invisiTruth

9-11 conspiracy: A plausible motive, and an answer to “where are whistle-blowers?”

2006-03-05T11:29:00.000-08:00

I think the biggest flaw, or hole in the matter is the fact that whistleblowers/hard-evidence are sparse. And I have not found anyone who can explain why there is a shortage of them. In short, there simply must be an incentive strong enough to motivate the whistleblowers to keep silent, and make it last. Two such incentives: Fear and/or justification, perhaps both—and I have come up with a good theory for each.

In case you weren’t aware, there are many "whistle-blower" types, although not what I would call “on the inside,’ raising their heads though, according to the Washington Times

"More than two dozen former U.S. intelligence and security officers published a letter to lawmakers, criticizing the final report of the Sept. 11 commission, and calling for Congress to slow its race to implement reform.

The letter said that there are crucial omissions in both the report and its recommendations, and added that Congress has not heard "the voices of the people working within the intelligence and broader national security communities who deal with the real issues and problems day after day."

The letter was drafted by Sibel Edmonds, a contract translator for the FBI who was fired after alerting congressional investigators to problems in the bureau's translation unit. She said that many serving officials with the CIA and FBI would also have signed but were forbidden by their management from publicly criticizing the commission or speaking on the subject of intelligence policy." .......

"employees of intelligence and security agencies, such as the FBI and the Transportation Security Administration are specifically excluded from the Whistleblower Protection Act"

As expected opposing voices counter these whistleblowers stating that the people involved are hurting our country. Their basis in essence is that the former Pentagon Papers affair was wrong in that those people “leaked” the condemning documents to the media, creating a national security risk. After reviewing some of the actual papers myself, I am glad they were released to expose what I believe is right, maybe a little more discretely—doing what is right always should supersede self-interest (a.k.a. national security). Quoting Wikipedia:

“The Papers revealed, among other things, that the government had deliberately expanded its role in the war by conducting air strikes over Laos, raids along the coast of North Vietnam, and offensive actions taken by U.S. Marines well before the American public was told that such actions were necessary. All of this had happened even though president Lyndon Johnson was promising not to expand the war. The document increased the credibility gap for the U.S. government, and was seen as hurting the efforts by the Nixon administration to fight the war.”

And what about non-governmental whistleblowers ? One such “whistle-blower” is from a private company that certified the steel that went into the WTC (and also a sub under NIST govt.--organization responsible for some investigation of the collapse). Kevin Ryan (chemist) is fired for questioning why the steel collapsed. Focus on the bolded section. Taken from 911truth.org:

[NOTES: Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (company site at www.ehl.cc). EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (company site at www.ul.com). Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gayle heads the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project, see wtc.nist.gov. Dr. Gayle's biography is at wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle. The following text is taken from an e-mail forward, from Ryan to David Ray Griffin. Emphases are ours. - 911Truth.org]

---------

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle……

Date: 11/11/2004

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend

A bit touchy in my opinion to fire someone over a sincere, non-aggressive letter like this.

After looking at this comprehensive list of whistle-blowers, it appears there is a common thread of obstruction, or lack of interest in pre-9/11 investigations that may have prevented the incident (assuming the scenario that terrorists were involved). I still haven’t found hard documented, irrefutable, incriminating evidence.

How could it happen that this kind of proof has not surfaced, considering all the people it would have had to involve?

There have been a few historical cases in the U.S. of similar situations, not necessarily at the same scale, where a group of people within government did something despicable, then covered it up for a time. As previously mentioned, the Pentagon Papers may be the best example showing that we basically killed who knows how many 1,000’s of people in Vietnam/Laos to deliberately exert further our control there. And somehow, it’s “ok” in some people’s minds to do such thing since they were not Americans.

Other cases include: The abuse of power at Watergate where it happened that “the Nixon administration's abuse[d] [… ] power toward the goal of undermining political opposition in the public anti-war movement and the Democratic Party;” or, the Iran-Contra scandal where we essentially helped the perceived enemy to get weapons (which ultimately could be used against us).

