brings us
to a possibly relevant fact about a company---now called Stratesec but
then called Securacom---that was in charge of security for the World
Trade Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new
security system, Marvin Bush, the president's brother, was one of the
company's directors. And from 1999 until January of 2002, their cousin
Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns, 2003).[57] One would think these
facts should have made the evening news---or at least The 9/11
Commission Report.
These facts, in any case, may be relevant to some reports given by
people who had worked in the World Trade Center. Some of them reportedly
said that although in the weeks before 9/11 there had been a security
alert that mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, that alert was lifted
five days before 9/11 (Taylor and Gardiner, 2001). Also, a man named
Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust---the company for which
Kristen Breitweiser's husband worked---has written: On the weekend of
[September 8-9, 2001], there was a "power down" condition in ... the
south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical
supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. ... The reason given
by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being
upgraded . ... Of course without power there were no security cameras,
no security locks on doors [while] many, many "engineers" [were] coming
in and out of the tower.[58] Also, a man named Ben Fountain, who was a
financial analyst with Fireman's Fund in the south tower, was quoted in
People Magazine as saying that during the weeks before 9/11, the towers
were evacuated "a number of times" (People Magazine, 2001).
Foreknowledge of the Collapse: One more possibly relevant fact is that
then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, talking on ABC News about his temporary
emergency command center at 75 Barkley Street, said: We were operating
out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna
collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the
This is an amazing statement. Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down
a steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who reached the 78th floor of the
south tower certainly did not believe it was going to collapse. Even the
9/11 Commission reported that to its knowledge, "none of the [fire]
chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was
possible" (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). So why would anyone have
told Giuliani that at least one of the towers was about to collapse? The
most reasonable answer, especially in light of the new evidence, is that
someone knew that explosives had been set in the south tower and were
about to be discharged. It is even possible that the explosives were
going to be discharged earlier than originally planned because the fires
in the south tower were dying down more quickly than expected, because
so much of the plane's jet fuel had burned up in the fireball outside
the building.[60] This could explain why although the south tower was
struck second, suffered less structural damage, and had smaller fires,
it collapsed first---after only 56 minutes. That is, if the official
story was going to be that the fire caused the collapse, the building
had to be brought down before the fire went completely out.[61] We now
learn from the oral histories, moreover, that Giuliani is not the only
one who was told that a collapse was coming. At least four of the
testimonies indicate that shortly before the collapse of the south
tower, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had predicted the
collapse of at least one tower.[62] The director of OEM reported
directly to Giuliani.[63] So although Giuliani said that he and others
"were told" that the towers were going to collapse, it was his own
people who were doing the telling.
As New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer has pointed out, the 9/11
Commission had access to the oral histories.[64] It should have
discussed these facts, but it did not.
The neglect of most of the relevant facts about the collapses,
manifested by The 9/11 Commission Report, was continued by the NIST
Report, which said, amazingly:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the
instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.
For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the
"probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the
structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse
initiation were reached. ... [Our simulation treats only] the structural
deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time
at which the building ... was poised for collapse (80n, 140). Steven
Jones comments, appropriately:
What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of
the buildings? ... What about the antenna dropping first in the North
Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas ... ?
Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the
buildings were "poised for collapse." Well, some of us want to look at
all the data, without computer simulations that are "adjusted" to make
them fit the desired outcome. (Jones,
Summary: When we add these five additional suspicious facts to the
features that that the collapses of the Twin Towers had in common with
controlled demolitions, we have a total of sixteen facts about the
collapses of these buildings that, while being inexplicable in terms of
the official theory, are fully understandable on the theory that the
destruction of the towers was an inside job.
5. The Collapse of Building 7
As we have seen, the 9/11 Commission simply ignored the facts discussed
above. Still another matter not discussed by the Commission was the
collapse of building 7. And yet the official story about it is, if
anything, even more problematic than the official story about the
towers—as suggested by the title of a New York Times story, "Engineers
Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC" (Glanz, 2001).[65] Even More
Difficult to Explain
The collapse of building 7 is even more difficult to explain than the
collapse of the towers in part because it was not struck by an airliner,
so none of the theories about how the impacts of the airliners
contributed to the collapses of the towers can be employed in relation
to it.
Also, all the photographic evidence suggests that the fires in this
building were small, not very hot, and limited to a few floors.
Photographs of the north side of the building show fires only on the 7th
and 12th floors of this 47-floor building. So if the south side, which
faced the towers, had fires on many other floors, as defenders of the
official account claim, they were not big enough to be seen from the
other side of the building.[66]
It would not be surprising, of course, if the fires in this building
were even smaller than those in the towers, because there was no jet
fuel to get a big fire started. Some defenders of the official story
have claimed, to be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building
somehow caught fire and created a towering inferno. But if building 7
had become engulfed in flames, why did none of the many photographers
and TV camera crews on the scene capture this sight? The extreme
difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7—-assuming that it
is not permissible to mention controlled demolition---has been
recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA's
supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then
admitted that this scenario had "only a low probability of
occurrence."[67] Even that statement is generous, because the
probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is
true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it
would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission,
perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply
not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed. This was one
of the Commission's most amazing omissions. According to the official
theory, building 7 demonstrated, contrary to the universal conviction
prior to 9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse from fire
alone, even without having been hit by an airplane. This demonstration
should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums for all
steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And yet the
9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did not devote a
single sentence to this historic event. Even More Similar to Controlled
Implosions Yet another reason why the collapse of building 7 is
especially problematic is that it was even more like the best-known type
of conventional demolition—-namely, an implosion, which begins at the
bottom (whereas the collapse of each tower originated high up, near the
region struck by the plane). As Eric Hufschmid has written: Building 7
collapsed at its bottom. ... [T]he interior fell first. ... The result
was a very tiny pile of rubble, with the outside of the building
collapsing on top of the pile.[68] Implosion World.com, a website about
the demolition industry, states that an implosion is "by far the
trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of
blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience ... to
perform these true building implosions."[69] Can anyone really believe
that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that
can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the
world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To
hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean
believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the
same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a
miracle. Physicist Steven Jones agrees, saying: The likelihood of
near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7 due to random fires (the "official"
theory)---requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support
columns---is infinitesimal. I conclude that the evidence for the 9/11
use of pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in Towers 1 and 2) is
truly compelling.[70]
Much More Extensive Foreknowledge
Another reason why the collapse of building 7 creates special problems
involves foreknowledge of its collapse. We know of only a few people
with advance knowledge that the Twin Towers were going to collapse, and
the information we have would be consistent with the supposition that
this knowledge was acquired only a few minutes before the south tower
collapsed. People can imagine, therefore, that someone saw something
suggesting that the building was going to collapse. But the
foreknowledge of building 7's collapse was more widespread and of longer
duration. This has been known for a long time, at least by people who
read firefighters' magazines.[71] But now the oral histories have
provided a fuller picture.
Widespread Notification: At least 25 of the firefighters and medical
workers reported that, at some time that day, they learned that building
7 was going to collapse. Firefighters who had been fighting the fires in
the building said they were ordered to leave the building, after which a
collapse zone was established. As medical worker Decosta Wright put it:
"they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew
exactly where we could stand," which was "5 blocks away" (NYT, Wright,
pp. 11-12).
Early Warning: As to exactly when the expectation of the collapse began
circulating, the testimonies differ. But most of the evidence suggests
that the expectation of collapse was communicated 4 or 5 hours in
The Alleged Reason for the Expectation: But why would this expectation
have arisen? The fires in building 7 were, according to all the
photographic evidence, few and small. So why would the decision-makers
in the department have decided to pull firefighters out of building 7
and have them simply stand around waiting for it to collapse? The chiefs
gave a twofold explanation: damage plus fire. Chief Frank Fellini said:
"When [the north tower] fell, it ripped steel out from between the third
and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned
that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in
the building collapsing" (NYT, Fellini, p. 3). There are at least two
problems with each part of this explanation. One problem with the
accounts of the structural damage is that they vary greatly. According
to Fellini's testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third
and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the
hole was "20 stories tall" (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder,
the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise
between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, "On about a
