Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight
By David Ray Griffin
May 28, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- At 5:21 PM on 9/11, Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed, even though it had not been hit by a plane – a fact that is important because of the widespread acceptance of the idea, in spite of its scientific absurdity, that the Twin Towers collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airliners plus the ensuing jet-fuel-fed fires. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) thereby challenges the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center, according to which it was accomplished by al-Qaeda hijackers, even if one accepts the government’s scientifically impossible account of the Twin Towers. This fact was recently emphasized in the title of a review article based on my 2009 book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7,1 by National Medal of Science-winner Lynn Margulis: “Two Hit, Three Down – The Biggest Lie.”2
1. Why the Collapse of WTC 7 Created an Extraordinary Problem
The collapse of WTC 7 created an extraordinary problem for the official account of 9/11 for several reasons.
An Unprecedented Occurrence
One reason is that, because of the collapse of WTC 7, the official account of 9/11 includes the dubious claim that, for the first time in the known universe, a steel-frame high-rise building was brought down by fire, and science looks askance at claims of unprecedented occurrences regarding physical phenomena. New York Times writer James Glanz, who himself has a Ph.D. in physics, wrote: “[E]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.” Glanz then quoted a structural engineer as saying: “[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [WTC 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because engineers had no answer to the question, “why did 7 come down?”3
Visual Evidence of Implosion
Equally remarkable, besides the mere fact that this building came down, was the way it collapsed: straight down, in virtual free fall, making the destruction of this building appear to be an example of the type of controlled demolition known as “implosion,” in which explosives and/or incendiaries are used to slice the building’s steel support columns in such a way as to cause the building to collapse into its own footprint. CBS anchor Dan Rather, not one to let a remarkable fact go unremarked, said:
“t’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen . . . on television . . . , where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.”4
Dan Rather, moreover, was not the only reporter to make such a comment. Al Jones, a reporter for WINS NYC News Radio, said: “I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion – looked like it had been done by a demolition crew.”5
Moreover, whereas Jones and Rather, being laymen in these matters, merely said that the collapse of Building 7 looked like a controlled demolition, experts, upon seeing the video, could tell immediately that it actually was a controlled demolition. In 2006, for example, a Dutch filmmaker asked Danny Jowenko, the owner of a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands, to comment on a video of the collapse of WTC 7, without telling him what it was. (Jowenko had been unaware that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.) After viewing the video, Jowenko said: “They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . This is controlled demolition.” When asked if he was certain, he replied: “Absolutely, it’s been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this.”6
Testimonies about Explosions
Besides the obviousness from the very appearance of the collapse of Building 7 that it was a product of controlled demotion, there were testimonies about explosions in this building.
One of these was provided by Michael Hess, New York City’s corporation counsel and a close friend of Mayor Rudy Giuliani. While on his way back to City Hall, Hess was stopped for an interview at 11:57 that morning, during which he said:
“I was up in the emergency management center on the twenty-third floor [of WTC 7], and when all the power went out in the building, another gentleman and I walked down to the eighth floor [sic] where there was an explosion and we were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half. But the New York Fire Department . . . just came and got us out.”7
Hess thereby reported a mid-morning explosion in WTC 7.
The other gentleman, Barry Jennings of the New York City Housing Authority, reported the same thing during another on-the-street interview, reporting that he and “Mr. Hess” had been walking down the stairs when they became trapped by a “big explosion.”8 Jennings, in fact, said that explosions continued going off while they were waiting to be rescued.9
There were also reports of explosions in the late afternoon, just as WTC 7 started coming down. Reporter Peter Demarco of the New York Daily News said:
“[T]here was a rumble. The building's top row of windows popped out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out. Then the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray.”10
NYPD officer Craig Bartmer gave the following report:
“I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down. . . . That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me . . . . There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. . . . [A]ll of a sudden. . . I looked up, and . . . [t]he thing started pealing in on itself. . . . I started running . . . and the whole time you're hearing ‘boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.’”11
A New York University medical student, who had been serving as an emergency medical worker that day, gave this report:
“[W]e heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. . . . [T]urned around – we were shocked. . . . t looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out. . . . [A]bout a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.”12
In addition to the visual and testimonial evidence, there was clear physical evidence that explosives and incendiaries were used to bring down WTC 7.
Swiss-Cheese Steel: Within a few months of 9/11, three professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) had issued a report about a piece of steel from Building 7 that was described in a New York Times story by James Glanz and Eric Lipton as “[p]erhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”13 Part of the mystery was the fact that the steel was “extremely thin,” indicating that the steel had “melted away,” even though “no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” Another part of the mystery was that atoms in the steel seemed to have combined with sulfur “to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures,” but as to the source of the sulfur, “no one knows.”14
Describing this mysterious piece of steel more fully, an article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel” in WPI’s magazine, said:
“[S]teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies . . . reveal that . . . a eutectic reaction . . . caus[ed] intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese . . .. A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes. A eutectic compound is a mixture [involving sulfur]. . . . ‘The important questions," says [one of the professors], ‘are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from?’”15
The thinning and the holes even suggested that the steel had vaporized. Explaining as early as November 2001 why fire could not account for this mysterious steel, Glanz paraphrased one of the three WPI professors, Jonathan Barnett, as saying that it “appear[ed] to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.”16
Another New York Times story reported that the same phenomenon was described by Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl of the University of California at Berkeley, who had received a National Science Foundation grant to spend two weeks at Ground Zero studying steel from the buildings. According to reporter Kenneth Change, Professor Astaneh-Asl, speaking of a horizontal I-beam from WTC 7, said: “Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.”17
These reports clearly showed that something other than fire had been making things happen in the buildings, because the fires could not possibly have been higher than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, while the boiling point of steel is roughly the same as that of iron, which is 5182°F. But even if the steel had not evaporated but had simply melted, that by itself would have proved the point, because the melting point of steel is only a little less than that of iron, which is 2800°F. (An obvious source of both the melting and the sulfidation would be a well-known incendiary, thermate – a “mixture of thermite and sulfur . . . which lowers the melting point of iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system,” which is “useful in cutting through steel.”)18
Evidence in Plain Sight
Therefore, clear evidence against the official account of Building 7, according to which it was brought down by fire, existed in plain sight in the form of videos of its collapse, published testimonies about explosions in the building, and physical evidence reported in the New York Times. The reasonable inference to draw from this evidence – namely, that the official account is false – was reinforced by the first official report on this building’s collapse, which was issued in 2002 by FEMA. Besides including as an appendix the paper by the WPI professors containing the study of the Swiss-cheese piece of steel recovered from WTC 7 – a study that attributed the erosion to “oxidation and sulfidation” while adding: “No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified”19 – the engineers who wrote the FEMA report admitted that their “best hypothesis” about why WTC 7 collapsed had “only a low probability of occurrence.”20
Failure to Become Well Known
In addition to all these facts, WTC 7 was a very big building, being 47 stories high and having a base about the size of a football field. Although it was dwarfed by the 110-story Twin Towers, it would have been the tallest building in half of the states in the nation. For all of these reasons, the collapse of this building should have become one of the best-known facts about 9/11. But it did not.
2. Widespread Ignorance about WTC 7
A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 43 percent of the American people were unaware that WTC 7 had collapsed,21 and that same year, as mentioned earlier, Danny Jowenko of the Netherlands still did not know about it, even though controlled demolition was his field.
A dramatic example of the fact that this building’s collapse has not been prominent in the public consciousness was provided in a New York City courtroom in September 2009. Judge Edward Lehner was hearing arguments about a petition sponsored by NYC CAN to allow residents to vote on whether New York City should have its own investigation of the World Trade Center attacks. After Judge Lehner had observed that the 9/11 Commission had carried out an investigation and issued a report, Dennis McMahon, a lawyer for NYC CAN, said that this report left many unanswered questions. “One of the biggest questions,” he added, “is why did Building 7 come down” – at which point Judge Lehner asked: “Building what?” McMahon replied: “World Trade Center Seven. There were three buildings that came down.” When the judge, continuing to illustrate his ignorance about this building, asked if it was owned by the Port Authority, McMahon replied that it was owned by Larry Silverstein.22
Judge Lehner, it should be emphasized, was not simply an ordinary American citizen. Besides being a judge presiding in New York City, he had been assigned to a case involving the 9/11 attacks in this city. So his ignorance about this building was surprising. And yet it was typical. With his query - “Building what?” – he expressed the ignorance manifested in 2006 by controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko and almost half of the American people. How can we account for this ignorance?
In a New York Times story in November 2001, James Glanz wrote that the collapse of WTC 7 was “a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world.”23 Clearly these were not normal circumstances.
Part of the abnormality was the fact that Building 7, while huge, was overshadowed by the Twin Towers, which were over twice as tall. This fact by itself, however, would not account for the enormous ignorance of this third building’s collapse. Knowledgeable people had said right away, as Glanz pointed out, that there was a sense in which the collapse of Building 7 should have been the bigger story. Why was it not?
The answer seems to be that it was a deliberately suppressed story. This conclusion is supported by the following facts:
First, after 9/11 itself, our television networks played videos of the Twin Towers being hit by planes, then coming down, over and over, but the collapse of Building 7 was seldom if ever shown.
Second, when The 9/11 Commission Report was issued in 2004, it did not even mention that Building 7 came down.
Third, after NIST – the National Institute of Standards and Technology – took over from FEMA the task of explaining the destruction of the World Trade Center, it repeatedly delayed its report on WTC 7. In 2003, NIST said that this report would be issued along with its report on the Twin Towers, the draft of which was to appear in September 2004.24 However, even though NIST’s report on the Twin Towers did not actually appear until 2005, the promised report on WTC 7 was not included: NIST said that it would appear in 2006. But when August of 2006 came, NIST said: “It is anticipated that a draft report [on WTC 7] will be released by early 2007.”25 But it was not released in 2007 – either early or late. Instead, NIST in December 2007 “projected” that it would release draft reports on July 8, 2008, followed by final reports on August 8, 2008.26 Instead, the draft report did not appear until August, and the final report not until November of that year – when the Bush-Cheney administration was about to leave office.
Moreover, when in 2008 NIST was accused of having deliberately delayed its report on WTC 7 (which the 9/11 Truth Movement had long considered the “Achilles Heel” or “Smoking Gun” of the official account of 9/1127), NIST lied, saying that it had worked on this report only since 2005 and hence for only three years – the same length of time it had worked on its Twin Towers report. Actually, however, NIST had filed progress reports on WTC 7 in December 2002 and May 2003;28 in June 2004, it published an Interim Report on WTC 7;29 and in April 2005, NIST released another preliminary report on WTC 7.30 Then, after ceasing work on this building until after the report on the Twin Towers was issued in October 2005, NIST reported, “the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed.”31 In truth, therefore, NIST had worked on its report on WTC 7 for almost six years, not merely three. So there was good reason to suspect that this report had been deliberately delayed for as long as possible.
3. NIST’s Draft for Public Comment: Mystery Solved?
Be that as it may, when the Draft for Public Comment did finally appear in August 2008, it was announced at a press conference with much bravado. Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator for its World Trade Center projects, said:
“Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery. WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives.”32
The mainstream media for the most part simply repeated Sunder’s claims. For example, an Associated Press story entitled “Report: Fire, Not Bombs, Leveled WTC 7 Building,” began by saying: “Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.” Then, after reinforcing this message by quoting Sunder’s assurance that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” this story concluded by quoting his claim that the science behind NIST’s findings is "incredibly conclusive," so that “[t]he public should really recognize that science is really behind what we have said.”33
Reporters, however, could easily have discovered that this was not so. They could have seen, in fact, that NIST’s WTC 7 report repeatedly committed scientific fraud in the technical sense, as defined by the National Science Foundation.
4. NIST's Falsification of Evidence
One type of fraud is falsification, which includes “omitting data.”34 While claiming that it “found no evidence of a . . . controlled demolition event,”35 NIST simply omitted an enormous amount of evidencefor that conclusion.
Omitting Testimonial Evidence
NIST failed, for one thing, to mention any of the testimonial evidence for explosions. Besides claiming that the event described as a mid-morning explosion by Michael Hess and Barry Jennings was simply the impact of debris from the collapse of the North Tower – which occurred at 10:28 and hence about an hour later than the explosion they had described – NIST failed to mention any of the reports of explosions just as the building started to come down.
Omitting Physical Evidence:
NIST’s report on this building also omitted various types of physical evidence.
The Swiss-Cheese Steel: One of these was the piece of Swiss-cheese steel reported by the three WPI professors in a paper that was, as mentioned earlier, included as an appendix to the 2002 FEMA report. After describing the erosion of this piece of steel, the professors had said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed.”36 When NIST took over from FEMA the responsibility of issuing the official reports on the World Trade Center, NIST’s director promised that its reports would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.”37 However, when NIST’s report on Building 7 appeared in 2008, it did not even mention this mysterious piece of steel, let alone explain how it had been produced. NIST even claimed that no recovered steel from WTC 7 had been identified, because the steel used in this building, unlike the steel used in the Twin Towers, “did not contain . . . identifying characteristics.”38
NIST made this claim, incidentally, even though it had previously published a document in which it had referred to steel recovered from WTC 7, including the piece discussed by the WPI professors in the appendix to the FEMA report. This claim about not identifying any steel was made by NIST (in August 2008), moreover, even though one of these professors, Dr. Jonathan Barnett, had during a BBC program on WTC 7 (in July 2008) discussed an “eroded and deformed” piece of steel that he and his colleagues had studied in 2001, explaining that they knew “its pedigree” because “this particular kind of steel” had been used only in WTC 7, not in the Twin Towers.39
Melted Iron: Deutsche Bank, which had a building close to the World Trade Center that had been contaminated with dust, hired the RJ Lee Group, a scientific research organization, to prove to its insurance company that the dust contaminating its building was not ordinary building dust, as its insurance company claimed, but had resulted from the destruction of the World Trade Center. Reports issued by the RJ Lee Group in 2003 and 2004 proved that the dust was indeed WTC dust, having its unique chemical signature. Part of this signature, the RJ Lee Group said in its final (2004) report, was “[s]pherical iron . . . particles,” and this meant, it had pointed out in its 2003 report, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.”40
The RJ Lee reports thereby provided additional evidence that temperatures had been reached that significantly exceeded those that could have been produced by fire. These reports, which were made known in an article published in January 2008 by a group of scientists led by physicist Steven Jones,41 were simply ignored by NIST.
Melted Molybdenum: Another study was carried out by scientists at the US Geological Survey. Besides also finding the spherical iron particles, these scientists found that something had melted molybdenum42 – which has an extremely high melting point: 4,753°F (2,623°C).43 Although these USGS scientists failed to mention this discovery in the published version of their report, a group of scientists led by Steven Jones, having obtained the USGS team’s data through a FOIA request, reported evidence that this team had devoted serious study to “a molybdenum-rich spherule.”44 NIST, however, failed to mention this discovery by the US Geological Survey, although it is another federal agency.
Nanothermite: A peer-reviewed report by University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit and several co-authors, including physicist Steven Jones and chemist Kevin Ryan, showed that the WTC dust contained unreacted nanothermite. Unlike ordinary thermite, which is an incendiary, nanothermite is a high explosive.
This report by Harrit, Jones, Ryan, and their colleagues did not appear until 2009,45 so it could not have been mentioned in NIST’s final report, which came out at the end of November 2008. However, given the standard guidelines for the investigation of building fires, NIST should have tested the WTC dust for signs of incendiaries, such as ordinary thermite (including thermate), and explosives, such as nanothermite.46
When asked whether it had carried out such tests, NIST said it had not.47 When a reporter asked NIST spokesman Michael Newman why not, he replied: “ecause there was no evidence of that.” When the reporter asked the obvious follow-up question, “[H]ow can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?” Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”48
5. NIST’s Fabrication of Evidence
Besides omitting and otherwise falsifying evidence, NIST also committed the type of scientific fraud called fabrication, which means simply “making up results.”49
No Girder Shear Studs
For example, in offering its explanation as to how fire caused Building 7 to collapse, NIST said that the culprit was thermal expansion, meaning that the fire heated up the steel, thereby causing it to expand. Expanding steel beams on the 13th floor, NIST claims, caused a steel girder connecting columns 44 and 79 to break loose. Having lost its support, column 79 failed, starting a chain reaction in which all the other columns failed.50
Leaving aside the question of whether this is even remotely possible, let us simply ask: Why did that girder fail? NIST’s answer was that it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote: “In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders.”51 In another passage, NIST said: “Floor beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs.”52
However, NIST’s Interim Report on WTC 7, which it published in 2004 before it had developed its girder-failure theory, said shear studs were used to anchor “[m]ost of the beams and girders,” including the girder in question.53
A Raging 12th Floor Fire at 5:00
Although in its 2004 Interim Report on WTC 7, NIST said that by 4:45 PM, “the fire on Floor 12 was burned out,”54 it claimed in its 2008 report that at 5:00, just 21 minutes before the building collapsed, the fire on this floor was still going strong.55
6. NIST’s Final Report: Affirming a Miracle
NIST’s final report on WTC 7, which appeared in November 2008, was for the most part identical with its draft report, which had appeared in August. But NIST did add a new element: the affirmation of a miracle, meaning a violation of a fundamental law of physics.
This issue is treated in a cartoon in which a professor has written a proof on a chalkboard. Most of the steps consist of mathematical equations, but one of them simply says: “Then a miracle happens.”56 This is humorous because one thing scientists absolutely cannot do in their scientific work is appeal to miracles, even implicitly. And yet that is what NIST does. I will explain.
NIST’s August 2008 Denial of Free Fall
Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been pointing out that Building 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, or at least virtually so. But in NIST’s Draft for Public Comment, issued in August 2008, it denied this, saying that the time it took for the upper floors – the only floors that are visible on the videos - to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”57
As this statement implies, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning the laws of physics. Explaining why not, during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, Shyam Sunder said:
“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”58
In saying this, Sunder was, of course, presupposing NIST’s rejection of controlled demolition – which could have produced a free-fall collapse by causing all 82 columns to fail simultaneously – in favor of NIST’s fire theory, which necessitated a theory of progressive collapse.
Chandler’s Challenge and NIST’s November Admission of Free Fall
In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was able to speak at this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”59 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”60
Amazingly, in NIST’s final report, which came out in November 2008, it admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”61 So, after presenting over 600 pages of descriptions, photographs, testimonies, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST says, in effect: “Then a miracle happens.”
Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”62 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance. If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second, a miracle – meaning a violation of laws of physics - would have happened.
That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance. But then in November, while still defending its fire theory of collapse, NIST agreed that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”63
Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. In its August draft, in which it said that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis was “consistent with physical principles.” One encountered this phrase at least three times.64 In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase had been removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives and incendiaries were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics.
NIST thereby implicitly acknowledged that Building 7 was intentionally demolished. It also thereby implicitly admitted the same about the Twin Towers, because the collapses of these buildings manifested many of the same tell-tale signs of controlled demolition as did WTC 7, plus some additional ones, including the horizontal ejection of sections of steel columns, weighing many thousands of pounds, more than 500 feet from the towers. (These ejections occurred at the outset of the collapses, after which the Towers came straight down.).65
And with this implicit admission that the collapses were examples of controlled demolition, NIST undermined the al-Qaeda theory of 9/11. Why?
For one thing, the straight-down nature of the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 means that the buildings were subjected to the type of controlled demolition known as “implosion,” which is, in the words of a controlled demolition website, “by far the trickiest type of explosive project,” which “only a handful of blasting companies in the world . . . possess enough experience . . . to perform.”66 Al-Qaeda terrorists would not have had this kind of expertise.
Second, the only reason to go to the trouble of bringing a building straight down is to avoid damaging nearby buildings. Had the World Trade Center buildings toppled over sideways, they would have caused massive destruction in Lower Manhattan, crushing dozens of other buildings and killing tens of thousands of people. Does anyone believe that, even if al-Qaeda operatives had had the expertise to make the buildings come straight down, they would have had the courtesy?
A third problem is that foreign terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for all the hours it would have taken to plant incendiaries and explosives. Only insiders could have done this.67
7. Explaining the Ignorance about WTC 7
NIST’s admission that Building 7 came down in free fall for over two seconds should, therefore, have been front-page news. The same is true, moreover, of the various other things I have reported – NIST’s fabrications; NIST’s omission and distortion of testimonial evidence; NIST’s omissions of physical evidence, such as the Swiss-cheese steel and the particles showing that iron and molybdenum had been melted; and the later discovery of nanothermite particles in the WTC dust. Especially given the fact that the collapse of Building 7 had been declared a mystery from the outset, the world should have been waiting with baited breath for every new clue as to why this 47-story building had come down. Upon hearing Building 7 mentioned, nobody in the world with access to CNN should have asked, “Building what?” How do we explain the fact that five and even nine years after the mysterious collapse of this building, ignorance about it was still widespread?
To begin answering this question, let us return to James Glanz’s statement that the collapse of WTC 7 was “a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world.”68 As I stated before, the abnormality seems to have been such that videos and even the very fact of this building’s collapse were deliberately suppressed. What was this abnormality?
A symposium in the February 2010 issue of American Behavioral Scientist, one of our leading social science journals, argues that social scientists need to develop a scientific approach to studying an increasingly important type of criminality: State Crimes Against Democracy, abbreviated SCADs,69 understood as “concerted actions . . . by government insiders intended to manipulate democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty.” Having the “potential to subvert political institutions and entire governments . . . [SCADs] are high crimes that attack democracy itself.”70
Distinguishing between SCADs that have been officially proven, such as “the Watergate break-ins and cover-up . . . , the secret wars in Laos and Cambodia . . . , the illegal arms sales and covert operations in Iran-Contra . . . , and the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson by revealing his wife’s status as an intelligence agent,” on the one hand, and suspected SCADs for which there is good evidence, on the other, the symposium authors include in the latter category “the fabricated attacks on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 . . . , the “October Surprises” in the presidential elections of 1968 . . . and 1980 . . . , the assassinations of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy . . . , the election breakdowns in 2000 and 2004 . . . , the numerous defense failures on September 11, 2001 . . . , and the misrepresentation of intelligence to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.”71
Besides regarding 9/11 as one of the suspected SCADs for which there is good evidence, this symposium treats it as its primary example. The abstract for the introductory essay begins by asserting: “The ellipses of due diligence riddling the official account of the 9/11 incidents continue being ignored by scholars of policy and public administration.”72 The symposium’s final essay, criticizing the majority of the academic world for its “blithe dismissal of more than one law of thermodynamics” that is violated by the official theory of the World Trade Center collapses,73 also criticizes the academy for its failure to protest when “Professor Steven Jones found himself forced out of a tenured position for merely reminding the world that physical laws, about which there is no dissent whatsoever, contradict the official theory of the World Trade Center Towers’ collapse.”74
The authors of this symposium point out, moreover, that the official theory of the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers has serious implications for science and engineering. If NIST’s explanation “provides the most robust account of the Towers’ collapse, based on known science,” then some previously accepted physical laws would need to be revised:
“[These laws] would have to succumb, at some point, to the theoretical claims purported to explain the Towers’ collapse: New laws determining when steel melts and the phases at which such material loses its tensile strength would have at some point to replace existing science-based presumptions.”75
This revision of physical laws would also have practical implications for building codes: “[T]he specifications of design for all skyscrapers ought, in the public interest, to be subjected to major review.” The acceptance of NIST’s account, therefore, creates an “obvious crisis,” which should be evoking scientific and practical responses.76
The practical crisis that should have been caused by NIST’s report on WTC 7 had previously been addressed by four of the “Jersey Girls,” who had been instrumental in getting the 9/11 Commission created. In a statement released in September 2008, they wrote:
“Over the past seven years, the Families of the 9/11 Victims have been repeatedly told by fire experts, engineers and architects that we should NOT FOCUS our efforts on advocating for building and fire code changes based on the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2 towers. We were continuously reminded that the crashing of airplanes into buildings was a unique event. Additionally, we were told that the design and construction of WTC Towers 1 and 2 was unique and that there were no other buildings of that particular height or design in the world. We were repeatedly told that the key was WTC 7 since this building was of conventional design and height, yet it too collapsed without the unique event of an airplane striking it. . . .
“Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST . . . stated that WTC 7 met all New York City codes. Yet, WTC 7 is the first steel high-rise building of traditional construction in the United States -- and the world, to completely collapse as a result of fire. According to . . . Dr. Sunder, "there were no flaws with the construction of the building."
“We don't how the rest of the country is feeling about this news, but we are very scared! These findings suggest that ANY EXISTING building is prone to a progressive collapse if a fire should start and the sprinkler system fails for whatever reason. . . .
“The ultimate purpose of advocating for the $16 million to have NIST study this event was to determine how to make buildings safer in the future. If we are now to believe that any skyscraper is subject to total collapse from fire, why isn't NIST emphasizing the impact on EXISTING buildings? . . . NIST needs to . . . provide guidance for EXISTING buildings.
“NIST should put the most important conclusion in plain English and announce it to the entire country: UNCONTROLLED FIRES IN HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS CAN LEAD TO THEIR TOTAL COLLAPSE. . . . NIST must address this dangerous issue immediately. The future safety of the public and the fire services hangs in the balance.”77
Like the SCADs symposium, this brilliant piece of satire makes clear that NIST’s explanation of WTC 7’s collapse should have created a crisis in many fields, both theoretical and practical. The implications of NIST’s explanation should have been extensively discussed in technical journals of various types and then in newspapers and on television programs and radio talk shows. But no such discussion occurred. The worlds of physics, engineering, building codes, and public safety continued on as if the report had never been issued. How can we understand this?
Hiding the Most Obvious Evidence that 9/11 Was a SCAD
If the reason why the collapse of WTC 7 did not occur “under normal circumstances” is the fact that it was part of 9/11, which was a SCAD, then it would not be surprising that the collapse of this building, which “under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world,” did not do so.
If 9/11 was a SCAD, the collapse of WTC 7 would not have been allowed to capture the world’s attention for the reasons mentioned earlier: Unlike the Twin Towers, it was not hit by a plane; because of this, there was no jet fuel to spread big fires to many floors; its collapse, unlike that of each of the Twin Towers, looked exactly like a classic implosion, in which the collapse begins from the bottom and the building folds in upon itself, ending up almost entirely in its own footprint; and the videos show that it came down, at least part of the way, in absolute free fall. The fact that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition was, therefore, more obvious.
This greater obviousness is illustrated not only by Danny Jowenko’s response, but also by the many engineers and scientists who joined the 9/11 Truth Movement only after seeing a video of this building’s collapse. For example, Daniel Hofnung, an engineer in Paris, wrote:
“In the years after the 9/11 events, I thought that all I read in professional reviews and French newspapers was true. The first time I understood that it was impossible was when I saw a film about the collapse of WTC 7.”78
Likewise, civil engineer Chester Gearhart wrote:
“I have watched the construction of many large buildings and also have personally witnessed 5 controlled demolitions in Kansas City. When I saw the towers fall on 9/11, I knew something was wrong and my first instinct was that it was impossible. When I saw building 7 fall, I knew it was a controlled demolition.”79
This video was also decisive for University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit, who later became the first author of the nanothermite paper. When asked how he became involved with these issues, he replied:
“It all started when I saw the collapse of Building 7, the third skyscraper. It collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers. And there were only two airplanes. When you see a 47-storey building, 186 meters tall, collapse in 6.5 seconds, and you are a scientist, you think “What?” I had to watch it again...and again. I hit the button ten times, and my jaw dropped lower and lower. Firstly, I had never heard of that building before. And there was no visible reason why it should collapse in that way, straight down, in 6.5 seconds. I have had no rest since that day.”80
Given these reactions, it is obvious why, if 9/11 was a State Crime Against Democracy, the fact of Building 7’s collapse, especially the video of this collapse, had to be suppressed as much as possible.
WTC 7 as a Dud?
Having made this point, I need to respond to an obvious objection: If those who were responsible for bringing down Building 7 were going to need to suppress the video of its collapse, why did they wait until late in the afternoon, when the air was clean and cameras would be trained on this building, with the consequence that we have perfectly clear videos of the collapse of this building from various angles, each one showing its straight-down free-fall descent? Why did they not bring it down in the morning, shortly after one of the Twin Towers had collapsed, when the resulting dust cloud would have made any images impossible? After the collapse of the North Tower at 10:28, for example, visibility did not return sufficiently for film crews to come back to the area, NIST reported, until 11:00.81 Had Building 7 been imploded at, say, 10:45, its collapse would still have been a big mystery, but there would have been no videos showing that it had come straight down and, for over two seconds, in absolute free fall.
There are many reasons, as I showed in an appendix to The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, to believe that this had indeed been the plan, but that this building was, as one researcher put it, “a dud”82 – meaning that “the demolition system in WTC 7 simply did not respond as intended and the building defiantly remained intact.”83 As a result, agents were perhaps sent into the building to set fires to provide the basis for a cover-story saying that fires had brought the building down. This hypothesis -- that fires were set in the building only after a controlled demolition system had failed to bring it down in the morning -- would explain why, although the fires in Building 7 were supposedly started by burning debris from the North Tower’s collapse at 10:28, no flames are visible in this building, as NIST admits, until after noon, and on some floors there is no photographic evidence of fire until 3:40 PM or even later.84
I have emphasized this likelihood – that the destruction of WTC 7 was a botched operation – because if true it provides the clearest possible illustration of the theme of this essay, namely, that SCADs can be hidden in plain sight. There are literally dozens of problems in the official account of 9/11 sufficiently serious to show the official story to be false. But the clearest proof is provided by the video of this enormous building coming straight down in absolute free fall. And yet even though this proof has existed in plain sight for all these years, the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, and hence a State Crime Against Democracy, has remained a hidden fact, at least in the sense that it is not part of the public conversation. If the destruction of WTC 7 was a botched operation, then the hiding of the fact that 9/11 was a SCAD is even more impressive. How has this hiding been achieved?
Hiding SCADs: The Role of the Mainstream Media
Peter Dale Scott, discussing the erosion of the US Constitution in recent times, suggests that “this erosion has been achieved in part through a series of important deep events in [post-World-War-II] American history – events aspects of which . . . will be ignored or suppressed in the mainstream media.”85 Indeed, Scott adds:
“[T]he mainstream U.S. media . . . have become so implicated in past protective lies . . . that they, as well as the government, have now a demonstrated interest in preventing the truth about any of these events from coming out. This means that the current threat to constitutional rights does not derive from the deep state alone. . . . [T]he problem is a global dominance mindset that prevails not only inside the Washington Beltway but also in the mainstream media . . . , one which has come to accept recent inroads on constitutional liberties, and stigmatizes, or at least responds with silence to, those who are alarmed by them. . . . [A]cceptance of this mindset’s notions of decorum has increasingly become a condition for participation in mainstream public life.”86
Referring thereby to events such as the JFK assassination, the Tonkin Gulf hoax, and 9/11, Scott by “deep events” means the same types of events called SCADs by the authors of the symposium on that topic. Indeed, one of those authors explicitly cites Scott’s writings, treating his “deep events” as examples of SCADs and quoting his statements about the complicity of the mainstream media in covering up the truth about these events.87
These authors also make the same point themselves, remarking that “the U.S. government’s account of 9/11 [is] parroted by the mainstream media”88 and commenting on “the profound disavowal of still burning, molten questions originating at 9/11 Ground Zero gone begging by the American media.”89
Besides parroting the government’s account of 9/11 and stigmatizing those who provide alternative accounts with the discrediting label “conspiracy theorists,” how has America’s mainstream media kept the trut
Afghans believe US is funding Taliban
Daniella Peled | Tuesday 25 May 2010 12.00 BST
Intellectuals and respected Afghan professionals are convinced the west is prolonging conflict to maintain influence in the region
It's near-impossible to find anyone in Afghanistan who doesn't believe the US are funding the Taliban: and it's the highly educated Afghan professionals, those employed by ISAF, USAID, international media organisations – and even advising US diplomats – who seem the most convinced.
One Afghan friend, who speaks flawless English and likes to quote Charles Dickens, Bertolt Brecht and Anton Chekhov, says the reason is clear. "The US has an interest in prolonging the conflict so as to stay in Afghanistan for the long term."
The continuing violence between coalition forces and the Taliban is simple proof in itself.
"We say in this country, you need two hands to clap," he says, slapping his hands together in demonstration. "One side can't do it on its own."
His arguments are reasoned, although he slightly ruins the effect by explaining to me that no Jews died in the Twin Towers. It's not just the natural assets of Afghanistan but its strategic position, the logic goes. Commanding this country would give the US power over India, Russia, Pakistan and China, not to mention all the central Asian states.
"The US uses Israel to threaten the Arab states, and they want to make Afghanistan into the same thing," he says. "Whoever controls Asia in the future, controls the world."
"Even a child of five knows this," one Kabuli radio journalist tells me, holding his hand a couple of feet from the ground in illustration. Look at Helmand, he says; how could 15,000 international and Afghan troops fail to crush a couple of thousand of badly equipped Taliban?
And as for the British, apparently they want to stay in Afghanistan even more than the Americans. The reason they want to talk to the Taliban is to bring them into the government, thus consolidating UK influence.
This isn't just some vague prejudice or the wildly conspiratorial theories so prevalent in the Middle East. There is a highly structured if convoluted analysis behind this. If the US really wanted to defeat the Taliban, person after person asks me, why don't they tackle them in Pakistan? The reason is simple, one friend tells me. "As long as you don't get rid of the nest, the problem will continue. If they eliminate the Taliban, the US will have no reason to stay here."
The proof is manifold, they say (although it does tend to include the phrase guaranteed to dismay every journalist: "everybody knows that …").
Among the things everybody knows are that Afghan national army troops report taking over Taliban bases to find identical rations and weapons to their own US-supplied equipment. The US funds the madrasas both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, which produce the young Talibs. US army helicopters regularly deliver supplies behind Taliban lines. The aid organisations are nothing more than intelligence-collecting agencies, going into regions the army cannot easily reach to obtain facts on the ground. Even the humblest midwife-training project is a spying outfit.
One political scientist, who works as an advisor to US agencies in the north of the country, recounts how people fear the continuing influence of the warlords, illustrating his point with descriptions of violence and corruption that extends into the realms of banking, government and trade.
Afghans hate these warlords, he says, but the US wants them kept in place. "If they were removed, and competent and clean people brought in, we would bring in revenues of our own. We could have our own economy, and demand foreign investment with transparency. We would have a true army, to protect us and serve Afghanistan."
So why do these well-educated Afghan professionals work for governments they are convinced want to sink their claws into their country?
There's nothing contrived about their patriotism – with their skills they could easily study or work abroad, but choose to stay to build a better future for their country. Afghans have a historical suspicion towards any foreign power involved in their country and maybe with the resilience of a nation which has seen off one occupier after another, they are willing to wait it out, confident the will of the US will break before their own.
They don't want Nato to leave for 15, maybe 20 years, anyway. It will take that long for Afghan institutions to be able to survive independently. In the meantime, as my literature-loving friend – who works for a number of US agencies – tells me, there is no contradiction in survival. "I like Benjamin Franklin in my pocket," he smiles. So much for hearts and minds.
Invisible Empire film night - a video montage
Nano-thermite expert Prof. Niels Harrit to visit Australia
Truth News Radio Australia | 21 May 2010
Photomicrographs of active thermitic material found in samples of the WTC dust.
We begin tonight with a round-up of Australian and regional news, including the crisis in Thailand.
In the second half we welcome John Bursill, aircraft engineer and member of ae911truth.org who brings breaking news of the upcoming visit to Australia of Professor Niels Harrit. Professor Harrit is the lead author of a ground breaking research paper which demonstrates the presence of high tech explosive residue in dust from the collapsed World Trade Center.
Details of Prof. Harrit’s lecture
Saturday 17 July, 2010
Sydney Mechanics’ School of Arts,
280 Pitt Street, Sydneya
Enquiries: 1300153372 (free call)
In an effort to improve the quality of our news service we ran the show tonight with a tigher presentation format. We hope you enjoy the results!
- Travellers to be searched for porn
- Australia stays impartial in Thai crisis
- Australian price on carbon inevitable, concedes Hockey
- Privacy watchdog probes Google’s Wi-Fi data harvest
- Fines for refusing to take part in ABS health survey
- Thanks to a contaminated DNA test, a young Melbourne man was wrongly convicted and sentenced to six years jail
- Parents ‘pimp’ kids for swine flu test
- Vaccines: Veterinarians Are Better Than Human Doctors
Lord Monckton shows his true colours
In this excellent interview by We Are Change Chicago, Lord Christopher Monckton reveals his slavish adherence to the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 and applauds the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Lord Monckton is clearly highly intelligent. Personally I find it implausible that he is merely mis-informed about 9/11. i think that he is up to mischief.
Nano-thermite expert Prof. Niels Harrit to visit Australia
Photomicrographs of active thermitic material found in samples of the WTC dust.
We begin tonight with a round-up of Australian and regional news, including the crisis in Thailand.
In the second half we welcome John Bursill, aircraft engineer and member of ae911truth.org who brings breaking news of the upcoming visit to Australia of Professor Niels Harrit. Professor Harrit is the lead author of a ground breaking research paper which demonstrates the presence of high tech exposive residue in dust from the collapsed World Trade Center.
Details of Prof. Harrit's lecture
Saturday 17 July, 2010
Sydney Mechanics' School of Arts,
280 Pitt Street, Sydney
Enquiries: 1300153372 (free call)
In an effort to improve the quality of our news service we ran the show tonight with a tigher presentation format. We hope you enjoy the results!
- Travellers to be searched for porn
- Australia stays impartial in Thai crisis
- Australian price on carbon inevitable, concedes Hockey
- Privacy watchdog probes Google's Wi-Fi data harvest
- Fines for refusing to take part in ABS health survey
- Thanks to a contaminated DNA test, a young Melbourne man was wrongly convicted and sentenced to six years jail
- Parents 'pimp' kids for swine flu test
- Vaccines: Veterinarians Are Better Than Human Doctors
John Bursill interviews 9/11 whistle blower Kevin Ryan
14 May 2010 | http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1724
Download audio: click here
In this excellent interview Kevin Ryan, certified quality engineer, talks about his involvement in the 9/11 truth movement and the latest developments in research on the unexplained anomalies of the collapse of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Mr. Ryan was fired by Underwriters Laboratories 5 days after sending a letter to a NIST scientist pointing out inconsistencies in the NIST report on the causes of the building collapses at the World Trade Center and asking for clarification. - http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Ryan
"In this show we ask Kevin to look back at the investigative work he and his peers have carried out for the Journal of 9/11 Studies of which he is a Co-Editor and leading author. There are simply too many topics covered in this interview to mention them all here in the notes. Highlights include Kevin’s work on discovering who had access to the Towers, his recent correspondence with 9/11 Commission Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton and we also ask Kevin, 'who did 9/11?'"
9/11 Fire Fighter ex-Chief Dan Daly: Solo Truth Action in Newcastle
by Naomi Breeze | 17 May 2010
Sorry this is long. Need to vent.
I attended a talk in my hometown of Newcastle on 14 May 2010 by ex-Fire Fighter, ex-Chief Dan Daly, about 9/11 and how it changed his life. I found out about it from a friend of a friend. The talk was arranged by a Catholic Church Chaplain through his Passionist Family Group and cost $5.00. The Chaplain is a personal friend of Dan’s and was also in New York on September 11. Some background on Dan:
Dan Daly was promoted to Fire Captain with Engine 52 in 2001. The service was to take place on September 12, 2001. On September 11, 2001 his rig was one of the last to arrive at the Twin Towers. He and his crew arrived from the Bronx just as WTC 7 collapsed. He spent the next six months at Ground Zero. Dan retired in November 2002 and spent five years with the State Department’s Cultural Educational Exchange Program.
Dan is the founder of Fire Fighters for Humanity, a non-profit organisation committed to unite fire fighters worldwide in serving people everywhere. The program stared with NYC Fire Fighters supporting disabled people and disabled war vets.
Dan has given speeches worldwide. His clients have included US Dept of State, King Pharmaceutical and Lehman Brothers. Dan has been an Ambassador of Peace for the US Dept of State.
Dan spends much of his time working as a volunteer with wounded veterans back from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as teaching public speaking in prisons. Through his speeches Dan hopes to entertain, educate and inspire the listener.
Anyway, I arrived a couple of minutes late but was warmly welcomed by the Chaplain and given a front row seat. There were about 60 regular churchgoers in attendance. Unfortunately there were no Fire Fighters there.
Dan mentioned the pancake theory and discussed the high temperatures and continual fires at Ground Zero at which point I put up my hand and said “there was molten metal”. He also namedropped Colin Powell and Henry Kissinger, both of whom he had given speeches for on their request.
I listened politely to his speech and clapped at all the right times. Dan then asked if anyone had any questions:
Me: Do you support the victims’ family members who want a new independent investigation into the events of September 11 based on the new scientific evidence that has come to light concerning controlled demolition and the presence of the explosive, thermite, in the dust samples?
Dan: (seething with anger) I saw a TV show about this and it was called Bullshit which is what I think of this crap. This girl is from one of these fringe (may have said ‘splinter’) groups who have sprung up. They believe no planes hit the Twin Towers.
Me: That is incorrect. The 9/11 Truth Movement was started by the family members and is made up of millions of concerned citizens. We do not believe that no planes hit the buildings. Our evidence concerns controlled demolition and thermite.
Dan then repeated his comments at which point I stood up and addressed the audience for one minute, mainly telling them that the victims’ family members wanted people to see this evidence. I mentioned Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth, AE911 Truth and Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth (the Monsignor nearly fell off his chair).
I asked Dan if he had seen the peer reviewed and unchallenged paper on the thermite. He said “I don’t want to see it”. I pulled a copy out of my bag which he refused to take. I then said that I had plenty of information and DVDs to hand out to the audience. At this point there were a few cries of ‘sit down’ and the Chaplain stood up and said:
Chaplain: Why don’t you find a nice man, get married and have babies.
I kid you not. You can’t make this crap up.
I rolled my eyes and sat down. You could hear a pin drop. More questions e.g. “Are there actually two Seattle’s?”
Dan: Any more questions?
Me: How many buildings collapsed on September 11?”
Dan: There were 7 buildings in the WTC complex.
Me: Yes, but how many collapsed on September 11?
Dan: I’ve answered your question. There were 7 buildings.
Me: No, you haven’t answered my question. I asked how many buildings collapsed on September 11. I read an interview where you said that you watched Building 7 collapse.
Dan ignored me and finished his talk with an anecdote.
I was now the most unpopular person in the room. I proceeded to hand out as much information as I could - general 9/11 facts cards, AE911 facts cards, DVDs (Zero and Loose Change) and some packs I had made up with information from Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth, Ken Jenkin’s article on Psychology, information regarding the health of the First Responders, an article on thermite etc.
Most people took the information. Most people told me I was rude and that this wasn’t the time and place (not true) and that I had arrived with an agenda (true). I apologised to everyone and tried to charm as many people as possible. Once I apologised, they were stuck. Then they had to listen.
I had varying degrees of success. Two teenage boys were fascinated when I gave them a copy of Loose Change and told them it was the most downloaded movie in internet history. Although one of them said “you can’t always believe science because science once said the world was flat”. I said that we called people who believed the Official Conspiracy Theory - Flat Earthers. He thought this was really funny.
One lady told me she didn’t need any information because she had been to New York. Another lady said that 9/11 was ages ago and it doesn’t matter because it won’t bring back the deceased people. An Engineer told me he had looked at the evidence and didn’t believe it. I answered all these remarks with the standard responses.
I made a teenage girl cry. She was upset that I could have been so rude to a hero. I explained that in my opinion the true heroes were the people fighting for 9/11 Truth. I told her it was wonderful to see her compassion and to get in touch once she had looked at the information because we needed kind and caring people like her. By the end she was okay, I think she was just a bit shocked. I was too. I’ve never made anyone cry about 9/11 Truth before.
The Chaplain apologised for his earlier comment but kept saying “you’re a good looking girl, why do you care about this stuff?’. It felt like I was stuck in a timewarp. We chatted for about ten minutes and he was very open and listened carefully. This information was new to him and he seemed genuinely interested. He promised to look at the information (including the thermite paper) and watch the DVDs. We finished with a hug and I ended up really liking him.
After most people had left, I approached Dan with the Chaplain.
Me: Can we talk now Dan?
Dan: I’m not talking to you. You’re rude. Don’t you know about the sanctity of the stage (it was actually a floor).
Me: I apologise Dan. I asked a simple question about the victims’ family members wanting a new investigation. I’m sorry if it upset you so much. I apologise.
Dan: I don’t care. I’m not talking to you.
Chaplain: She’s apologised Dan. You should talk to her. She seems like a sincere and good person.
Dan ran out the back door as fast as his legs could carry him. The Chaplain stood there stunned. I said to the Chaplain “the reason he won’t talk to me is because he knows I’m right”. I could see the Chaplain’s brain working overtime.
These people were not the usual crowd I would try and enlighten about 9/11 Truth. The irony of preaching science to Catholics is not lost on me (just joking Nick). I even pretended to be a Christian at one stage and told a lady “God wants you to look at the information” (sorry Nick).
If these people got nothing else out of this, they now know that the victims’ family members want a new investigation based on new evidence. I must have used the phrase “victims’ family members” about 100 times.
I knew it would be difficult doing this on my own. It is always good to have backup. I did feel guilty for upsetting people.
The sad part is that Dan is a truly fantastic speaker. He has that awesome Bronx accent and looked great in his uniform. I found his speech interesting and inspirational. If only he was one of us …
Dan is giving a talk in Brisbane on Friday, 4 June 2010 at 7.30pm at the Aspinall Centre (upper Mount Gravatt Parish). I’m trying to discreetly find out details of his other appearances. However, if anyone attends, don’t mention my name. Dan hates me.
Sheeple: Signs That You Might Be Part Of The Herd
Giordano Bruno | 6 May 2010
Millions of people from countries across the world have begun to wake up to the very real threat of repressive and engineered Globalism, or what the financial elite and the politicians who work for them often refer to as “The New World Order”. The movement against this centralization of economic and social power has gained traction in nearly every sphere, to the point where even the mainstream media has been forced on occasion to acknowledge its existence and prevalence. Those of us who have been working more than a few years in this activist organization, what many of us call the “Patriot Movement”, or the “Liberty Movement”, have seen incredible leaps and bounds in the fight against disinformation and the spread of unadulterated truth. Our work has gone viral, and our membership has skyrocketed, however, the task of diluting ignorance in the overall populace is far from over.
Every researcher, writer, and filmmaker who tackles the New World Order issue will suffer the unfortunate experience of running into people who are almost criminally uninformed, and this will happen on a regular basis. For a long time, our frustration was magnified by our inability to specifically define what it was that made these people the way they were. Were some just mentally inadequate, and unable to effectively process the facts? Were they so indoctrinated by the MSM that there was no turning back? Was there an innate difference in intuitive faculties that made some people quick in picking out a lie, and others slow? Many theories abound, but one thing was certain; in our quest to inform the masses, there were always going to be those who were incapable of hearing or understanding what we had to say, no matter how factual, rational, and refined our arguments. We now call these wonders of intellectual rustication “Sheeple”…
Sheeple can be found in every country, every ethnic background, every religious organization, and every subculture. After years of examination and experience, it has become much easier for the Liberty Movement to identify and categorize the various forms of sheeple, and come to terms with the triggers in the human mind that cause some to willfully ignore logic and wisdom. I have written in the past about some of these triggers, including my article “Sheeple: Why They Are The Way They Are”: http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=182
I believe it is important to cover this issue once again, especially in light of recent attempts by the MSM, along with the ADL and SPLC, to demonize our movement and paint us as villainous cartoon characters in the minds of the general public, which will make things even more difficult for us in the near future if we are not prepared. For those in the movement, knowing when you are dealing with sheeple, why they function cognitively the way they do, and how you might be able to get around their mental blocks, is of utmost importance today. Every new person who is awakened to the abyss they are about to plunge into could tip the balance away from tyranny and establish a cultural foothold for free-thought. Every person counts. With the world on the edge of financial and political ruin due to the manipulations and mechanizations of elitism, we must work harder than ever before.
Not everyone who is unaware or uneducated on the intricacies of Globalism, Central Banking, and the NWO, is necessarily “sheeple”. All of us, at one time or another, were nearly clueless as to the real workings of our government and our economy behind the proverbial curtain. I have found that many people are quite open to the information I make available as long as I make it available in a way that is not immediately overwhelming for them, and as long as I present solid evidence to back every claim that I relate. It is very important to be able to make the distinction between those who are brazenly dim-witted, and those who simply have not been adequately exposed to the facts.
Below, I will list my observations on the various ‘types’ of sheeple, and how to recognize them. Keep in mind some people might fall into more than one category.
The ‘Happy-Go-Lucky’ Sheeple:
Also known as the “Yuppie”. Life is a party for these folks. As long as they are not affected by the immediate circumstances of the troubles surrounding them, they couldn’t care less about politics, economics, war, or governmental deceit. They may even be aware of the terrible facts behind a certain issue, but as long as the routine of their mundane existence remains intact, they will have little motivation to effect changes in their thinking or their world. In fact, some ‘Happy-Go-Lucky’ Sheeple ENJOY a random catastrophe or two, because it gives them conversational fodder for the small-talk around the water cooler that they love so much. Their primary drives are unchecked consumerism (the accumulation of useless things), and emotionally empty sexual exchanges (the accumulation of false self-confidence). Most of what they know about the world they derive from watching fifteen minutes of mainstream television news a day. They often parrot talking points they overheard on MSNBC or CNN, and rarely have an original thought.
I have found that these men and women are normally from upper middle-class, white collar families. They have likely been coddled and sheltered from the suffering that goes on outside of the affluent bubble they were born into, and have probably never had to truly struggle for anything in their lives, giving them an audacious sense of entitlement. Plenty of these people break out of this one track thinking pattern on their own. I have known quite a few. But others will refuse to see the obvious unless confronted with the prospect that they personally might lose something if they do not take action.
The ‘Quasi-Intellectual’ Sheeple:
My favorite kind of sheeple. These people hold themselves in very high esteem. Some even see themselves as part of the elite (though most of them are not). Normally from the “professional class”, they often hold positions as Doctors, Lawyers, Bankers, Investors, Professors, Scientists, etc, though some have not yet left the university setting, and are simply getting a head start on their superiority complex.
Quasi-Intellectual Sheeple believe in the world of academia as unerring, as opposed to true scholars, who always have the wisdom to question the conclusions of academia. To me, an Ivy League degree is little more than a $100,000 piece of paper; it tells me nothing of the true intelligence of the person holding it. One need only look at the thousands of mainstream “professional” financial analysts who blindly supported Keynesian economics and refused to acknowledge the bubbles being facilitated by the private Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates and free money mentality. Their expensive education counted for nothing, and the economy is now on a ruinous downward slide.
At bottom, most “higher education” is really indoctrination. People attaining degrees in economics learn what the financial establishment WANTS them to learn, and nothing more. The same goes for any other field of study in which information is extremely centralized and filtered. Yet, Quasi-Intellectual Sheeple have such misplaced faith in the ivory tower that they assume through the system they have reached the pinnacle of knowledge. Those who have not assimilated themselves into this system as the Quasi-Intellectual has are to be ignored or ridiculed when presenting an opposing view.
This type of sheeple is driven by the desire for respect, power, and sometimes sycophantic admiration. Actually being intelligent is less important to them than having others believe they are intelligent without question. When asked to prove their intelligence, they often respond with indignance. They rarely if ever consider the possibility that they may be wrong on any subject, especially if it’s a subject they received a degree in. When they find themselves facing someone who has a better grasp of an issue than they do, they will not relent. Instead, they will turn towards subversive debate tactics to confuse the discussion, go off on tangents to avoid direct confrontation, and when he is really cornered, he will throw out barrages of obscure vocabulary in an attempt to impress others and distract them from the fact that he has no idea what he is talking about.
Quasi-Intellectual Sheeple are easy to identify by their arrogant demeanor. They tend to distance themselves from FOX and CNN and read periodicals like Forbes and Foreign Affairs, which are still propaganda, just of a more complex nature. They respond to most arguments with a smile, due to overconfidence, until they realize they are being soundly outmatched, and then they tend to lose composure. It takes a lot of public embarrassment before they will mend their ways.
The ‘Working-Class Idiot’ Sheeple:
Otherwise known as “the good ole’ boy”. (Special Note: I came from a parallel background, and am highly familiar with these sheeple.) You would think that people who fancy themselves as hardcore conservatives would be aware of the push towards global government and the fact that groups like Al-Qaeda are a fairytale distraction away from the real threat: Socio-Corporate Elitism and overgrown Federal bureaucracy. Apparently, they would ‘love’ to hear about it, but the football game is on and their wife is in their ear and the rugrats won’t stop eating all the damn frosted flakes. Such is the life of men without valid priorities.
These folks are usually Neo-Conservative lapdogs, an ideology suspiciously identical to Socialism with a corporate twist. Mussolini had a name for this combination, though the term escapes me…
Its not that they LIKE big government, Socialism, and the loss of liberties, it’s just that they are too ignorant to realize that that’s what they are supporting when they support the current Republican Party. These sheeple are very competitive. Sadly, however, they are often not accomplished in much of anything, which forces them to live vicariously through the exploits of others; like sports teams, political figures, and soldiers sent to third world hell-holes to blow up “bad guys”. Winning, regardless of whether or not the fight is legitimate or justified, is at the top of the Working Class Idiot’s list.
They like to believe that they have a deep relationship with their conscience, which adds pain when attempting to explain anything to them. These men are vindicated in their own minds by a set of logical fallacies that would boggle the likes of Freud. Being rational is not important to those who are vehemently self righteous. They ARE the “good guys”, anyone who disagrees is a “bad guy”, and that is that. This mindset makes them very easy to dupe, and very easy to lead.
The Working Class Idiot worships television. More than a couple of days without it and he shivers like a starving drug addict. He watches FOX religiously, and not intelligent commentators like Andrew Napolitano. He’s a much bigger fan of frothing psychotics such as Bill O’ Reilly, spewing baseless nonsense like a third grader’s baking soda volcano spews foam. When cornered in an argument, this type of sheeple will try every trick he knows to degrade or intimidate his opponent. When that does not work, he has no problem resorting to violence. How to get through to this sheeple? Find a sports figure, prominent Republican, or military man who talks openly about the NWO (there are some out there). Only then will he take the blinders off.
The ‘New Age’ Sheeple:
Otherwise known as “unabashed collectivists”. Not to be confused with people who do legitimate study into mythology, spiritualism, and the teachings of the ancient past. These are the folks who read Oprah throwaway books like “The Secret”, and think they have actually learned a secret.
You don’t have to walk on egg shells with New Age Sheeple when it comes to the NWO. They are just as likely to approach you about it. The problem is, they think it’s the best thing since patchouli sticks! Why? Because their vision of a one world order comes from an overexposure to Gene Rodenberry-esque fantasy and a subversive form of propaganda I like to call “Positivism”.
Most ‘New Agers’ are people who have at one point or another in their lives met with serious struggle, unlike the ‘Happy-Go-Lucky’ sheeple. However, instead of holding steady through this struggle, they gave up, curling into a ball never to put any real effort into anything substantial again. They often make elaborate excuses for themselves, and adopt Eastern philosophical concepts they don’t really understand. Zen becomes an excuse to ignore the rest of the world and focus on something pointless like underwater basket weaving. Karma becomes an excuse and vindication for any unfortunate event. Self awareness gets confused with self-centeredness. While Happy-Go-Lucky sheeple focus superficially on the outside world, New Agers focus superficially on their inner world.
New Age Sheeple do not set out to actively and physically fix problems. They follow the Positivist view, which is to ignore bad things and hope they go away, or make them go away “with their minds”. No, I am not joking. Every New Ager I have ever met holds stubbornly to the belief that if they think happy thoughts and wish hard enough, their invisible “mental energy” will change their surroundings for them. “If only everyone was blindly optimistic about everything,” they think to themselves, “our society would be perfect…” I hate to break it to them, but no amount of ‘happy vibes’ will stop an inflationary dollar implosion, or stop people who have deliberately chosen to ignore their consciences from doing terrible things.
I have spent over two decades in the martial arts, so I am well aware of the mental and spiritual energy idea. However, in the martial arts, you are taught (rightly I think) that priming ones inner focus only prepares you for struggle, it does not make struggle disappear. What the New Age really boils down to is an attempt to cut corners and slap together easy answers for the very complex and intricate problems of life. It is a lazy man’s methodology of denial in which there is no concrete reality, only “point of view”. This breeds hive-mindedness, because the search for individualism is in itself an exhausting marathon, one they would rather not undertake. Overt collectivism is much easier. All you have to do is follow the swarm. And because New Agers force themselves to become so mutable, over the years they will mindlessly adapt to any horrifying circumstance. If reality is only a “point of view”, then why not rationalize wars and holocausts as illusory blips in time?
The only way to get through to New Age Sheeple that I have found is to show them succinctly that the New World Order the Global Elites are constructing is not the same as the one they like to imagine. Making them read through UN white papers on global governance and federal documents like PDD 51 and the Civilian Inmate Labor Program can help. They will still probably think a one world government is a good idea, but at least they won’t support the Elite’s version.
The ‘Quasi-Activist’ Sheeple:
Also known as “the rebel with too many causes and not enough knowledge”. At least these sheeple are willing to leave their houses and fight for something, even if they know little to nothing about what they are fighting for or over. The problem is that their lack of insight and in-depth understanding on most issues makes them highly susceptible to manipulation. These are the “useful idiots” we hear so much about; the people who support Anarchist groups that promote Socialist ideals (uh, Socialism is contrary to the tenets of real Anarchism, guys…), the people who believe everything they are told by the CRU on global warming even though the CRU has never released original source data proving that anything they say is true, the people who blame Capitalism and free markets for the economic collapse even though we haven’t had legitimate Capitalism and free markets in over a century. Without knowing the facts behind these issues, how can one effectively involve himself in them?
Quasi-Activist Sheeple protest not so much to change the world, but to FEEL like they are changing the world. Being a part of something greater, even if it’s a sham, is a major motivator. These people are under the impression that they have an inside track on the workings of politics and culture, but the information sources they use are ultimately narrow and biased. NPR for example is not a reliable news source, and just because they speak in a monotone voice with a British accent does not mean they are educated on social undercurrents or that they are objective. Most “progressive” journalism is merely the leftist equivalent of FOX; highly saturated with disinformation and emotional button pushing. This helps to create a subculture that sees itself as “alternative”, when it is actually the flipside of the same old false paradigm coin.
The advantage of dealing with Quasi-Activists is that they do realize something is very wrong with the world. This is more than most other sheeple accomplish in an entire lifetime. The key is showing them the inaccuracy of the information sources they are too dependent on, and breaking them out of the fake left/right mental trap. As long as they continue to blame all the problems of the planet on “the right”, as long as they continue to blame generalized and fictitious opponents that were designed for them by the media, they will never understand why America continues on its self-destructive path despite all their civil discourse.
Common Sheeple Arguments
Below are listed some of the most often uttered sheeple arguments, as well as the rational responses to them.
1) The NWO is just a “conspiracy theory”:
Set aside the fact that politicians and leaders of finance talk about the New World Order constantly in speeches, books, and on nighttime television. The temptation here is to push the sheeple label and start a battle of insults. When someone accuses you of “conspiracy theory” what they are really saying is that you are a liar, crazy, or both. Of course, calling someone a liar or crazy does not negate their arguments. Hollow character attacks like this are meant to interfere or defuse legitimate and logical discussion. Force the sheeple to address the information you present instead of allowing them to make your personal character the subject of the debate. This rule goes for you too. Don’t just call them sheeple without backing up your claims and pointing out the inconsistencies in their beliefs.
2) I’m well informed and have never been a “sheep”:
Most human beings, regardless of the time they live in, think they have it all figured out. Even men in the dark ages thought they had reached the summit of understanding. They are able to perpetuate this illusion because they are rarely challenged to prove the accuracy of their information or the wisdom in their perspective. Challenge their knowledge on specific issues, and show them there is always more to learn.
3) I’m not the “sheeple”! You are because you believe in conspiracy theories:
Yes, full grown adults still use the rubber/glue tactic. Remember, one of the main threads linking all sheeple is that they believe what they believe so that they can belong, so that they can be a part of a majority. Delving into NWO research is the last thing anyone does to “fit in”. Just mentioning it can alienate friends, family, potential hot dates, etc. No one follows this information because they expect to feel accepted by the masses. They follow it because they know it is the truth.
4) The NWO is not possible because it would involve too many people. Someone would let the cat out of the bag eventually:
Actually, the Global Elites themselves let “the cat out of the bag” constantly. They speak openly about plans for world government, world financial control, population control and reduction, and they write bills and legislation that are designed to limit or erase our civil liberties. The proof is hidden in plain sight.
5) You’re connecting dots that are not there:
Neither I nor any other researcher needs to “connect dots” when we have the public admissions and documents of the Elites themselves.
6) You’re just fear mongering to get attention:
The term “fear mongering” denotes the use of lies to induce hysteria. If the information we present is true and supported by tangible facts, then how other people are affected by it is not our problem, it is theirs. Frankly, learning the truth should make a person feel empowered, not hysterical.
7) Everything is just chaos. There is no such thing as an organized conspiracy to control the world:
The events they see as chaos make perfect sense to us because we have an insight into information they do not. It’s that simple. The numerous movements in a complex time-piece might seem like chaos to someone that doesn’t know what a time-piece is, or the purpose of a gear, or second hand. Try to explain the concept of color to a blind person. Without a full accounting of the facts, it is very hard for one to know a thing. Also, a quick glance through any encyclopedia, even those with heavy editing, will reveal numerous “conspiracies” throughout history by small groups of men to rule the known world at the expense of the rest of us. Why was it perfectly plausible a hundred years ago, or fifty years ago, but not today?
8) Yeah, I know the NWO exists, but who cares! We can’t stop it, so just live your life and have fun while you can:
Nihilism is the worst kind of mental illness because it allows a person to constantly fulfill his own prophecies by doing nothing. When it comes to cultural progression, there is no such thing as the insurmountable scenario. Anything can be accomplished with the right amount of intelligence and effort. Nihilists make no effort to fix the problems they are confronted with, then claim they were right to be nihilistic because nothing changed. We have a responsibility not just to ourselves, but to the future. We have a responsibility to deal with the problems of the present, instead of pawning them off on the next generation.
9) Its all our fault that Globalists get away with murder. Most of us are just stupid:
This is only partly true. The average person does share part of the blame for not educating himself on circumstances, and for not taking action, however, ultimately it is the Elites who initiate the crimes we are then forced to either face or ignore. They are the ones that literally spend billions of dollars on propaganda designed to keep us in a fog. In the end, it is they who carry the principal culpability, not “the people”.
10) What’s so bad about a one-world government? It would be the end of war, right?:
Global government designed around a collectivist structure and ruled by men who believe themselves to be “genetically and philosophically superior” to the rest of us would not fix anything, it would only make our current problems much worse. War would be perpetual, because there will always be people who fight to be free from despotism, and even planetary governments need to create fear to manipulate the citizenry towards certain goals. Our economy would be equalized; meaning it would be equally oppressive and feudalistic for everyone. And, the liberties we hold dear today would be a distant memory tomorrow. Anyone who truly thinks that more government makes them “safer” is not just extraordinarily naÃ¯ve; they are sheeple…
Breaking The Sheeple Barrier
Sheeple can change. I have seen it with my own eyes on numerous occasions. If the sheeple you are dealing with at any given moment is a stranger, or mere acquaintance, you may not feel that it is worth the immense effort necessary to enlighten them to the problems at hand. But, if said sheeple is a family member or loved one, you might have no other choice but to push forward. There is nothing worse than seeing the people you care about suffer because you were unsuccessful in warning them of impending danger.
The above sections can help in easing through the process of waking up a member of the herd, though the best efforts will be wasted without patience and persistence. In every person there are barriers and doorways to truth. The trick is finding the unique keys which open those doors and break down those barriers. There are some who will claim that it is futile to make the attempt. That we should leave well enough alone. That many are too far gone to be helped. I beg to differ. If that was true, then the Liberty Movement would not be making the tremendous strides it is today. We did not get to where we are now by giving up when the waters became choppy, and I believe when this age is chronicled and spoken of, it will be our perseverance above all else that defines us. It is a grueling task to defeat an opponent who cannot be dissuaded, who cannot be made to give up. It is nearly impossible to defeat that same opponent when he is also right. To those in the New World Order, we are such an opponent. As long as we do not falter, the sheeple will grow thinner in number, replaced by cognizant vibrant individuals, and the warped ambitions of Globalists will not come to pass…
I'm just a American patriot who believes in freedom for all, even the ones I don't like. It's time to make a stand and take over the media, government, and police of this nation. Join me in the movement and join the forums.
The greater Vs. the lesser truth
The class action, potentially the biggest in Australian corporate history, will target the big four banks - ANZ, Commonwealth, National Australia and Westpac - and eight foreign and regional banks. It will seek the return of up to $5 billion in penalty and late fees charged over the past six years. - The Age
We also take a look at the ongoing economic turmoil in Europe and the theory that the Greek crisis is being hyped in order to centralize the power of a globalist financial oligarchy.
In the second half of the show we take a look at the controversial work of Dr. Andrew Wakefield on the links between autism and vaccination. Dr. Wakefield was the victim of a carefully orchestrated smear campaign lead by tabloid journalist Brian Deer. The attacks on Dr. Wakefield culminated in his being hauled before the General Medical Council on trumped up charges of professional misconduct.
As the interview presented below illustrates, Dr. Wakefield embodies the highest principles of ethics and takes the Hippocratic oath, "above all else do no harm", very seriously. We submit that the public humiliation and disgrace inflicted upon Dr. Wakefield is completely driven by the ruthless and morally bankrupt agenda which unites big pharma, big government and corrupt medical regulatory bodies.
- Customers queue to join bank class action
- Newspapers praise blow to vaccine claims as investigation forces MMR retraction
- Doctor Blamed for The MMR Scare Speaks Out - Dr Andrew Wakefield
- Jeremy Scahill is a Douche Bag
- Bill Gates wants to zap your testicles and create artificial clouds to stop global warming
- 'Sober' Sheen to quit sitcom: report