Tweet
Just thought to throw this on and let the comments fly. Here is my post to the NYT:
1,100 architects and engineers worldwide signed a petition calling for independent investigation of the destruction of those three buildings this spring. The evidence they offer is compelling. There is no dispute that the official explanation offered by the 9/11 commission could stand a little work–it doesn’t even mention building 7. Personally, I can’t believe our air defense response was what it was and that no one seems to mind.
Ahmadinejad certainly makes for a strange bedfellow but Iran does have an interest in the matter when you consider the US military has invaded and now occupies two countries on its border solely on the basis that the purported perpetrators of the attacks were harbored by those two countries.
The victims families have been calling for independent investigation and have been largely shunned. Of course the whole subject is extremely difficult to face because it involves accepting as a premise some degree of complicity of forces within the US government. No wonder the opposing response is so vehement because it strikes at the very notion of America and I recall my own shock at learning of the US government’s role in the white glove operation in South America. Very troubling but exactly what marks the difference in a real patriot.
Conrad C. Elledge
24 Comments
Why, Conrad? Why bring Ahmedinejad into this?
Why not get an opinion from Khalid Shaikh Muhammad?
He’s likely to know at least as much, probably more trustworthy, and certainly not any crazier than that Iranian goofball.
I think we both have a pretty good idea why. It’s not worth getting dragged into.
yeah, you’re right, newt.
returning to Earth.
I made the mistake of stumbling into one not too long ago, where the author claimed that the wife of Solicitor General Ted Olsen might actually be alive and in hiding.
If that doesn’t show you where your legs are, nothing will.
You fellows aren’t much fun tonight mac and newt
Well, there was that little disclaimer, in tiny print, when we signed our waiver of rights, that informed us of the possible long time psychological affects of water and board usage
So maybe, the goofy one from Persia may actually be more sane today
/s
The idea was to inform people of something that gets very little exposure in the MSM. If you go to NYT you will see the article is already down and so it is likely many people will have missed it.
The unwillingness to have open dialogue on so many issues is incredible. On DKOS you can not mention 9/11 investigation. Bill Maher ejected people from his audience on the topic. For the negative posters here are you willing to state absolutely you have conducted reasonable research and you are absolutely convinced the 9/11 commission version is correct because individuals on that panel state they were lied to and they do not support the conclusions in the report.
Nobody is happy about it but denying it without investigation marks you more than MSM marks anyone asking for real answers. What right do you have to deny the victims answers to their questions.
Conrad C. Elledge
Do you have a link to the petition so we can see exactly what it says and the names and credentials of the 1,100 architects and engineers who signed it?
One thing I would really like to see is a paper written by a real structural engineer explaining exactly, in technical terms, what bothers him or her about the widely accepted notion about why the towers collapsed. You say they offer evidence. I would like to see it.
I do not understand your reference to our air defenses. Does the architects’ petition have some baring on it?
A site that’s not intimidated would be and hit the 911 tab, then educate yourselves.
The question about the air defenses concerns one dick cheney who was in control of NORAD on 911 the only day in our 200+ year history where a civilian with absolutely no military experience took over control of our air defenses. Then the question would how did the attackers know this and coordinate the dates perfectly.
This is Possibly treason but we fear the dick.
May I offer an article by Paul Roberts http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Road-to-Armageddon-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts
Add after Roberts-100225-925 to the above address to locate the article.
I guess I’m not the linky type
Here is the A & E petition.
And here is a blog with good links to engineers’ (some quite well known) comments on the issue. Well worth going through the links no matter what your thinking is on this matter.
Here is an interesting read as well. There are some fair questions to ask about the government reports folks. You do not have to belittle with “tin foil” and conspiracy theory put downs. There really are some fair engineering questions out there that have not been examined.
Where the engineering questions began, happened to be the collapse of Building 7. I am not sure about readers here, but on that morning, watching live, I was, like all of us, devastated when the Towers fell. When Building 7 fell, I remember that my gut reaction was, “What the h—? How did that fall? I was struck by a recent memory in that moment”
The memory? Two months before 9-11, I was able to witness a controlled demo in our downtown. The building was surrounded by other buildings. It was amazing how the demo brought the building down in a vertical fall without damage to the other buildings.
It was Building 7 falling (vertical fall) that caught the attention of Dr. Jones of BYU. And yes, many A&E’s have published counter reports to Dr. Jones. The last link is a Wiki link. I do not normally link to Wiki but in the footnotes you can find links to all Dr. Jones’ papers on the subject.
“There is no dispute that the official explanation offered by the 9/11 commission could stand a little work–it doesn’t even mention building 7.”
This is, in fact, not correct. WTC7 and its evacuation is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report but its collapse is not. This shouldn’t be too surprising, however as the WTC7 wasn’t a terrorist target (the collapses of other surrounding buildings were also not mentioned).
However, an engineering report by NIST did explain the collapse meaning that all future designers of skyscrapers can pore over it to learn the lessons of its collapse.
“1,100 architects and engineers worldwide signed a petition calling for independent investigation of the destruction of those three buildings this spring.”
AE9/11 Truth has been around for over three years now and have managed a measly 1000 engineers of all varieties (software engineers? chemical engineers?) and people who simply have degrees in subjects such as architecture and engineering and you give the game away by saying this:
Personally, I can’t believe our air defense response was what it was and that no one seems to mind.
Well, how many of these engineers and architects signed up on the basis of their own personal incredulity regarding things outside their field such as air defences?
If you want to learn a bit more about why the air defenses didn’t work that day then do have a read of the 9/11 Commission Report first. You may find out that there are very good reasons why the planes weren’t intercepted. (Do I take it you can’t believe that fighter jets weren’t immediately scrambled to blow civilian airliners out of the sky the minute their transponders were switched off and they ceased radio contact?)
Also, Ahmadinejad didn’t actually call for a new investigation of 9.11.
Read the full letter:
http://www.isna.ir/ISNA/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1518940&Lang=E
Yep, there should be a new investigation for a couple reasons. First, they should chase down the loose ends. And second, they need to investigate to see if Cheney, Rumsfeld & Bush tried to warp/corrupt the first investigation into a justification for the Iraq invasion.
“Following September 11 attacks, and on the pretext of fighting against a number of terrorist operatives,”
Copied that from the letter you posted.
Pretext Ostensible reason or MOTIVE , which cloaks the real reason. Pretense.
Can you explain why dick cheney , in front of Leon Penetta, didnt defend the Pentagon as he was in control of NORAD operations after the first attacks?
Afghanistan is also a direct result of 911, also.
Throw in the Patriot act and the Military commission act that stem from the 911 and it’s a big deal.
This is the rational for the turning to the dark side of TORTURE UNLIMITED.
Let me share a personal story.
My older kids (who were young when 9-11 happened, the oldest in second grade at the time of 9-11.) have had questions I am not “expert” enough to answer. We have checked out the 9-11 report from the library and have tried to find answers to their questions. Over time, many interesting encounters have pushed the kids questions along.
A group of kids in their middle school years were studying physics and conducting some experiments using blocks and ping-pong balls (a trajectory study) at my house one day. When they were done, they started to have a contest to see who could build the tallest structure out of blocks without falling down. In the course of this game, they started to have fun knocking down the tall structures. Then one of the kids asked the others, “Have you ever, you know, seen the TV footage of the Twin Towers falling?” They all said their parents would not let them but that they did at some point see parts of the footage. These bright kids started asking their own questions about structure and destruction. One of the kids picked up a Lego plane out of the toy box and brought it over to a structure they had all worked on together to build. They were discussing, “If a plane hit here, how would the building fall?”
They experimented on their own structure which had a very solid four sided base. After many trials, they discovered, for a free fall, all four sides had to be pulled out at the same time for the rest of their structure to free fall. They came to me and asked, “How did the planes on 9-11 make the buildings fall the way they did?”
I told them I was not an expert and that it would be best for each of them to ask their parents and to do some of their own exploring, perhaps asking experts their questions.
The kids are in high school now. I know they still hold a number of questions quietly in their minds. 9-11 has defined their formative years. The kids are allowed to have questions and seek answers.
There is a video of Larry Silverstein, developer of World Trade Center where he said the decision was made to “Just Pull It”, referring to the collapse of WTC # 7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
So which is it?
Did it collapse or did someone “Just Pull It”?
Don’t think an independent investigation would cause any harm.
I know that I am riding the same old hobby horse every time this subject comes up, but I have to do it again. If you are willing to accept the 9/11 Commission findings at face value, then you also accept the findings of the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination.
These commissions are put together to whitewash any pesky questions that arise to dispute the official view. I know that it is easier to accept the official view than to be called, oh horror, a conspiracy theorist. If you are interested in 9/11 problems, a good place to start is a book by David Ray Griffin titled 9/11 Contradictions. Griffin is a retired theology professor, but the questions he asks are not technical engineering, they are based on his reading the 9/11 Commission report and the relevant reporting about the whole event.
nice catch of an obviously flawed interpretation of the letter.
It collapsed.
Remember that WTC7 had been burning for seven hours after the collapse of the North Tower, the debris of which had damaged Building 7.
That quote from Larry Silverstein is a perfect example of a quote-mine from a Truther. He was talking about the firefighting operation. He made it clear that the decision was made by the firefighting personnel after he was asked his opinion.
“Pull it” doesn’t mean “explosive controlled demolition” by the way.
If it had been destroyed by explosives then the explosives would have been clearly audible on any video footage. They weren’t because they didn’t exist. The building collapsed.
Most of David Ray Griffin’s “research” has been sloppy to say the least. His questions usually arise from his inability to understand even very basic media reports.
For example, DRG questions why no Arab names were on the “flight manifests” when his source is not the flight manifests at all but a CNN “victims list”. Given that the hijackers were not considered “victims” they didn’t make the list.
He also trawls through newspaper and magazine cuttings where he finds people reporting explosions. A quick read of each of his sources reveal that the witnesses were most often describing the aircraft impacts themselves as explosions.
He also reports an eyewitness saying something, “like a cruise missile with wings” hit the Pentagon. Yet he leaves off the rest of the quote in which the same person identifies this object as an American Airlines jet. Either DRG doesn’t understand what a simile is, he’s a poor researcher or he’s an outright liar.
Either way, his “research” should be treated with extreme skepticism.
How was Dick Cheney supposed to “protect the Pentagon”?
Was he supposed to get on the roof and shoot the passenger plane down with his hunting rifle?
Neither the World Trade Center towers nor the planes that hit them were made out of Lego.