third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10
stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out"
(Popular Mechanics, March 2005). The different accounts of the problem
on the building's south side are not, moreover, limited to the issue of
the size of the hole. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, the
problem was not a hole at all but a "bulge," and it was "between floors
10 and 13" (Hayden, 2002). The second problem with these accounts of the
damage is if there was a hole that was 10 or 20 floors high, or even a
hole (or a budge) that was 4 floors high, why was this fact not captured
on film by any of the photographers or videographers in the area that
day? With regard to the claims about the fire, the accounts again vary
greatly. Chief Daniel Nigro spoke of "very heavy fire on many floors"
(NYT, Nigro, p. 10). According to Harry Meyers, an assistant chief,
"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all
forty-seven stories" (quoted in Smith, 2002, p. 160). That obvious
exaggeration was also stated by a firefighter who said: "[Building 7]
was fully engulfed. ... [Y]ou could see the flames going straight
through from one side of the building to the other" (NYT, Cassidy, p.
Several of the testimonies, however, did not support the official line.
For example, medical technician Decosta Wright said: "I think the fourth
floor was on fire. ... [W]e were like, are you guys going to put that
fire out?" (NYT, Wright, p. 11). Chief Thomas McCarthy said: "[T]hey
were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down. ... They had ... fire on
three separate floors ... , just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing,
you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is
burning, and they said 'we know'" (NYT, McCarthy, pp. 10-11). The second
problem with the official account here is that if there was "very heavy
fire on many floors," why is this fact not captured on any film? The
photograph that we have of the north side of the building supports Chief
McCarthy's view that there was fire on three floors. Even if there were
fires on additional floors on the south side of the building, there is
no photographic support for the claim that "the flames [on these
additional floors went] straight through from one side of the building
to the other." Moreover, even if the department's official story about
the collapse of building 7 were not contradicted by physical evidence
and some of the oral histories, it would not explain why the building
collapsed, because no amount of fire and structural damage, unless
caused by explosives, had ever caused the total collapse of a large
steel-frame building.[73] And it certainly would not explain the
particular nature of the collapse---that the building imploded and fell
straight down rather than falling over in some direction, as purportedly
expected by those who gave the order to create a large collapse zone.
Battalion Chief John Norman, for example, said: "We expected it to fall
to the south" (Norman 2002). Nor would the damage-plus-fire theory
explain this building's collapse at virtually free-fall speed or the
creation of an enormous amount of dust—additional features of the
collapses that are typically ignored by defenders of the official
The great difficulty presented to the official theory about the WTC by
the collapse of building 7 is illustrated by a recent book, 102 Minutes:
The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, one of
the authors of which is New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer, who wrote the
stories in the Times about the release of the 9/11 oral histories. With
regard to the Twin Towers, Dwyer and his co-author, Kevin Flynn, support
the theory put out by NIST, according to which the towers collapsed
because the airplanes knocked the fire-proofing off the steel columns,
making them vulnerable to the "intense heat" of the ensuing fires.[74]
When they come to building 7, however, Dwyer and Flynn do not ask why it
collapsed, given the fact that it was not hit by a plane. They simply
say: "The firefighters had decided to let the fire there burn itself
out" (Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, p. 258). But that, of course, is not what
happened. Rather, shortly after 5:20 that day, building 7 suddenly
collapsed, in essentially the same way as did the Twin Towers. Should
this fact not have led Dryer and Flynn to question NIST's theory that
the Twin Towers collapsed because their fireproofing had been knocked
loose? I would especially think that Dwyer, who reported on the release
of the 9/11 oral histories, should re-assess NIST's theory in light of
the abundant evidence of explosions in the towers provided in those
Another Explanation: There is, in any case, only one theory that
explains both the nature and the expectation of the collapse of building
7: Explosives had been set, and someone who knew this spread the word to
the fire chiefs.
Amazingly enough, a version of this theory was publicly stated by an
insider, Larry Silverstein, who owned building 7. In a PBS documentary
aired in September of 2002, Silverstein, discussing building 7, said: I
remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire,
and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest
thing to do is pull it."[76] And they made that decision to pull and we
watched the building collapse. (PBS, 2002) [77] It is very puzzling, to
be sure, that Silverstein, who was ready to receive billions of dollars
in insurance payments for building 7 and the rest of the World Trade
Center complex, on the assumption that they had been destroyed by acts
of terrorism, would have made such a statement in public, especially
with TV cameras running. But his assertion that building 7 was brought
down by explosives, whatever the motive behind it, explains why and how
it collapsed.
We still, however, have the question of why the fire department came to
expect the building to collapse. It would be interesting, of course, if
that information came from the same agency, the Office of Emergency
Management, that had earlier informed the department that one of the
towers was going to collapse. And we have it on good authority that it
did. Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire
Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin
Towers, "Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management" told
him that building 7 was "basically a lost cause and we should not lose
anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the
building were told to get out (Murphy, 2002, pp. 175-76).[78] But that
answer, assuming it to be correct, leaves us with more questions,
beginning with: Who in the Office of Emergency Management knew in
advance that the towers and building 7 were going to collapse? How did
they know this? And so on. These questions could be answered only by a
real investigation, which has yet to begin.
6. Conclusion
It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt,
one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was
an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists
could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives.
They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the
buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto
surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up,
from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11
Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have
been orchestrated only by forces within our own government. The evidence
for this conclusion has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream
press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush's advice not to
tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." We have seen, however, that
it is the Bush administration's conspiracy theory that is the outrageous
one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including
some basic laws of physics. There is, of course, another reason why the
mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent
letter to the Los Angeles Times said:
The number of contradictions in the official version of ... 9/11 is so
overwhelming that ... it simply cannot be believed. Yet ... the official
version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is
far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of
'X-Files' proportions and insidiousness.[79] The implications are indeed
disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about
9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the
American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability
that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would
suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has
been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more
devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and
the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us
9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been
reflected in the Bush administration's lies to justify the attack on
Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights,
its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its
apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use
of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike. In light of this situation
and the facts discussed in this essay---as well as dozens of more
problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed in my books---I call
on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the
American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on
such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is
any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility
to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in
getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our
republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on
getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise
to the occasion. ENDNOTES
[1] Both lectures are also available on DVDs edited by Ken Jenkins
(kenjenkins@aol.com). See also Griffin, 2005c.
[2] Bush's more complete statement was: "We must speak the truth about
terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning
the attacks of 11 September---malicious lies that attempt to shift the
blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
Excellent advice.
[3] This report was carried out by the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) on behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). The public was exposed to this theory early on, with CNN saying
shortly after 9/11: "The collapse, when it came, was caused by fire. ...
The fire weakened that portion of the structure which remained after the
impact... to the point where it could no longer sustain the load" (CNN,
September 24, 2001).
[4] NIST describes the collapses of the towers as instances of
"progressive collapse," which happens when "a building or portion of a
building collapses due to disproportionate spread of an initial local
failure" (NIST Report, p. 200). NIST thereby falsely implies that the
total collapses of the three WTC buildings were specific instances of a
general category with other instances. NIST even claims that the
collapses were "inevitable."
[5] The chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, said that the Twin
Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, at that
time (1966) the largest airliner. See "The Fall of the World Trade
Center," BBC 2, March 7, 2002
For a comparison of the 707 and the 767, see "Boeing 707-767
Comparison," What Really Happened
(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html). Also relevant
is the fact that in 1945, a B-25 bomber struck the Empire State Building
at the 79th floor, creating a hole 20 feet high. But there was never the
slightest indication that this accident would cause the building to
collapse (see Glover, 2002).
[6] The NIST Report (2005, pp. xliii and 171) says: "the towers
withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for
the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor
[7] Supported by these authorities, the show went on to claim that "as
fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in
each building would have eventually reached 800°C [1472°F]---hot
enough to start buckling and collapsing."
[8]In Griffin, 2004, pp. 12-13, I cite Professor Thomas Eagar's
acknowledgment of this fact.
[9] Given the fact that the claim that the fires in the towers melted
its steel is about as absurd, from a scientific point of view, as a
claim could be, it is amazing to see that some scientific journals
seemed eager to rush into print with this claim. On the day after 9/11,
for example, New Scientist published an article that said: "Each tower