Can such a secret be kept secret though? The government is good at keeping secrets, even when countless people are involved. Just think “military intelligence.” We can keep secrets for decades. Anyone exposing secrets can be silenced, ignored, or mocked—a bit harder in this case.

Ok, so government can do some back-handed things, but nothing of this scale, right? Well, let me ask you would you kill 150,000 – 300,000 defenseless people if it meant maybe saving millions of others? If you said “no,’ then just think Hiroshima/Nagasaki as precedence. Just because they were enemies, and not Americans does not make it any less wrong IMHO.

Here’s a possible moral justification then. 2,000 (people in the World trade center) people is far less to sacrifice than 300,000 (Hiroshima/Nagasaki), and we actually needed to facilitate the terrorists in 9/11—on this relatively small scale attack, to justify our invasion in Iraq because intelligence sources indicated that Saddam was planning a large scale attack on the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction. Of course, since the average American isn’t going to understand this complex situation well, we got to keep it hush-hush. If we had found those weapons, then the secret would have been self-sustaining. I won’t go into deeper motives of agendas by neo-cons, or the base desire for some individuals to get gain—exert authority/power, or amass wealth.

Since we did not uncover those weapons, we now need to add the fear factor, mentioned at the beginning of this post. Let me ask you this. If you knew about this evidence, would you be willing to come forward with it, if that meant starting a major international/civil war, which would result in the deaths of potentially millions, or billions of people, including the demise of America?

If someone did come forward with clear evidence (such as a memo detailing 9/11 plans), chances are, every country in the world, including our own citizens, would hate us and begin to attack the U.S.—in light of the fact that we did not find weapons. Had we found those weapons (the weapons part was probably a lie as well simply to further neocon agendas), AND someone leaked info, I think we would have had a mixed reaction; but nothing catastrophic.

I thought, maybe I could put up a wiki where anyone could post possible motives—with the goal of keeping it anonymous, enabling those who might actually posses information to publish something that makes sense for the rest of us.

“But out of the gobbledygook, comes a very clear thing: [unclear] you can’t trust the government; you can’t believe what they say; and you can’t rely on their judgment; and the – the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the President wants to do even though it’s wrong, and the President can be wrong.” -- H.R. Haldeman to President Nixon, Monday, 14 June 1971, 3:09 p.m. meeting.”

Your Opinion Needed on "9/11Truth"

2006-02-22T00:21:00.000-08:00

What do you think about this? i haven't made up my mind (other than further investigation is needed), but I just want you to read the key points on the subject--since there are hundreds of points. Please read through this completely before clicking on any links.
"9-11 conspiracy" or "911 truth" as it is commonly known, has gained significant ground through support by the scientific community as of late. this may be sort of old news to some, but things have changed recently.

If you think you might be turned off then let me address your points before I start (otherwise, just jump down below):

1. you don't see a motive strong enough to justify the cause.
2. you don't realize the mountain of physical evidence surmounting against the official reports (the alternative story appears more probable than the mainstream story--Occam's Razor here)
3. you simply don't care--shame, shame (I cant help you here)
4. you automatically relegate to that place along with all other conspiracy theories--because it is just that, a conspiracy theory. Well, let's not go into more right now. Just remember the physical evidence in this case--that is what is different to me here. dont get distracted by the strawman attacks, and any lame "evidence" that you may have heard.
5. etc... Point is, I, or these websites, answer these questions.

Stated by many "There are numerous red flags in the official [9-11] story, which requires a long series of highly improbable coincidences. Questioning that story is an act of responsible citizenship."

"scholars for truth" is a group of high reputation scholars accross the country's biggest universities. led by pysics professor Stephen E Jones from BYU. For an overview, http://www.mujca.com/jonesphysics.htm (yes this site is not cute, but highly esteemed by many for its approach on the subject)

The first link on their site http://www.st911.org (Why doubt 9/11?) highlights main points, and their papers explain it in clear detail. that is very outdated compared with other lists, and not that great believe it or not. In any case, i tend to often give universities more credibility than business or governement studies in a case like this since they are less likely to have a motive, especially when it puts their life/career at stake.

For hard physical evidence, read his peer-reviewed papers, especially "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. There are countless other websites with similar findings. If you prefer to think about political motivations, and prefer to watch tv, try the Dutch documentary "Andreas Von Bulow, Former German Secretary Of Defense "The official story is so inadequate and far fetched that there must be a different one." Or, this 9.1 rated (IMDB) 3 part documentary by the BBC (see summary). I haven't seen it, but its supposed to be pretty good, with weakening evidence in part 3 according to one source.

I think that in the end he may get "argued to death" out by other professors who get bought, or bullied themselves by govt. to shut him (Jones) up--Unless he and his co-scholars, rally enough support to force the govt (e.g. congress) to do a real investigation (since they only spent a measly few hundred thousand on the official FEMA report, while spending 50 mil on NASA columbia, and 40 mil on monica lewinski).

(yahoo article (there are many newspaper articles on the same topic) introducing "scholars for truth"
Yahoo Article - Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
)

There are 1000's of websites on "911 conspiracy" and "911 truth," but few so scholarly. he links to the 2 or 3 other most useful resource sites (with video footage). Many engineers support his claims (sorry, no reference at the moment as I am writing this in a hurry).

Other sites which provide the most complete and compelling data (which he references as well):

the most comprehensive, and detailed, and cited site (my favorite):
http://911research.wtc7.net

short summary which BARELY scratches the surface
Wikipedia - 911 conspiracy theories

another bulleted list with main points if you want another run-down
"The top 15 reasons to doubt the official story of Sept. 11, 2001"
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

There are a lot of sites out there, that are just that "out there." Stay focused on the ones with good evidence/sources.

My favorites are sites with detailed videos, such as those showing the buildings, especially the relatively unknown third buildind known as wtc7, which fell faster than the speed of gravity--claimed how buildings act under controlled demolitions. In case you missed the small story surrounding wtc7, it was a much smaller steel high-rise (part of the complex) quite a distance away that fell down due to fires, as fema put it. No it wasn't really in the news a lot, but it is established that a steel building never collapsed due to fire. let alone with molten steel leftovers, fell perfectly straight down (like a controlled demolition), and teh steel was quickly exported to chine. the list really drags on. Fema even changed their reason as to why it collapsed. This topic alone could keep you busy for hours with the mountain of "hey, none of this adds up."

Of course, it wouldn't be fair without looking at the opponents. Two well known articles in Popular Mechanics, and Popular Scince are poorly documented, poorly designed, and easily refuted (seems a lot of articles agree too).

Although there are some huge supporters pushing further investigation, lots of people don't want to talk about it because no one believes that someone could do something like that. Let's just ignore motives for the moment, as there are a plenty as you will come to find out. As for motives, it usually comes down to 3 things: power, glory (fame), fortune--in this case, maybe all 3 (like the fact that the guy who owned all 3 buildings got them on a 200 mil. lease, and got 3.5 - 7 bil on insurance claim, just after insuring them for the maximum amount againts terrorist acts http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html). There is even the chance that the group(s) behind it didnt expect so many people to be in the building, or perhaps, they didnt care--not everyone is a saint in this country. An easy one would be, we are sacrificing a few lives to save many (save us from saddam, nuclear warfare, "saving" saddam's people from saddam, etc.)..

to contribute your support in pushing further investigation by congress, etc... http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=GetInvolved

------------------------------------------
"I believe that all men and women are brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of God. I believe that God has given a portion of his Light to great religious leaders throughout the world, including Mohammed, Hebrew prophets, Christian Apostles, and reformers such as Tynsdale and Joseph Smith.

"My belief in God as our common Father impels me to search for truth, love and yes, peace, believing these are Divine attributes. Thus, when I learned for myself certain facts regarding what happened on 9/11/2001 and subsequent wars of aggression, I decided to speak out publicly."

~ Steven E. Jones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please leave your comments below: