All 3 entries tagged Jack
June 26, 2007
READ MY RESPONSE HERE
To give the “9/11 Truth Movement” its due, they have succeeded in cultivating a large support base. 36 percent of American citizens now believe that it is “likely” or “very likely” that the US government staged the attack themselves. Jack Morgan puts his case rather more modestly, citing only polls of that notoriously reliable source – the bereaved. We cannot ignore, he writes, “over half of vicitims’ families”, who sare this conviction. Morgan and his ilk normally mock the US population for their credulity, but in this case they apparently see it as standing in their favour.
If you’ll pardon the expression, Morgan seems to stand on the more moderate wing of the movement. He does not apparently support David Shayler’s assertion that the planes of 9/11 were actually missiles camouflaged by holograms, although this claim was favourably received in the documentary Terrorstorm, which Morgan describes as a “competent historical overview of government-sponsored terrorism”. Instead, he favours the “controlled demolition hypothesis”, as elaborated by Mr. Rodriguez.
The first fallacy of this argument is the extent to which it relies on the US government co-opting thousands of individuals, from demolition experts to the US aviation authorities and the World Trade Centre security firms, into a plot in which they would have no direct interest. If Morgan had ventured to take on this point, no doubt he would have argued that they were paid-off by the stinking-rich corporatist criminal networks” he speaks of. Although if profit were the motive, one imagines that at least one individual would have blabbed to the omnipresent US media before the explosion.
As George Monbiot put it, “if there is one universal American characteristic, it is a confessional culture that permits no one with a good story to keep his mouth shut”. It is far more likely that there was no grand plot to tell than it is that this convention was broken.
The second difficulty is the lack of academic opinion and evidence in favour of Rodriguez’s hypothesis. Morgan claims that the account is supported by hundreds of structural engineers, architects and physicists”, although he provides no names or groups. He only cites the thoroughly discredited Journal of 9/11 Studies, the co-editor of which, Steven Jones, was ostracised by his university for scientific disregard.
As the overwhelming majority of experts, from the American Society of Civil Engineers to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, have painstakingly documented, the collapse was both explainable and predictable. by first rupturing the support columns, the planes created unstoppable pressure from the top of a kind no building can resist. Quite rightly, Morgan gives no ulterior motive for so many reputable experts to abandon the scientific method; he can’t because there wasn’t one.
Prominent neoconservatives and Republicans have consistently shown themselves incapable of proceeding even with low-level, personal schemes. From the perjury of Scooter Libby to the disgraced lobbying of Jack Abramoff and the nepotism of Paul Wolfowitz, the banal incompetence of these individuals has been exposed for all to see. A competent administration skilled in such plots would never have allowed itself to be so mercilessly exposed on WMD. Burying weapons in the sands of Baghdad would have been far easier to accomplish than a 9/11 in-job.
Unlike Morgan, I won’t refer to my opponents as arrogant. The arrogant would find far worthier causes with which to ingratiate themselves. As it stands, Morgan and his kind twin an intense solipsism with a pernicious populism. They distract attention away from real abuses such as corporate greed, climate change apathy and nuclear proliferation. The figures of the “Truth Movement” aren’t valiant seekers of justice; they’re the useful idiots of the Bush administration.
William Rodriguez's 9/11 testimony deserve to be considered without prejudice, says Jack Morgan
“Whatever happened to Michael Meacher?”
I’m probing a former MI5 spy, Annie Machon, in the Arts’ Centre café while the decorated hero of 9/11 and former World Trade Center caretaker, William Rodriguez, checks his emails. In three hours’ time Rodriguez will be telling the legendary account of his experiences to a packed Social Studies lecture theatre, his sixth date on this UK tour. Annie, the organiser of the tour, will introduce the evening with her account of false-flag terrorism in our intelligence services.
