PSYCHOLOGISTS HELP 9/11 TRUTH DENIERS

$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION

Thank you to Richard Gage for digging this one up.

Jan 1, 2002

BY BILL MANNING

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

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

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers 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.

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Turn to the article, WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action in this issue and on http://www.fire-eng.com, then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.

Bill Manning

NOAM CHOMSKY: NO EVIDENCE THAT AL-QAEDA CARRIED OUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS

Washington’s Blog Nov 6, 2010 infowars.com

Leading liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky just told Press TV:

“The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any,” the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV’s program a Simple Question.

“We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any.”

The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later.

“The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany.”

Chomsky added that three weeks into the war, “a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban… That was later turned into the official justification for the war.”

“All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal,” Chomsky said.

As Wired wrote on September 27, 2001:

President Bush has said he has evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, so it would seem obvious that the FBI would include him and other suspects on its 10 most wanted fugitives Web page.

Think again.

Bin Laden is listed, but only for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. There is no mention of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the attacks on the USS Cole in October 2000, both of which he is widely believed to have orchestrated. And forget about Sept. 11.

The reason? Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.

“There’s going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged,” said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI’s chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list. “To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court.”Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer who was deputy director of the U.S. State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993, said in a Sept. 12 interview conducted by Frontline that there is no concrete proof that bin Laden is responsible for the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC attacks, but bin Laden celebrates those attacks and associates himself with people who are responsible for it.

President Bush promises to reveal evidence linking bin Laden to the suicide hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bin Laden has applauded the attacks but denies direct involvement.

The Bush administration never provided such evidence.

As I wrote last December:

President Obama said Tuesday night as justification for the surge in troops in Afghanistan:

We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.

Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban”, who refused to turn over Osama bin Laden.

Is that true?

On October 14, 2001, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted bombing if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11.

Specifically, as the Guardian writes:

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban “turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.” He added, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty” …

Afghanistan’s deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

“If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved” and the bombing campaign stopped, “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”, Mr Kabir added.

However, as the Guardian subsequently points out:

A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan’s military leadership said.

And yet … the U.S. turned down the offer and instead prosecuted war.

And in 2006, FBI agent Rex Tomb told reporter Ed Haas that the FBI still did not have enough evidence:

The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

In fact, many leading liberals have expressed doubts about 9/11, including Daniel Ellsberg, Ray McGovern, William Blum, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Lewis Lapham, Dan Hamburg, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Marc Crispin Miller, Howard Zinn, Robert McChesney, Gore Vidal, Chris Floyd, Robert Fisk, Medea Benjamin, Doris “Granny D” Haddock, Paul Hawken, David Cobb, Randy Hayes, Ernest Callenbach, Dennis Bernstein, Paul H. Ray, Michael Franti, Janeane Garafalo and Ed Asner.

As have many prominent old-fashioned conservatives. And the 9/11 Commissioners themselves.

YEMENI POLICE ARREST WOMAN SUSPECTED OF MAILING PRINTER BOMBS

A SUSPECTED al-Qaeda parcel bomb found on a US-bound cargo jet was designed to blow up the plane, British premier David Cameron said, as Yemeni authorities arrested a suspect in the plot.

The discovery of two packages containing explosives on aircraft in Dubai and Britain on Friday sparked an international security alert, with US officials saying the parcels were addressed to synagogues in Chicago.

But Cameron said that after examination of the device found at East Midlands airport in central England, British authorities "believe that the device was designed to go off on the airplane."

"There is no early evidence it was designed to take place over British soil but of course we cannot rule that out," the prime minister told BBC television from Chequers, his country residence near London.

US President Barack Obama has pointed the finger for the plot at al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Yemen-based branch of Osama bin Laden's extremist network.

In Yemen, security forces on Saturday arrested a woman "suspected of sending two parcel bombs," after surrounding her house in the capital Sanaa, the defence ministry said, without providing further details.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh - who also announced that the suspect's house had been surrounded - said his country was "determined to fight terror but will not allow anyone to intervene in its affairs."

News of the arrest came shortly after Cameron and Obama's top countererrorism adviser both called Saleh to urge his "close" counterterrorism cooperation following the bomb plot.

Obama also called King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh provided the tip-off for the discovery of the bombs.

In Dubai, police said that the bomb found there contained the powerful high explosive PETN - the same substance used by would-be 2009 Christmas Day bomber Farouk Abdulmutallab and 2001 attempted shoe-bomber Richard Reid.

Dubai police chief General Dahi Khalfan told AFP: "This was a parcel bomb and a terrorist act could have occurred," adding that the device could have "exploded" on board the airplane had it not been intercepted in time.

The device consisted of a computer printer whose ink contained explosive material, connected to a mobile phone SIM card and a circuit board, a police statement said.

The statement said it "bears the hallmarks of those used by terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda."

The parcel was flown in from the Yemeni capital Sanaa via Doha in Qatar on a Federal Express aircraft, an Emirati aviation official later said.

Yemeni authorities also announced the seizure of 26 other parcels on Saturday and said they were being examined.

The cargo scare offered a new twist as Western authorities have usually focused on dangers posed to passenger planes following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when al-Qaeda hijacked jets and struck targets in New York and Washington.

Cameron highlighted the new dangers, saying: "A package that started in Yemen, that landed in Germany, that landed in Britain en route to America, it just shows how united and determined we have to be to defeat terrorism."

Police in Britain said the package intercepted there was flown in from Yemen via Cologne, Germany.

The White House said Obama had telephoned Cameron on Saturday to thank him for his country's "close cooperation" in helping disrupt the plot.

Top officials said the threat level to the United States was unchanged, but the Department of Homeland Security announced it had boosted security measures.

Britain said there were no plans to change a threat level already at its second-highest point, suggesting an attack is highly likely, but added that it had banned all unaccompanied cargo from Yemen.

French aviation authorities on Saturday also suspended air freight from Yemen.

Obama has said the bombs represented a "credible terrorist threat," and his Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the plot bore the "hallmarks of al-Qaeda."

Yemen, the ancestral homeland of bin Laden, has become a haven for violent extremists over the past decade.

It is the headquarters of AQAP and the hiding place for US-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who has been linked to high-profile terror plots in the United States.

CLEVELAND SHOW October 3 2010, 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

Mos Def & Immortal Technique & Eminem Tell The Truth

EMERGENCY WARNING FOR OFFICE WORKERS (NIST WTC7)

7 Facts about Building 7

Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper and was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, it would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states in the United States. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.

7 Facts about Building 7

1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.

2) Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

3) According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.

4) It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.

5) 1,250 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.

6) Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the building’s owner.

7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker”.

Building 7 — Before Collapse

Building 7 was as far from the towers as several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex. It was more than 300 feet from the nearest wall of the North Tower. Building 6 stood between the North Tower and Building 7 as seen in this map:

Photos of Building 7 in normal conditions:

Building 7 — During Collapse

For videos of the collapse, click here.

Building 7 — After Collapse

Aerial view of Building 7‘s after September 11^th, 2001.

What about World Trade Center Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6?

In addition to the Twin Towers and Building 7, the World Trade Center complex included buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6. Compared to Building 7, all of these buildings were severely damaged, first by falling rubble from the tower collapses, then by fires that burned for hours. Although these buildings were in critical condition, none of them collapsed.