[after it was struck] remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually
raging fires melted the supporting steel struts" (Samuel and Carrington,
2001). The article's title, "Design Choice for Towers Saved Lives",
reflects the equally absurd claim---attributed to "John Hooper,
principal engineer in the company that provided engineering advice when
the World Trade Center was designed"---that "[m]ost buildings would have
come down immediately."
[10] Stating this obvious point could, however, be costly to employees
of companies with close ties to the government. On November 11, 2004,
Kevin Ryan, the Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories,
which is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, wrote an e-mail letter
to Dr. Frank Gayle, Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material
Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). In this letter, Ryan stated: "We know
that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time
temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed
to temperatures around 2000°F for several hours. And as we all agree,
the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can
all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching
red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000°F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that
2000°F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes
no sense at all." After Ryan allowed his letter to become public, he was
fired. His letter is available at
[11] One well-known attempt to defend the official account has tried to
use the absurdity of the steel-melting claim against those who reject
the official account. In its March issue of 2005, Popular Mechanics
magazine published a piece entitled "9/11: Debunking the Myths"
This article sets out to debunk what it alleges to be "16 of the most
prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists." One of these "poisonous
claims," according to Popular Mechanics, results from the fact that that
these "conspiracy theorists" have created a straw-man
argument---pretending that the official theory claims that the buildings
came down because their steel melted---which the conspiracy theorists
could then knock down. Popular Mechanics "refutes" this straw-man
argument by instructing us that "[j]et fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F,
not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for
the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they
just had to lose some of their structural strength." As we have seen,
however, the idea that the towers collapsed because their steel melted
was put into the public consciousness by some early defenders of the
official theory. For critics of this theory to show the absurdity of
this claim is not, therefore, to attack a straw man. The idea that the
official theory is based on this absurd claim is, in any case, not one
of "the most prevalent claims" of those who reject the official theory.
[12] Even Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the NIST study, said:
"The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes" (Field,
2004). The NIST Report itself says (p. 179): "The initial jet fuel fires
themselves lasted at most a few minutes."
[13] The NIST Report (2005, p. 68), trying to argue that steel is very
vulnerable unless it is protected by insulation, says: "Bare structural
steel components can heat quickly when exposed to a fire of even
moderate intensity. Therefore, some sort of thermal protection, or
insulation, is necessary". As Hoffman (2005) points out, however: "These
statements are meaningless, because they ignore the effect of steel's
thermal conductivity, which draws away heat, and the considerable
thermal mass of the 90,000 tons of steel in each Tower." Also, I can
only wonder if the authors of the NIST Report reflected on the
implications of their theory for the iron or steel grating in their
fireplaces. Do they spray on new fireproofing after enjoying a blazing
hot fire for a few hours?
[14]Quoted in "WTC 2: There Was No Inferno," What Really Happened
[15] Quoted in "Tape Sheds Light on WTC Rescuers," CNN, August 4, 2002
(http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/04/wtc.firefighters/). The voices of
the firefighters reportedly "showed no panic, no sense that events were
racing beyond their control." (Dwyer and Fessenden, 2002)
[16] As Eric Hufschmid (2002, p. 33) says: "A fire will not affect steel
unless the steel is exposed to it for a long ... period of time".
[17] CNN, September 24, 2001.
[18] Kevin Ryan, in his letter to Frank Gayle (see note 10, above),
wrote in criticism of NIST's preliminary report: "This story just does
not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure
we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of
any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. ...
Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the
ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."
[19] See, for example, Eric Hufschmid's "Painful Deceptions" (available
at www.EricHufschmid.Net); Jim Hoffman's website
(http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html); and Jeff King's website
especially "The World Trade Center Collapse: How Strong is the Evidence
for a Controlled Demolition?"
[20] Incredibly, after explaining how precisely explosives must be set
to ensure that a building comes straight down, Loizeaux said that upon
seeing the fires in the Twin Towers, he knew that the towers were "going
to pancake down, almost vertically. It was the only way they could fail.
It was inevitable." Given the fact that fire had never before caused
steel-frame buildings to collapse, let alone in a way that perfectly
mimicked controlled demolition, Loizeaux's statement is a cause for
wonder. His company, incidentally, was hired to remove the steel from
the WTC site after 9/11.
[21] The fire theory is rendered even more unlikely if the first two
characteristics are taken together. For fire to have induced a collapse
that began suddenly and was entirely symmetrical, so that it went
straight down, the fires would have needed to cause all the crucial
parts of the building to fail simultaneously, even though the fires were
not spread evenly throughout the buildings. As Jim Hoffman has written:
"All 287 columns would have to have weakened to the point of collapse at
the same instant" ("The Twin Towers Demolition," 9-11 Research.wtc7.net,
n.d., http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/slides.html).
[22] That statement is probably a slight exaggeration, as the videos,
according to most students, seem to suggest that the collapses took
somewhere between 11 and 16 seconds. But this would still be close to
free-fall speed through the air.
[23] As physicist Steven Jones puts it, "the Towers fall very rapidly to
the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected
debris which provide free-fall references . ... Where is the delay that
must be expected due to conservation of momentum---one of the
foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike
lower floors---and intact steel support columns---the fall must be
significantly impeded by the impacted mass. ... [B]ut this is not the
case. ... How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still
conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is
ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission reports where conservation of
momentum and the fall times were not analyzed" (Jones, 2006; until then
available at http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html).
[24] Each box column, besides being at least 36 by 16 inches, had walls
that were at least 4 inches thick at the base, then tapered off in the
upper floors, which had less weight to support. Pictures of columns can
be seen on page 23 of Hufschmid, 2002. The reason for the qualification
"at least" in these statements is that Jim Hoffman has recently
concluded that some of them were even bigger. With reference to his
article "The Core Structures: The Structural System of the Twin Towers,"
9-11 Research.wtc7.net, n.d.
[http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html], he has written (e-mail
letter of October 26, 2005): "Previously I've been saying that the core
columns had outside dimensions of 36" X 16", but I now think that at
least 1/3 of them had dimensions of 54" X 22", based on early articles
in the Engineering News Record and photographs I took of close-up
construction photos on display at the Skyscraper Museum in Manhattan.
... Also, according to the illustration in the Engineering News Record,
the thickness of the steel at the bases was 5", not 4"."
[25] And, as Hoffman (2005) says, NIST's claim about these tremendously
hot fires in the core is especially absurd given the fact that the core
"had very little fuel; was far from any source of fresh air; had huge
steel columns to wick away the heat; [and] does not show evidence of
fires in any of the photographs or videos." All the evidence, in other
words, suggests that none of the core columns would have (from the fire)
reached the highest temperatures reached by some of the perimeter
[26] NIST rests its theory largely on the idea that collapse began with
the failure of the trusses. Being much smaller and also less
interconnected, trusses would have been much easier to heat up, so it is
not surprising that the NIST Report focuses on them. To try to make its
theory work, however, NIST claims that the trusses became hotter than
their own evidence supports. That is, although NIST found no evidence
that any of the steel had gotten hotter than 1112°F (600°C), it
claims that some of the steel trusses were heated up to 1,292°F
(700°C) (2005, pp. 96, 176-77). A supposedly scientific argument
cannot arbitrarily add 180°F just because it happens to need it. In
any case, besides the fact that this figure is entirely unsupported by
any evidence, NIST's theory finally depends on the claim that the core
columns failed as "a result of both splice connection failures and
fracture of the columns themselves," because they were "weakened
significantly by ... thermal effects" (2005, pp. 88, 180). But there is
no explanation of how these massive columns would have been caused to
"fracture," even if the temperatures had gotten to those heights. As a
study issued in the UK put it: "Thermal expansion and the response of
the whole frame to this effect has not been described [by NIST] as yet"
(Lane and Lamont, 2005).
[27]Quoted in Hufschmid's video, "Painful Deceptions"
[28] In that statement, Hoffman said that most of the sections seemed to
be no more than 30-feet long. He later revised this, saying that,
judging from an aerial image taken 12 days after the attacks, most of
the pieces seemed to be between 24 and 48 feet long, with only a few
over 50 feet. He also noted that "the lengths of the pieces bears little
resemblance to the lengths of the steel parts known to have gone into
the construction," which means that one could not reasonably infer that
the pieces simply broke at their joints (e-mail letter, September 27,
[29] The available evidence, says Hoffman (2003), suggests that the dust
particles were very small indeed---on the order of 10 microns.
[30] Hoffman ("The Twin Towers Demolition") says that the clouds
expanded to five times the diameter of the towers in the first ten
seconds. The Demolition of the Kingdome can be viewed at the website of
Controlled Demolition, Inc.
The demolition of the Reading Grain Facility can be seen at
ImplosionWorld.com (http://implosionworld.com/reading.html). [31]Jim
Hoffman, "The Twin Towers Demolition."
[32]For visual evidence of this and the preceding characteristics
(except sliced steel), see Hufschmid's Painful Questions; Hufschmid's
video "Painful Deceptions" (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net); Jim
Hoffman's website (http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html); and Jeff
King's website
especially "The World Trade Center Collapse: How Strong is the Evidence
for a Controlled Demolition?"
[33] Bollyn says (e-mail letter of October 27, 2005) that these
statements were made to him personally during telephone interviews with
Tully and Loizeaux, probably in the summer of 2002. Bollyn added that
although he is not positive about the date of the telephone interviews,
he is always "very precise about quotes"
[34]Professor Allison Geyh (2001) of Johns Hopkins, who was part of a
team of public health investigators who visited the site shortly after
9/11, wrote: "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding
molten steel". Dr. Keith Eaton, who somewhat later toured the site with
an engineer, said that he was shown slides of "molten metal, which was
still red hot weeks after the event" (Structural Engineer, 2002, p. 6).