In September 2003, Michael Meacher MP wrote an article, “This War on Terror is bogus”, three months after being sacked from his position as Environment Minister. It explored the aims of the Project For The New American Century (PNAC), a think tank featuring Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and Jeb Bush. Their paper, “Rebuilding America’s Defences”, written in 2000, celebrates an open plan for “a substantial American force presence in the Gulf”, and an increase in military spending.
Meacher daringly exposed PNAC’s stated reliance on a “catastrophic and catalysing event, like a New Pearl Harbor” to facilitate their “process of transformation”. He also appeared in Alex Jones’ 2006 film “Terrorstorm”, a competent historical overview of government-sponsored terrorism, to express incredulity at the stand-down of US air defences on 9/11.
My question to Machon, a good inside source on developments in the 9/11 Truth Movement, has a disappointing answer: “As soon as he thought he could run for the Labour leadership, he forgot us.” Annie hypothesises that if “9/11 Truth” were to become a popular issue, Meacher would support the cause again.
Meacher’s whimsical support of “9/11 Truth” runs in sharp contrast to William Rodriguez’s tireless campaign for an independent, international criminal investigation of the September 11th attacks. Rodriguez was instrumental in forcing the Bush administration to set up the 9/11 Commission, which predictably turned out to be a whitewash, failing him and the victims’ families. The Commission’s director was Philip Zelikow, who served in the National Security Council for the George H.W. Bush administration. Its chairman, Thomas Kean, had a history of investments linking him to Saudi Arabian investors who financially supported both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in the past, including Khalid bin Mahfouz, an alleged terrorist financier.
Hero to Zero. Bombs in the buildings
Rodriguez’s talk begins with his account of the US establishment’s attempts to recruit him as a political candidate, having honoured him at the White House five times. He leads his audience through the stages of his life between being at first glorified by government and media institutions, and later living under a bridge in his car, sidelined by those institutions and individuals who once lauded him as a national hero. He was never financially compensated for losing his employment of 19 years.
The most controversial aspect of Rodriguez’s account of September 11th 2001 is his testimony of massive explosions in the World Trade Center, one occurring in a sub-basement level of the North Tower before the first plane impact. This testimony is embedded in the amazing story of the immediate rescue effort, a large sector of which Rodriguez effectively led, being the master-key holder and the most knowledgeable of the buildings’ design. Yet this literally explosive information was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. Rodriguez’s testimony was itself held behind closed doors, the only other private hearing being for Bush and Cheney, who insisted on appearing together.
Rodriguez’s witness testimony of an explosion in the North Tower basement seconds before the first plane impact is corroborated not only by scores of others workers, including those who were injured, but by seismic data (read Gordon Ross ME’s paper at http://journalof911studies.com). As this phenomenon mirrors the method of pre-collapse weakening used in controlled demolition, it’s no wonder this information is ignored by government investigations, along with other traits of controlled demolition seen in the actual collapses, for example their freefall speed, “squibs” (visible charges below the collapse wave), a pyroclastic flow of smoke, the angled slice of core steel columns at Ground Zero, and molten steel smoldering for weeks under the rubble after 9/11.
Hundreds of structural engineers, architects and physicists have registered their support of the controlled demolition hypothesis. In fact, a member of Warwick’s engineering department approached me at the end of Rodriguez’s talk to express bafflement over the freefall implosion of World Trade Center Building 7 at 5.20pm on 9/11, which was not mentioned anywhere in the 9/11 Commission Report. I had sent an open letter to the entire Engineering and Physics faculties at Warwick (viewable at http://www.blogs.warwick.ac.uk/jackmorgan), containing an invitation to consider various data and to join “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” (http://www.ae911truth.org).
“It’s just a big magic trick”
William Rodriguez was a professional magician before becoming a caretaker, and seems to have applied his knowledge of sensational misdirection to wake from the nightmare conspiracy theory thrust upon the 9/11 Commission and the general public. The origin of the “War on Terror” is every bit as synthetic as its execution, which like the “War on Drugs” is designed to produce more of the supposed adversary, profiting the military-industrial complex. “It is very easy to do misdirection, to make you look into one place while you're doing the magic with the other hand” – with this statement, Rodriguez describes not only 9/11 itself, but the very nature of today’s Anglo-American foreign and domestic policy.
William Rodriguez’s visit to Warwick University on his shoestring UK tour should contribute momentum to the larger British campaign for “9/11 Truth”. We cannot continue to ignore the growing bodies of witnesses, government/military/intelligence experts and analysts, scientists and scholars who support a new criminal investigation. It is entirely reasonable that they hypothesise an “inside job” similar to the aborted 1962 Pentagon plan, “Operation Northwoods”, which proposed to carry out terrorism and blame it on Cuba, in order to justify an invasion. After all, this plan involved crashing remote-controlled airliners full of Americans.
We also cannot continue to ignore over half of victims’ families groups who share the conviction that criminal, corporate elements of governments and intelligence agencies facilitated the 9/11 attacks. Like Rodriguez they have spent almost six years researching this terrible event and suffering the arrogance of mainstream and alternative publications who mindlessly scream “conspiracy theorist”. Counterpunch’s impressively lengthy Nov. 2006 piece by Alexander Cockburn, “The 9/11 Conspiracists and the Decline of the American Left” bemoans the co-opting of “the left” by rogue “conspiracy theorists”. Cockburn invokes Occam's Razor - the so-called theory of parsimony - to justify his assertion that the proposed explanation of 9/11 that relies on the fewest assumptions is likely to be correct, while happily swallowing the 9/11 Commission Report, a thick tapestry of assumptions.
This kind of whingeing about the reputation of “the left” or “the right” being destroyed by “conspiracists” is naïve, dishonestly generalised or even deliberately ignorant. The issue of the 9/11 cover-up transcends the left vs. right paradigm. 9/11 could be the key to understanding to what extent our governments have been co-opted by criminal corporatist networks. In the simple words of the “keymaster” himself, William Rodriguez. “We need answers. 5 years after 9/11, the families do not have peace and the government has not been sincere with us”.
William Rodriguez's website is http://www.911keymaster.com
I am a Warwick University student writing to you and other members of the Physics Department as well as the Engineering Department with an invitation to consider some specific data relevant to your general fields of study. It would be great if you feel like responding to criticise or support my cursory summation, and do have a look at the references I supply at the end of this letter. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
The data relates to the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001, just 102 and 56 minutes after each plane impact. It also relates to an even more unusual, seldom remembered event – the implosion of World Trade Center “Building 7” at 5.20 pm, the WTC building least damaged by falling debris. Never before in history had a steel-framed building collapsed into its own footprint due to external damage or fire, but only through controlled demolition. The 2004 9/11 Commission Report didn’t mention the collapse of Building 7, not even in a footnote.
One of the 9/11 Commission Report’s many false claims is that each of the Twin Towers was supported almost entirely by perimeter columns and that the centre was simply a “hollow steel shaft”. There were, in fact, 47 columns at the centre, forming a strong core. Each core column had a rectangular cross section of approx. 36” x 14” at the base with steel 4” thick all around, tapering to ¼” thickness at the top.
The 2002 PBS documentary, “Why the Towers Fell” (which doesn’t mention Building 7), discusses how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse” of the floors. This cannot explain why the steel core was destroyed from top to bottom, leaving chunks small enough to load directly on trucks which were bound for China (steel at the crime scene was illegally melted down and shipped overseas before it could be forensically tested). Surely if the top floors snapped off the core and “pancaked” down on the others, causing them all to collapse, the steel core would still be standing?
The installation of a conventional angled cutter charge to a steel column, preparing for a demolition (above). Compare with the diagonal cuts of steel columns at Ground Zero (below).
The fact that each tower fell at near-freefall speed (approx. 10 seconds vs. 8 seconds in a vacuum) also defies the “pancake theory” and indeed Newton’s laws of motion. Videos of the collapses show that the falling floors accelerated into the path of most resistance. If a building is structurally compromised, it should partially collapse or topple, not symmetrically explode from top to bottom as the Twin Towers did. Additionally, the collapses show multiple traits of a controlled demolition, for example the sudden onset of collapse, numerous demolition “squibs” – visible explosive charges sending jets of concrete out at specific points far below the collapse wave, and a “pyroclastic flow” of smoke billowing from the explosive collapse.
The National Institute for Standards in Technology (NIST) published its final report on its 3 year government-funded study on the WTC collapses in September 2005. NIST backs away from the “pancake theory” due to it having been debunked, and also discounts the initial consensus among “experts” featured in the mainstream media that fire actually melted the steel. Steel melts at 1500°C, while jet fuel burning in air reaches a maximum temperature of approx. 1,000°C. However, NIST insists that even temperatures significantly lower than 1,000°C would “eventually overwhelm the already damaged building”.
NIST’s investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the report does not explain how the buildings totally collapsed to the ground. While it describes the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life at great length, it makes no attempt to characterise or explain the explosive energy and free-fall rapidity of the actual building collapses. It simply claims that “global collapse” was “inevitable” after the “initiation of collapse”. NIST’s theory stops at the moment that the “upper building section began to move downwards”, thus avoiding having to address the 10 second collapse only made physically possible by the demolition hypothesis.
Since the 6 second implosion of 47-storey “Building 7” is even more problematic, resembling a classic controlled demolition, NIST is still preparing an additional report. It is 2007 and we still have no serious explanation for the total collapse of a building that was not even hit by a plane. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s brief 2002 report admitted that their “best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence”. Meanwhile there is video footage of firemen on September 11th expressing foreknowledge of the collapse, for example on a CNN clip: “Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon”… “The building is about to blow up. Move it back!”
There is now an exponential movement of engineers, architects, physicists, scholars, former intelligence officers and government officials, as well as a majority of victims’ families groups, who know that the official account of 9/11 is a fraud. There has been no accountability for the hundreds of questions which surround all aspects of the attacks, not just the collapses of 3 buildings.
The 9/11 Commission was set up on November 27, 2002 only after enormous pressure from victims’ families and activists such as William Rodriguez, the last man out of the World Trade Center. Even after the investigation was eventually set up, President Bush promised only $3 million and initially resisted when the commission asked for an additional $8 million. Its executive director was Philip Zelikow, a close associate of Condoleezza Rice, who served in the National Security Council for the George H.W. Bush administration.
I enclose a DVD recording of a presentation given by physics professor, Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after being put on paid leave, following his work on the WTC collapses. He is the co-editor of the Journal of 911 Studies, an online collection of peer-reviewed papers concerning the anomalies of September 11th and the subsequent official theories and cover-ups. The other co-editor, Kevin Ryan, formerly worked at Underwriter Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. Ryan was fired for emailing the deputy chief of NIST’s metallurgy division, telling him that the tests UL was commissioned to carry out indicated that “the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.” NIST’s metallurgical tests at that time suggested that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of about 250°C. Ryan was dispensed with for pointing out that the new NIST report seemed to ignore these findings, as it asserted that temperatures caused the steel to “soften and buckle”.
Please visit the following websites for more information:
www.journalof911studies.com – Peer-reviewed academic papers dedicated to the study of 9/11.
www.ae911truth.org – Over 100 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.
www.patriotsquestion911.com – Over 100 senior military/intelligence/govt. officials for 9/11 truth.
www.pilotsfor911truth.org – Over 40 expert pilots question the feasibility of the official 9/11 narrative.
I also enclose an invitation to hear William Rodriguez, decorated hero and last man out of the World Trade Center, speak here at Warwick University next Wednesday.