Watch the TV Ad Millions of New Yorkers Will See:

NEW BOOK BY DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: COGNITIVE INFILTRATION

Posted on 09 September 2010
In his new book “Cognitive Infiltration – An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory“, Dr. David Ray Griffin writes about former Chicago and Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, who in 2009 was appointed by President Barack Obama to direct an important executive branch office.
In 2008 Sunstein co-authored an article entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,” containing a plan for the government to prevent the spread of anti-government “conspiracy theories.” Arguing that such theories are believed only by groups suffering from “informational isolation,” he advocated the use of David Ray Griffin Cognitive Infiltrationanonymous government agents to stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups with the aim of breaking them up. Download a PDF of the article here.
Noting that Sunstein’s proposal has evoked condemnations from across the political spectrum–not least because it, being similar to the FBI’s COINTELPRO of the 1960s, would be illegal–David Ray Griffin focuses on the fact that Sunstein’s primary target is the conspiracy theory advocated by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Examining Sunstein’s charge that this theory is both “harmful” and “demonstrably false,” Griffin uses both satire and overwhelming evidence to show that this twofold charge applies instead to what Sunstein calls “the true conspiracy theory” about 9/11-namely, the “theory that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.”
David Ray Griffin: Cognitive Infiltration — Reviews
“David Ray Griffin has written a devastating critique of Cass Sunstein’s major effort to situate all critics of the official 9/11 story in the garbage pail of ‘conspiracy theory.’ Bringing to bear his formidable philosophical and theological skills, Griffin brilliantly illuminates this cognitive/ political concern, demonstrating that the American people will never find out what really happened on that fateful day until we as citizens insist on considering all available evidence with a fresh and open mind.” —Richard Falk, professor emeritus, Princeton University
“In the United States today, the phrase `conspiracy theory’ functions as a sort of giant cudgel, used to scare us out of talking openly about a broad (and ever-growing) range of scandals that the powerful cannot afford to let the people comprehend. In this new book, David Ray Griffin takes devastating aim at that repressive tactic, exposing it for what it really is. All those who cherish democracy, and intellectual freedom, owe it to themselves to read this brave analysis—and owe its author their sincerest thanks.”
—Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Culture and Communication, New York University
“Unrestrained and unchallenged combination of top level political power and academic intellectual arrogance can be a dangerous prelude to governmental censorship and potential criminalization of individuals who dare to challenge ‘official’ versions of various catastrophes and major events of a highly controversial nature. Dr. David Ray Griffin exposes and analyses this grave concern in an objective, scholarly dissection of a sociopolitical proposal set forth by Cass Sunstein in 2008. Readers of Cognitive Infiltration will be both shocked and enlightened by this well documented and brilliantly written book.”
—Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., past president, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and past president, American College of Legal Medicine
http://world911truth.org/new-book-by-david-ray-griffin-cognitive-infiltration/

WTC 7 Burning

HERALD SUN HIT PIECE USING THE 9/11 FALSE FLAG OP TO JUSTIFY THE AMERICAN WAR ON OUR FREEDOM

No time for weakness

• Andrew Bolt From: Herald Sun August 26, 2010 10:23PM

Defence Minister John Faulkner. Source: Herald Sun

THIS is no way to wage a war, with such tears and sighs even from our Defence Minister.

And not with such ambivalence from President Barack Obama, either - a deadlier sign of weakness.

I mean no disrespect to Senator John Faulkner. No, I admire the Defence Minister's obvious compassion.

But after watching the press conference called on Wednesday to announce the latest death of a Digger in Afghanistan I must ask: is this wise?

Faulkner appeared with Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the chief of the defence force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, all looking grim.

Houston spoke soberly of the sacrifice Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney had made for his country.

Gillard went further, though, talking of "this dreadful news": "Of course it's a shock, it's a tragedy."

A tragedy? Most certainly, to the soldier's family, friends and comrades.

But a shock? A soldier's death in war?

Surely we must expect that when we send our soldiers to fight, some will die?

Then spoke Faulkner, face contorted in pain and voice halting.

"Coming so soon after the deaths of Private Tomas Dale and Private Grant Kirby late last week this tragic news is another very heavy blow for the defence community and of course a devastating one for the soldier's family," he said in a voice from the sepulchre.

"We've lost a fine and dedicated soldier, but he was also, and more importantly, a much loved young man whose death is going to leave a terrible, terrible gap in the lives of those around him.

"Much too often I've had to stand here and announce bad news and offer condolences to grieving defence families."

Every word heartfelt. Every sympathy honourable. I'd hope every Australian also reflected on the sense of duty that drove this soldier to serve, and on the price now paid by not only him, but his wife, daughter and unborn son.

But I repeat my question, as we now see TV footage from the Sydney funeral of SAS Trooper Jason Brown, attended by the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

Was this intensity of public grieving - broadcast on every big-city television station - wise?

Both Labor and the Coalition are convinced the war in Afghanistan must be won. That country, once used as a safe haven by the masterminds of the September 11 attacks, must not be allowed to return to the savage control of the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies.

Jihadists everywhere would only take fresh heart, and find a new refuge. Many more civilians would die at their hands, should we fail.

Most of our soldiers in Afghanistan seem as sure as our politicians that their mission must not be abandoned.

But it's also clear the public is growing bored with Afghanistan, nine years after we first sent troops there. Many people now wonder whether the price, especially in lives, is worth the seemingly meagre gains.

After all, the Afghan government remains corrupt and largely ineffectual. Half the Afghan troops we train just go home.

Meanwhile, more coalition soldiers are dying there this year than in any before, and while we're sending young Australian men to help protect Afghanistan's fledgling democracy, we're seeing young Afghan men coming the other way in boats, leaving the work to us.

What gains we make there are almost never discussed. And there are gains.

When I last visited, for example, I saw young women, unveiled, working as journalists for a free media.

Under the Taliban, those women would be back in burqas, back at home, and back to hearing only the news the mullahs permitted to be reported.

But about the setbacks we suffer we hear plenty. The media feeds on them. The Greens, the party of the perpetually irresponsible, gleefully exploits them.

And now we see our leaders crumple as they announce death by death, even though we've lost only 21 soldiers in nine years of fighting.

What a change this is from 60 years ago, when we could lose 32 in a single battle in Kapyong valley and not flinch from the fight in Korea. More bloodied, but less bowed.

I DO not for an instant believe we should not publicly mourn the death of each Digger who dies in Afghanistan. I do not want us to play down the loss suffered by those who loved them.

But which Australian, on hearing Faulkner's sigh that "much too often" he's had to "stand here and announce bad news", would not question why we still fight in Afghanistan?

Which would know why we do?

Then there's this danger. The Taliban and their jihadist allies know they can never defeat our soldiers, but they can defeat our will to send them. Victory for them will come not on the battlefield, but in Western homes.

Why else the propaganda videos they release to cow the West? Why else the message sent the US by Osama bin Laden a year ago, jeering that "Obama is a weakened man. He will not be able to stop the war"?

The sighs of a Faulkner, easily found on the internet, could only convince our watchful enemy the West is too weak to fight for much longer.

In fact, the Taliban is counting on it already, thanks to the disastrous vacillating of Obama, whose troops comprise most of the coalition forces in Afghanistan.

This week the head of the US Marine Corps, James Conway, warned that the arbitrary deadline set by Obama for a pullout of US troops - July next year - was "giving our enemy sustenance".

"In fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, we only have to hold out for so long'," Gen Conway told a Pentagon news conference this week.

In truth, it would take "a few years before conditions on the ground are such that turnover (to Afghan forces) will be possible for us".

Conway excused Obama by damning him, saying the President - threatening war to a resurgent Taliban but promising withdrawal to impatient Americans - was "talking to several audiences at the same time".

Trouble is, this wired-up world no longer allows leaders to send different messages to different audiences.

We see both faces now. Even a Faulkner cannot show a firm jaw to the Taliban, but red eyes to Australians.

This is a war in which our leaders must instead show all the resolve they say they feel - if they truly mean to win. They are being watched, you see.