Herb Trimpe (2002), an Episcopalian deacon who served as a chaplain at
Ground Zero, said: "[I]t was actually warmer on site. The fires burned,
up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while. ... I talked to many
contractors and they said ... beams had just totally had been melted
because of the heat."
[35] This article in Popular Mechanics is, to be blunt, spectacularly
bad. Besides the problems pointed out here and in note 11, above, and
note 39, below, the article makes this amazing claim: "In the decade
before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North
America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999." In reality,
as genuine 9/11 researchers know, the FAA reported in a news release on
Aug. 9, 2002, that it had scrambled fighters 67 times between September
2000 and June 2001, and the Calgary Herald (Oct. 13,
2001) reported that NORAD scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000. By
extrapolation, we can infer that NORAD had scrambled fighters over 1000
times in the decade prior to 9/11. The claim by Popular Mechanics could
be true only if in all of these cases, except for the Payne Stewart
incident, the fighters were called back to base before they actually
intercepted the aircraft in question. This is a most unlikely
possibility, especially in light of the fact that Major Mike Snyder, a
NORAD spokesperson, reportedly told the Boston Globe a few days after
9/11 that "[NORAD'S] fighters routinely intercept aircraft" (Johnson,
As to why Popular Mechanics would have published such a bad article, one
clue is perhaps provided by the fact that the article's "senior
researcher" was 25-year old Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael
Chertoff, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security (see
Bollyn, 2005a). Another relevant fact is that this article was published
shortly after a coup at this Hearst-owned magazine, in which the
editor-in-chief was replaced (see Bollyn, 2005b). Young Chertoff's
debunking article has itself been effectively debunked by many genuine
9/11 researchers, such as Jim Hoffman, "Popular Mechanics' Assault on
9/11 Truth," Global Outlook 10 (Spring-Summer 2005), 21-42 (which was
based on Hoffman, "Popular Mechanics' Deceptive Smear Against 9/11
Truth," 911Review.com, February 15, 2005
[http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html]), and Peter Meyer, "Reply to
Popular Mechanics re 9/11,"
To be sure, these articles by Hoffman and Meyer, while agreeing on many
points, take different approaches in response to some of the issues
raised. But both articles demonstrate that Popular Mechanics owes its
readers an apology for publishing such a massively flawed article on
such an important subject.
[36] NBC's Pat Dawson reported from the WTC on the morning of 9/11 that
he had been told by Albert Turi, the Fire Department's Deputy Assistant
Chief of Safety, that "another explosion ... took place ... an hour
after the first crash ... in one of the towers here. So obviously ... he
thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the
building" (Watson and Perez, 2004). A Wall Street Journal reporter said:
"I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a
peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding
outward. I thought to myself, "My God, they're going to bring the
building down." And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . ... I saw
the explosions" (Shepard and Trost, 2002). BBC reporter Steve Evans
said: "I was at the base of the second tower ... that was hit. ... There
was an explosion. ... [T]he base of the building shook. ... [T]hen when
we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a
series of explosions" (BBC, Sept. 11, 2001; quoted in Bollyn, 2002).
[37] In June of 2002, NBC television played a segment from tapes
recorded on 9/11 that contained the following exchange involving
firefighters in the south tower:
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion ("911 Tapes
Horror Of 9/11," Part 2, "Tapes Released For First Time", NBC, June 17,
2002 [www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html]). Firefighter Louie
Cacchioli reported that upon entering the north tower's lobby, he saw
elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris. "I
remember thinking ... how could this be happening so quickly if a plane
hit way above?" When he reached the 24th floor, he encountered heavy
dust and smoke, which he found puzzling in light of the fact that the
plane had struck the building over 50 stories higher. Shortly
thereafter, he and another fireman "heard this huge explosion that
sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights
and stalled the elevator." After they pried themselves out of the
elevator, he reported, "another huge explosion like the first one hits.
This one hits about two minutes later ... [and] I'm thinking, 'Oh. My
God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!' ... Then
as soon as we get in the stairwell, I hear another huge explosion like
the other two. Then I heard bang, bang, bang---huge bangs" (Szymanski,
2005a). A briefer account of Cacchioli's testimony was made available in
the Sept. 24, 2001, issue of People magazine, some of which is quoted in
Griffin, 2004, Ch. 1, note 74.
[38] Terri Tobin, a lieutenant with the NYPD public information office,
said that during or just after the collapse of the south tower, "all I
heard were extremely loud explosions. I thought we were being bombed"
(Fink and Mathias, 2002, p. 82). A story in the Guardian said: "In New
York, police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of
evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed.
Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the
structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned
implosion'" (Borger, Campbell, Porter, and Millar, 2001).
[39] Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company, was on
the 47th floor of the north tower when suddenly "the whole building
shook. ... [Shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even
more violently." Veliz then made it downstairs and outside. During this
period, she says: "There were explosions going off everywhere. I was
convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone
was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons" (Murphy,
William Rodriguez worked as a janitor in the north tower. While he was
checking in for work in the office on sub-level 1 at 9:00 AM, he
reports, he and the other 14 people in the office heard and felt a
massive explosion below them. "When I heard the sound of the explosion,"
he says, "the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking
and everything started shaking. ... Seconds [later], I hear another
explosion from way above. ... Although I was unaware at the time, this
was the airplane hitting the tower." Then co-worker Felipe David, who
had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office
with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion! explosion!
explosion!" According to Rodriguez: "He was burned terribly. The skin
was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn't have come from
the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below" (Szymanski,
Stationary engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the north tower's
sixth sub-basement, stated that after his co-worker reported seeing
lights flicker, they called upstairs to find out what happened. They
were told that there had been a loud explosion and the whole building
seemed to shake. Pecoraro and Chino then went up to the C level, where
there was a small machine shop, but it was gone. "There was nothing
there but rubble," said Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50 ton
hydraulic press--gone!" They then went to the parking garage, but found
that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls." Then on the B Level, they
found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300
pounds, was wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." Finally, when
they went up to the ground floor: "The whole lobby was soot and black,
elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the
walls" (Chief Engineer, 2002).
One of the "prevalent claims" of 9/11 skeptics that Popular Mechanics
tries to debunk (see note 11, above) is the claim that explosives were
detonated in the lower levels of the tower. The magazine, however,
conveniently ignores the testimonies of Veliz, Rodriguez, and Pecoraro.
[40] This expert is Van Romero, vice president for research at the New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. Romero had previously been
the director of this institute's Energetic Materials Research and
Testing Center, which studies the effects of explosions on buildings.
Romero, it is true, changed his public stance 10 days later, as
announced in Fleck, 2001. But this is not a convincing retraction.
"Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed
looks at the tape," according to this article, led Romero to conclude
that "the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers'
steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight
of the floors above." But there is no indication as to what any
structural engineer said, or what Romero saw in his "more detailed looks
at the tape," that led him to change his earlier view that the collapses
were "too methodical" to have been produced by anything except
explosives. There is no suggestion as to how weakened beams would have
led to a total collapse that began suddenly and occurred at virtually
free-fall speed. Romero has subsequently claimed that he did not change
his stance. Rather, he claimed that he had been misquoted in the first
story. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that
brought down the building. I only said that that's what it looked like"
(Popular Mechanics, 2005). But if that is the truth, it is strange that
the second story, written by Fleck, did not say this but instead said
that Romero had changed his mind. Romero clearly did change his
mind---or, to be more precise, his public stance. A clue to the reason
for this change may be provided by another statement in the original
article, which said that when the Pentagon was struck, "[Romero] and
Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance [at New
Mexico Tech], were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to
discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech" (Uyttebrouck, 2001).
Indeed, as pointed out in a later story on the New Mexico Tech website
("Tech Receives $15 M for Anti-Terrorism Program"
[http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/25sept03.html]), the
December 2003 issue of Influence magazine named Romero one of "six
lobbyists who made an impact in 2003," adding that "[a] major chunk of
[Romero's] job involves lobbying for federal government funding, and if
the 2003 fiscal year was any indication, Romero was a superstar," having
obtained about $56 million for New Mexico Tech in that year alone. In
light of the fact that Romero gave no scientific reasons for his change
of stance, it does not seem unwarranted to infer that the real reason
was his realization, perhaps forced upon him by government officials,
that unless he publicly retracted his initial statements, his
effectiveness in lobbying the federal government for funds would be
greatly reduced. Romero, to be sure, denies this, saying: "Conspiracy
theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the
farthest thing from the truth" (Popular Mechanics, 2005). But that, of
course, is what we would expect Romero to say in either case. He could
have avoided the charge only by giving a persuasive account of how the
buildings could have come down, in the manner they did, without
[42] As Dwyer explained, the oral histories "were originally gathered on
the order of Thomas Von Essen, who was the city fire commissioner on
Sept. 11, who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they
became reshaped by a collective memory."
[43] The 9/11 oral histories are available at a New York Times website
). I am heavily indebted to Matthew
Everett, who located and passed on to me virtually all the statements I
have quoted from these oral histories.
[44] Like many others, Dixon indicated that he later came to accept the
official interpretation, adding: "Then I guess in some sense of time we
looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what
blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that
windows blew out." I have here, however, focused on what the witnesses
said they first experienced and thought, as distinct from any
interpretation they may have later accepted.
[45] Some of the testimonies also mentioned the creation of a dust cloud
after the explosions. One firefighter said: "You heard like loud booms
... and then we got covered with rubble and dust" (NYT, Viola, p. 3).
Another said: "That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous
explosion. ... The wind rushed... , all the dust... and everything went
dark" (NYT, Rivera, p. 7). Lieutenant William Wall said: "[W]e heard an
explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down . ... We ran a
little bit and then we were overtaken by the cloud" (NYT, Wall, p. 9).
Paramedic Louis Cook, having said that there was "an incredible amount
of dust and smoke," added that there was, "without exaggerating, a foot
and a half of dust on my car" (NYT, Cook, pp. 8, 35).
[46] Even if we were generous to a fault and allowed that there might be
as high as a 1-in-10 chance (a chance much higher than 1-in-100, or
1-in-500) that any one of the 11 features could occur without
explosives, the chance that all 11 of them would occur together would be
one in 100 billion. (This calculation with its very generous assumption
of 1-in-10 does assume the 11 are independent of each other. For more
completeness, if only 6 were independent while 5 were correlated to
others, we would still have one chance in a million. Yet, if the chance
were 1-in-100 and each is independent, we would have one chance in
Were we to also add in the probability that all these features would
occur in three buildings on the same day, the probability would become
so vanishingly small that it would be hardly distinguishable from zero.
On the other hand, if explosives were used in the buildings, there would
be a high probability that all 11 features would have occurred in all
three buildings.
[47] A nice summary of the argument for this conclusion has been
provided by Nila Sagadevan (e-mail communication of November 8, 2005) in
response to a person who asked: "Are you saying all the floors simply
fell down as though there were nothing supporting them?" Stating that
this is precisely what he was saying, he then suggested the following
Imagine a massive steel cable, lowered from a tall crane, firmly secured
to the middle of the uppermost (110th) floor of one of the towers. Now,
imagine that this floor were somehow decoupled from the rest of the
structure beneath it.
Summon your personal genie and have him make all 109 floors and
supporting structures beneath this now-supported slab magically
What we now have is our concrete floor slab dangling 1,350 feet up in
the sky, suspended by a cable from our imaginary crane. Now, have your
genie cut the cable.
Your 110th floor would now freefall through the air and impact the
ground in about 9 seconds (which is about how long it took for the top
floors of both towers to reach the ground). Now, imagine a variation of
this scenario: We will not decouple the top floor nor dabble with a
Instead, we shall ask our genial genie to magically "soften" all the
supporting columns of the lower 109 floors. Wouldn't every one of these
floors and their now-softened supporting structures immediately begin to
buckle under the weight of the 110th floor? Wouldn't this buckling
significantly slow down the descent of the top floor by continuing to
offer a degree of resistance to its descent? Wouldn't these progressive
viscous "arrests"—-the sagging steel aided by ripping rivets, shearing
bolts and tearing welds—-slow down the top floor's fall significantly?
Wouldn't this cause the top floor to take a lot longer than 9 seconds to
eventually reach the end of its descent and come to rest atop the
crushed pile of floors beneath it?
But on September 11, 2001, every floor, of every tower, fell as though
nothing existed below it but air.
For that to happen, every supporting (i.e., resisting) column beneath
every collapsing floor would have had to have been taken out of the way.
Only well-placed explosives can do that.
This is what happens in a controlled demolition. Sagadevan's point is
not significantly affected if we say that the collapse time was closer
to 15 seconds, since that is still very close to free-fall speed through
the air.
[48]The official investigators found that they had less authority than
the clean-up crews, a fact that led the Science Committee of the House
of Representatives to report that "the lack of authority of
investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they
were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence"
[49] "Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris," Eastday.com,
January 24, 2002 (http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm).
[50] This removal was, moreover, carried out with the utmost care,
because "the loads consisted of highly sensitive material." Each truck
was equipped with a Vehicle Location Device, connected to GPS. "The
software recorded every trip and location, sending out alerts if the
vehicle traveled off course, arrived late at its destination, or
deviated from expectations in any other way. ... One driver ... took an
extended lunch break of an hour and a half. ... [H]e was dismissed"
(Emigh, 2002).
[51] New York Times, December 25, 2001. This protest was echoed by
Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor of Civil Engineering at the
University of California at Berkeley, who said: "Where there is a car
accident and two people are killed, you keep the car until the trial is
over. If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you
assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together.
That's only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case, you had
3,000 people dead. You had a major ... manmade structure. My wish was
that we had spent whatever it takes. ... Get all this steel, carry it to
a lot. Instead of recycling it. ... After all, this is a crime scene and
you have to figure out exactly what happened" (CBS News, March 12,
[52] Bloomberg was thereby recommending precisely what Bill Manning, the
editor of Fire Engineering, had warned against when he wrote: "As things
now stand ... , the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and
collapse will amount to paper-and computer-generated hypotheticals"
(Manning, 2002). What Bloomberg desired and Manning feared is exactly
what we got with the NIST Report. It is, in fact, even worse. Physicist
Steven Jones, after pointing out that there are "zero examples of
fire-caused high-rise collapses" and that even NIST's "actual [computer]
models fail to collapse," asks: "So how does the NIST team justify the
WTC collapses?" He answers: "Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated
hypotheticals for very 'severe' cases," and then these cases were
further modified to get the desired result. The NIST Report, Jones adds,
admits this, saying on page 142: "The more severe case ... was used for
the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were
then performed for [these cases]. To the extent that the simulations
deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g.,
complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input"
(Jones, 2006).
[53] "Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris."
[54] Bill Manning wrote: "The structural damage from the planes and the
explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring
down the towers. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the
'official investigation' blessed by FEMA ... is a half-baked farce that
may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary
interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except
for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through
of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee
members---described by one close source as a 'tourist trip'---no one's
checking the evidence for anything" (Manning, 2002).
[55] See the section headed "The ASCE's Disclosures of Steel
Sulfidation" in Hoffman, 2005.
[56] For visual evidence, see Hoffman, "North Tower Collapse Video
Frames: Video Evidence of the North Tower Collapse," 9-11
Research.wtc7.net, n.d.
[57] Marvin Bush's role in the company is mentioned in Craig Unger,
2004, p.
[58]Forbes' statement is posted at www.apfn.org/apfn/patriotic.htm.
[59] For Giuliani's complete statement, see "Who told Giuliani the WTC
Was Going to Collapse on 9/11?", What Really Happened, n.d.
(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html); it can be heard
at www.wireonfire.com/donpaul.
[60] As Hufschmid points out, "photos show the spectacular flames
vanished quickly, and then the fire ... slowly diminished" (2002, p.
[61] "If the ... intention was to blame the collapse on the fires,"
Peter Meyer has written, "then the latest time at which the towers could
be collapsed would be just as the fires were dying down. Since the fire
in the South Tower resulted from the combustion of less fuel... , the
fire in the South Tower began to go out earlier. ... Those controlling
the demolition thus had to collapse the South Tower before they
collapsed the North Tower" (Peter Meyer, n.d.).
[62] Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division Chief John Peruggia said
that he was told that the "north tower was in danger of a near imminent
collapse." Medical technician Richard Zarrillo, evidently a liaison
between the OEM and EMS, said that he was told that "the buildings are
going to collapse." Fire Marshal Stephen Mosiello and Deputy Assistant
Chief of Safety Albert Turi also used the plural ("buildings") in
reporting what they heard from Zarrillo. Turi reported that when
Zarrillo was asked "where are we getting these reports?", his reply was:
"you know, we're not sure, OEM is just reporting this" (NYT, Oral
Histories of Peruggia, Zarrillo, Mosiello, and Turi).
[63] In "A Brief History of New York City's Office of Emergency
Management," we read: "1996: By executive order, the Mayor's Office of
Emergency Management is created. The Director reports directly to the
Mayor, and serves as the local Director of Civil Defense"
[64] "The city ... initially refused access to the records to
investigators from ... the 9/11 Commission" but "relented when legal
action was threatened" (Dwyer, 2005b).
[65] Glanz (2001) wrote that "[e]xperts said no building like it, a
modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an
uncontrolled fire."
[66]For photographs and discussion, see Hufschmid, 2002, pp. 62-65, and
the section entitled "The 'Raging' Fires at WTC Tower Seven" in "The
World Trade Center Fires (Not So Hot Eh?)," Global Research, September
27, 2004 (http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523).
[67]FEMA, 2002, Ch. 5, Sect. 6.2, "Probable Collapse Sequence,"
discussed in Griffin, 2004, p. 22.
[68] Hufschmid, 2002, p. 64. The collapse of building 7 also had all the
other features of conventional demolitions, such as beginning suddenly
and then going down at virtually free-fall speed---which in this case
meant under 7 seconds. This similarity to conventional implosions was
commented on by Dan Rather. Showing a video of the collapse of building
7 on CBS that very evening, Rather said that it was "reminiscent of
those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a
building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it
down" (CBS News, September 11, 2001). Videos of the collapse of building
7, which have seldom appeared on mainstream television, can be viewed at
various websites, including www.geocities.com/killtown/wtc7.html and
www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html. Particularly good for this purpose
is Eric Hufschmid's DVD, "Painful Deceptions" (available at
[69] Implosion World.com (http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html).
[70] Steven Jones, e-mail letter, October 10, 2005.
[71] See Norman, 2002, and Firehouse Magazine, 2002a and 2002b.
[72] Chief Frank Fellini said that the collapse zone was established
"five or six hours" before the building came down, which would have been
around noon (NYT, Fellini, p. 3). This time fits with the testimony of a
firefighter who said he "heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade
possibly coming down" and of another who said: "We hung out for hours
waiting for seven to come down" (NYT, Murray, p. 12, and Massa, pp.
[73] Even earthquakes, which have produced some partial collapses, have
never produced total collapses.
[74] "[F]ederal investigators concluded that it had been primarily the
impact of the planes and, more specifically, the extreme fires that
spread in their wake, that had caused the buildings to fall. ... After
the planes hit, ... [m]uch of the spray-on fireproofing in the impact
zone was dislodged, leaving the structural steel exposed and mortally
vulnerable to the intense heat" (Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, p. 252). These
co-authors (p. 253) even endorse NIST's claim—-which is totally
unsupported (Hoffman, 2005)--that the collapses became "inevitable."
[75] Dwyer, in fact, wrote an article entitled "Vast Archive Yields New
View of 9/11," New York Times, August 13, 2005
). But he did not mention the
"new view" that would be suggested by the testimonies about explosions.
[76] Silverstein's statement has been quoted in many places, including
Morgan and Henshall (2005). A critique of this book entitled "9/11
Revealed? New Book Repeats False Conspiracy Theories," put out by the
U.S. State Department
(http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html), claims
that "[t]he property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of
firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it
appeared unstable." But that is hardly a plausible interpretation,
especially given the following sentence and the fact that elsewhere
during the documentary (PBS, 2002), we hear the expression clearly used
to mean "bring the building down."
[77] Silverstein's statement can be viewed
(http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV) or heard on audio file
(http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3). For a discussion, see
Baker, n.d.
[78] Currid, incidentally, was re-elected president in 2002
[79] Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005, by William
Yarchin of Huntington Beach, California, in response to an interview
with me in that magazine, conducted by Mark Ehrman, entitled "Getting
Agnostic about 9/11," published August 28, 2005. REFERENCES Baker,
Jeremy, n.d. "PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7,"
Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm). Barter,
Sheila, 2001. "How the World Trade Center Fell," BBC News, September 13
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm). Bollyn,
Christopher, 2001. "Some Survivors Say 'Bombs Exploded Inside WTC,'"
American Free Press, October 22
__________, 2002. "New York Firefighters' Final Words Fuel Burning
Questions About 9-11," American Free Press, August 9
_____, 2004. "New Seismic Data Refutes Official Explanation," American
Free Press, updated April 12.
_____, 2005a. "9/11 and Chertoff: Cousin Wrote 9/11 Propaganda for PM,"
Rumor Mill News, March 4
(http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66176). _____,
2005b. "The Hidden Hand of the C.I.A. and the 9/11 Propaganda of Popular
Mechanics," American Free Press, March 19
(http://www.rense.com/general63/brutalpurgeofPMstaff.htm). Borger,
Julian, Duncan Campbell, Charlie Porter, and Stuart Millar,
2001. "Special Report: Terrorism in the US," Guardian, September 12
Brannigan, Francis L., Glenn P. Corbett, and Vincent Dunn, 2002. "WTC
'Investigation'?: A Call to Action" Fire Engineering, January
). Burns, Maggie,
2003. "Secrecy Surrounds a Bush Brother's Role in 9/11 Security,"
American Reporter, 9/2021, January 20. Bush, George W., 2001. Address to
the General Assembly of the United Nations, November 10. Chief Engineer,
The, 2002. "We will Not Forget: A Day of Terror"
(http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029) Dwyer, Jim,
2005a. "Vast Archive Yields New View of 9/11," New York Times, August 13
_____, 2005b. "City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11
Today," New York Times, August 12.
Dwyer, Jim, and Ford Fessenden, 2002. "Lost Voices of Firefighters, Some
on 78th Floor," New York Times, August 4
(http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_lostvoicesfiredept.html). Dwyer, Jim, and
Kevin Flynn, 2005. 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive
Inside the Twin Towers, New York: Times Books. Eagar, Thomas, 2002. "The
Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective," which is part of "Why the Towers
Fell," NOVA, April 30 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html).
Eagar, Thomas, and Christopher Musso, 2001. "Why Did the World Trade
Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," JOM: Journal of
the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 53/12, pp. 8-11. Else, Liz,
2004. "Baltimore Blasters," New Scientist 183/2457 (July 24):
p. 48 (http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp
). The reason for the title is that the office of
Controlled Demolition, Inc., is near Baltimore. Emigh, Jacqueline, 2002.
"GPS on the Job in Massive World Trade Center Clean-Up," July 1
(http://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive). FEMA (1988).
"Interstate Bank Building Fire, Los Angeles, California"
FEMA, 1991. "High-Rise Office Building Fire One Meridian Plaza
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania"
FEMA, 2002. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May
Field, Andy, 2004. "A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC
Collapse," Firehouse.com, February 7
Fink, Mitchell, and Lois Mathias, 2002. Never Forget: An Oral History of
September 11, 2001. New York: Harper Collins.
Firehouse Magazine, 2002a. "WTC: This Is Their Story: Interview with
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden," April
Firehouse Magazine, 2002b. "WTC: This Is Their Story: Interview with
Captain Chris Boyle," August
(www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html). Fleck, John,
2001. "Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says,"
Albuquerque Journal, September 21
(http://www.abqjournal.com/terror/anniversary/pmvan09-21-01.htm). Fink,
Mitchell, and Lois Mathias, 2002. Never Forget: An Oral History of
September 11, 2001. New York: Harper Collins. Geyh, Allison, 2001.
Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, Late Fall. Glanz, James. 2001.
"Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel Members Have
Been Partly Evaporated," New York Times, November 29. Glanz, James, and
Eric Lipton, 2002. "Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report
Says," New York Times, March 29. Glover, Norman, 2002. "Collapse
Lessons," Fire Engineering, October
Griffin, David Ray, 2004. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
about 9/11 and the Bush Administration. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch
___________, 2005a. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink). _________,
2005b. "9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People
Respond?" 9/11 CitizensWatch, May 7
). _____________, 2005c. "9/11
and the Mainstream Press," 9/11 Visibility Project, July 29
_____, 2005d. "Truth and Politics of 9/11: Omissions and Distortions of
The 9/11 Commission Report," Global Outlook, Issue 10 (Spring-Summer),
pp. 45-56. Available at www.GlobalOutlook.ca. Griffin, David Ray, and
Peter Dale Scott, eds., 2006. 9/11 and the American Empire:
Intellectuals Speak Out. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink).
Hansen, Thomas, 2005. "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Report on a
Conversation with Philip Zelikow," 9/11 Visibility Project, June 7
Heller, David, 2005. "Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the
Collapse of the World Trade Center," Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November
24 (http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm). History
Channel, The, 2002. "The World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an
American Icon," September 8.
Hoffman, Jim, 2003. "The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy
Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse
of 1 World Trade Center," Version 3, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, October 16
(http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html). _____,
2004. "Your Eyes Don't Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade
Center Collapses," 9-11 Research.wtc7.net
_____, 2005. "Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000
Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century," 911 Research, August 21
(http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html). Hufschmid, Eric,
2002. Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack.
Goleta, CA: Endpoint Software. Johnson, Glen, 2001. "Otis Fighter Jets
Scrambled Too Late to Halt the Attacks," Boston Globe, September 15
(http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=print). Jones,
Steven E., 2006. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" In Griffin
and Scott, eds., 2006.
Kean, Thomas H., and Lee H. Hamilton, 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report:
Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the
United States, Authorized Edition, New York: W. W. Norton. (For the sake
of convenience, Kean and Hamilton, who as chair and vice-chair of the
Commission, respectively, signed the Preface, are listed as the Report's
Killough-Miller, Joan, 2002. "The 'Deep Mystery' of Melted Steel," WPI
Transformations, Spring
(http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html). King,
Jeff, 2003. "The WTC Collapse: What the Videos Show," Indymedia Webcast
News, November 12
Lane, B., and S. Lamont, 2005. "ARUP Fire's Presentation regarding Tall
Buildings and the Events of 9/11," ARUP Fire, April 2005
(http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf). Lavello, Randy, n.d.
"Bombs in the Building," Prison Planet.com
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html). Lin,
Jennifer, 2002. "Recovery Worker Reflects on Months Spent at Ground
Zero," Knight Ridder, May 29
(http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm). Manning,
Bill, 2002. "Selling Out the Investigation", Fire Engineering, January
NUM=1). Meyer, Peter, n.d. "Did
the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?", Section 3 of "The World Trade
Center Demolition and the so-Called War on Terrorism," Serendipity
(www.serendipity.li/wtc.html). Morgan, Rowland, and Ian Henshall, 2005.
9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions. New York: Carroll and Graf.
Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York:
NYT (New York Times), 2005. "The September 11 Records" (9/11 Oral
Histories) (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
). Nieto, Robin,
2004. "Fire Practically Destroys Venezuela's Tallest Building,"
Venezuelanalysis.com, October 18. NIST (National Institute for Standards
and Technology), 2005. Final Report of the National Construction Safety
Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft), June.
Norman, John, 2002. "Search and Rescue Operations," Fire Engineering,
Paul, Don, and Jim Hoffman, 2004. Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The
9/11/01 Crimes in New York City. San Francisco:
People Magazine, 2001. "Hell On Earth," September 24. Popular Mechanics,
2005. "9/11: Debunking the Myths," March
PBS, 2002. "America Rebuilds" (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds).
Ryan, Kevin, 2004. E-mail letter to Dr. Frank Gayle, Deputy Chief of the
Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the
National Institute for Standards and Technology
Samuel, Eugenie, and Damian Carrington, 2001. "Design Choice for Towers
Saved Lives," New Scientist, September 12
(http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281). Shepard, Alicia, and
Cathy Trost of Newseum, 2002. Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind the
Breaking News of 9/11, Foreword by Tom Brokaw. Lanham, MD.: Rowman &
Littlefield. Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic
Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin
Putnam. Structural Engineer, The, 2002. September 3. Szymanski, Greg,
2005a. "NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli Upset that 9/11 Commission 'Tried to
Twist My Words,'" Arctic Beacon, July 19
(http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/29548.htm). _____,
2005b. "WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11
Story' Sky High," Arctic Beacon, June 24
Taylor, Curtis L., and Sean Gardiner, 2001. "Heightened Security Alert
Had Just Been Lifted," New York Newsday, September 12
). Trimpe, Herb, 2002. "The
Chaplain's Tale," Times-Herald Record
(http://www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm). Unger, Craig,
2004. House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship between the
World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties. New York & London: Scribner.
Uyttebrouck, Olivier, 2001. "Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech
Expert Says," Albuquerque Journal, September 11
(http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal). Walsh, Trudy, 2002.
"Handheld APP Eased Recovery Tasks," Government Computer News, Vol. 21,
No. 27a, September 11 (http://www.gcn.com/21_27a/news/19930-1.html).
Watson, Paul Joseph, and Dan Perez, 2004. Prison Planet.TV, May 5
Williams, James, 2001. "WTC a Structural Success," SEAU NEWS: The
Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October.



December 15, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Florida Judicial/Court Corruption Cont.: Mark Adams' Dec. 3 Update

Dear Friends and Judicial and Media Reform Activists:

This has been a busy week for me.  On November 28, 2005, there was finally a hearing on the motion to reconsider the order to show cause charging me with indirect criminal contempt, and on December 1 and 2, my trial in the Florida Bar’s action against me was held.

On November 28, 2005, Judge Robert Beach dismissed the criminal contempt charge brought against me by Judge Crockett Farnell based on the false and misleading Affidavit of Timothy W. Weber, Esquire of the Battaglia firm. Judge Beach held that Timothy W. Weber’s “affidavit” was not sufficient to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to issue an order to show cause initiating a contempt proceeding.  This order to show cause was also used as evidence in the Bar’s case against me, and Weber testified that it was dismissed on a technicality.  If you have reviewed my memorandum of law in support of my motion to reconsider the order to show cause, then you know that the order to show cause was completely baseless, and I submitted this memorandum as evidence in the Bar’s action against me.

Judge Farnell had also entered an order granting sanctions against me in the Smith vs. Corporate Sports Marketing Group case which was prepared by Timothy W. Weber, and this order granting sanctions also directed Timothy W. Weber to refer me to the Florida Bar for investigation.  This order granting sanctions was entered against me over nine months after Judge Crockett Farnell approved my withdrawal as the attorney for the Smiths without any reservation of jurisdiction, and it was based on a motion seeking sanctions against me filed by Weber over two months after my withdrawal was approved.

The Bar also submitted my motion to vacate the order granting sanctions, but the Bar did not produce any case to contradict the numerous cases I cited holding that such an order entered against someone who is not party to a proceeding is void nor did the Bar produce any case holding that a void order can be used as evidence that an attorney violated any rules.  The Bar also did not spend any time presenting any evidence or case law showing that any claim that I raised for the Smiths was frivolous other than the order granting sanctions.  However, this did not deter the Bar from calling me a “danger to the public”.

The Bar’s only witness was Timothy W. Weber, Esquire of Battaglia, Ross, Dicus and Wein, P.A.  After having to sit through approximately four hours of Weber’s testimony where he repeatedly said that he thought that this and that were frivolous, I was able to cross examine him for approximately two and a half hours.  When I asked Weber whether he had told his clients that he was connected and that he could improperly influence members of the judiciary, Stephen Wein, Esquire of the Battaglia firm jumped up and objected based on attorney client privilege, and Judge Holder reminded Wein that he was not a participant and told him not to disrupt the proceedings again.  Weber then invoked the attorney client privilege to avoid answering this question.

I believe that I raised substantial questions regarding Weber’s credibility as a witness, and I pointed out that the Bar had failed to point to any evidence showing that I had violated any rule much less clear and convincing evidence.  In addition, I submitted copies of the certified documents which I had obtained from the Second District Court of Appeal’s files showing various improper actions, and I said that although I did not initially believe that Weber and the Battaglia firm could improperly influence members of the judiciary, I certainly believed that they could now. When the trial ended, Judge Holder said that he would render a verdict on December 22, 2005.

Louis Kwall, Esquire served as trial counsel for the Florida Bar in its case against me.  At the pre-trial conference he indicated that he had heard my interview with Fintan Dunne.  At the close of the trial, he indicated that if I was found guilty, he was going to use information about this case that
I had provided to internet news sources, and he handed me a copy of a posting on Teknosis which has numerous postings and documents about my case.

Following you will find links to a recent story about my case and a story about another attorney who has written a book about the corruption which has undermined our judicial system.  I am also including a link to Fintan’s interview for those of you who have not listened to it yet and a link to

Thank you again for your support and your interest in truth and justice.


Mark A. Adams, Esquire

P.S. Please continue to pass this on to your contacts so that more people will learn about the problems with judicial corruption and hopefully support efforts to correct them.

North Country Gazette Article 11 29 05 Contempt Charge Dismissed

North Country Gazette Article about Attorney’s Book on Judicial Corruption

Fintan Dunne’s interview with Mark Adams on BreakforNews.com

Teknosis Link


Some further refs: judicial / LEO,. corruption in Pinellas Pasco County,. Florida - 9 8 7 6 1 2
4 5



December 5, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack