by Home home
United States Department of Commerce, are independent,
and see no basis for questioning their findings.
NIST based much of their research upon computer models.
In the case of WTC 1 and 2 these models focused almost
exclusively on the impact dynamics of the plane strikes and
the claimed, resultant damage. As stated previously, they did
not model the collapses of the Twin Towers. Apparently, they
didn't think this important enough. However, in regard to
WTC 7, NIST did offer a collapse simulation.
Conspiracy theorists have said this looks nothing at all like
the collapse of WTC 7.[62] The NIST models show a twisting,
buckling of the structure as internal columns and trusses
collapse. This does not appear to be in keeping with the
symmetrical 'global collapse' everyone witnessed.
Consequently, they requested that NIST release the raw data
upon which they based their models. NIST refused to do so
saying it “might jeopardise public safety.” [63]
Conspiracy theorist engineers and architects have asked why
they should accept a computer simulation based
explanation, which looks nothing like the real world event it
supposedly describes, for which the scientific data has been
completely withheld. They also ask how releasing a report,
which professedly explains why a massive public building
collapsed, can possibly jeopardise public safety. Surely not
informing the public presents the greater danger?
Another popular question is why Larry Silverstein, owner of
the WTC complex, stated in an interview, with regard to WTC
7, that a decision was made to “pull it.” Silverstein said:[67]
“I remember getting a call from the fire
department commander, telling me that they
were not sure they were gonna be able to
contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such
terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing
to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to
pull and we watched the building collapse.”
153
A Dangerous Ideology
To 'pull' a building is a trade term commonly used by
demolition experts in reference to controlled demolition.
Silverstein's PR team, and mainstream supporters of the
NIST version of events, have claimed Silverstein was talking
about 'pulling' the firefighters from the building.
Yet FEMA, the commanding fire officer (Assistant Chief
Frank Fellini) and even Popular Mechanics all reported there
were no firefighters in the WTC 7 after 11.30 am. Conspiracy
theorists consider it is risible nonsense to suggest Silverstein
would use the very specific phrase “pull it” to refer to
evacuating firefighters (who weren't in the building anyway.)
They also point out, if the plan was to ensure no one died
'when' WTC 7 collapsed, this was a disastrous failure. Sadly
Special Officer Craig Miller perished.
However, Silverstein's alleged foreknowledge of the collapse
is nothing compared to the BBC's.
Twenty three minutes before WTC 7 collapsed, the British
Broadcasting Corporation's reporter Jane Standley discussed
the collapse of the Saloman Brothers Building (WTC 7) while
it remained standing behind her.[138] In response to what
seem to be reasonable questions about how the BBC knew
WTC 7 would collapse, 23 minutes before it did, the BBC
authorised a remarkable response on its blog.[139]
Written by Richard Porter (BBC World Service Controller of
English) the blog claimed that Standley was mired in the
confusion and chaos of the day and simply reporting on “the
best information we had.” He then went on to say the BBC no
longer had “the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for
reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy).” Fortunately for the BBC,
Standley's report had long since gone viral and was plastered
all over the Internet.
Conspiracists ask where that 'best information' had come
from, as whoever provided it clearly knew, without any
cause, that WTC 7 was going to collapse in about 20 minutes
time. What is even more remarkable is the accuracy and
completeness of the 'information.'
Prior to Standley giving her report, her London based anchor
Phillip Hayton not only knew the building would collapse but
154
A Dangerous Ideology
also why it would collapse, a full 7 years before anyone else
did. He introduced the report as follows:
“Now, more on the latest building collapse in
New York. You might have heard a few
moments ago that [we] were talking about
the
Saloman
Brothers
Building
collapsing.......and indeed it has. Apparently
that's only a few hundred yards away from
where the World Trade Center Towers were.
[and] It seems this was not as a result of a
new attack, it was because the building had
been weakened....er...during this morning's
attacks. We'll probably find out now more
about that from our correspondent Jane
Standley...........Jane, what more can you tell
us about the Saloman Brothers Building and
its collapse?”
In keeping with the coincidences that run throughout the
9/11 narrative key services, including the IRS, the EEOC,
the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the New York field office of the United
States Secret Service, just happened to be situated in WTC
7. What impact the loss of these data and control centres
had on the investigation into 9/11, and the possible fraud
inquiry for which the SEC subsequently destroyed all the
evidence, remains an open question.
In 2007 Dr Judy Wood submitted a case under the False
Claims Act (FCA) against NIST to the U.S. District Court of
New York.[65] Wood claimed that NIST (& Applied Research
Associates inc) knowingly participated in scientific fraud.
Dr Wood (Ph.D.), a former professor of mechanical
engineering, specialising is stress and material analysis,
scientifically proved that the WTC buildings turned to dust,
before they hit the ground, in her book “Where Did The
Towers Go.”[64] The seismic data she cites clearly
demonstrates that 500,000 tons of steel and masonry did
not hit the Manhattan basin in which the Towers stood. The
material fundamentally broke down into constituent
particulates, before it landed. Dispersing in the dust cloud.
155
A Dangerous Ideology
She further demonstrated clear evidence of a well-known
phenomena called the Hutchison-Effect[184] which indicated
the possible use of a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW).
Derision was heaped upon Wood, with many erroneously
alleging she suggested the use of 'space rays.'
The existence of Directed Energy Weapons is an established
fact.[179] For example, The Active Denial System, developed
by Raytheon, fires microwaves at people, burning of the skin.
Other examp
les include the Pulsed Energy Projectile (PEP),
which fires an expanding bolt of plasma at its target.
Dazzler, and Vigilant Eagle are among the wide range of
Directed Energy Weapons known to exist. Perhaps her critics
were unaware of this fact. To date, Dr Wood and her fellow
plaintiffs remain the only 'conspiracy theorists' to have
presented evidence to a court which directly accuses NIST of
scientific misconduct.
Dr Wood's case formally alleged that NIST deliberately
avoided any analysis of the Twin Tower collapses. She stated
that it was untenable to suggest that fire alone could turn
quarter mile high buildings to dust in approximately 10
seconds. NIST (and the other named defendants) must (or
should) have known this fact. Therefore, she accused NIST of
scientific fraud under the FCA. Dr Wood offered her own
considerable scientific analysis to evidence her claim.
The New York District Court summarily dismissed Dr Wood's
claim on a legal technicality. They did not address the
evidence she and her team offered. Dr Wood appealed but
the decision was upheld by the United States Court of
Appeal, despite the fact that a previous revision of the law
did allow Dr Wood's case to proceed.
The higher court acknowledged the revision, which should
have invalidated the technical dismissal of the junior court.
Had they acted upon their own conclusion, this would have
permitted Dr Wood's case to be heard. Yet they chose to
completely ignore it (and the law) and decided to uphold the
NYDC judgement. They didn't go anywhere near the evidence
offered by Dr Wood either.[65]
Regardless of her critics, Dr Wood is one voice amongst
thousands of highly qualified scientists, architects, engineers
156
A Dangerous Ideology
and professionals who question the official 9/11 narrative.
For example over 2,900 qualified architects and engineers
have signed a petition calling for an independent inquiry into
9/11.[68]
The impression given in the mainstream media, by some
academics and the political establishment, is that
conspiracists are either gullible fools, mentally ill, political
malcontents or dangerous ideologues. These traits are firmly
attached to the modern, pejorative use of 'conspiracy
theorist.' This appears to be the view shared by the public
majority.
Those of us who maintain this opinion must therefore accept
the hundreds of thousands of highly educated, eminently
qualified people, who have been branded 'conspiracy
theorists,' are also idiotic, unstable subversives.
Another notable group, who presumably suffer these
delusions, are the Pilots For 9/11 Truth.[66] There are
numerous aspects of the 4 flights involved in 9/11 they find
difficult to accept. Like their Architects and Engineer
counterparts they do not claim to have all the answers, but
are requesting an independent inquiry to establish the facts.
They state:
“We stand with the numerous other growing
organizations of Firefighters, Medical
Professionals, Lawyers, Scholars, Military
Officers, Veterans, Religious and Political
Leaders, alongside Survivors, family
members of the victims -- family members of
soldiers who have made the ultimate
sacrifice -- including the many Ground Zero
workers who are now ill or have passed
away, when we ask for a true, new
independent investigation into the events of
9/11.”
Firstly they question how the planes, that struck the twin
towers and the Pentagon, could have reportedly been flying
beyond their design parameters.
At high altitudes 767's can fly a lot faster than at 800ft. This
157
A Dangerous Ideology
is because the air is denser (due to air pressure) at sea level.
Whilst the engines can power the planes to speeds in excess
of 500 knots above 30,000ft, they lack the power to do so at
lower altitudes. Furthermore, in denser air, the drag upon
the airframe increases exponentially. Even if the engines
were capable of propelling the planes at 500 knots at sea
level, friction, due to air resistance, would rip them apart.
The problem is that video analysis[69] and the 'Radar Data
Speed Impact Study' from the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB)[70] showed that AA Flight 11 was flying at 430
knots when it hit WTC 1 and UA Flight 175 was flying at 510
knots as it struck WTC 2. Both at near sea level.
There are many experienced pilots and aeronautical
engineers and pilots who firmly believe these flight dynamics
are impossible for standard, commercial 767's. They concede
the unlikely possibility the planes could withstand the speed
induced stresses of near horizontal flight at sea level, for a
very limited period. However, they firmly reject the notion the
engines were capable of propelling them at such velocities.
Consider how quickly you can run on a track at full sprint
(not very fast at all in my case.) For a large commercial jet
airliner 'the track' is its cruising altitude. Now imagine how
much more power you would need to run at the same speed
in a swimming pool. For a jumbo jet this is analogous to sea
level flight, where the air is 3 times thicker than at its
cruising altitude. This is the crux of the pilots' argument.
The Pratt and Whitney engines on a standard Boeing 767
simply aren't powerful enough to achieve the speeds
measured.
In 1999 an Egyptian 767 was recorded as entering a
catastrophic dive at 22,000ft with an equivalent air speed
(EAS) of 425 knots. EAS is calculated as the maximum speed
an airframe can withstand at sea level. At higher altitudes
the actual speed, relative to the ground, may be greater (due
to the thinner atmosphere). Boeing rate the top EAS for a
767 at 360 knots. Therefore, prior to 9/11, the Egyptian
flights EAS of 425 knots was the fastest ever recorded speed
for a 767. This EAS was achieved because the plane was in a
steep dive. Sadly, this apparently resulted in it breaking
158
A Dangerous Ideology
apart at around 17,000 feet.
According to the official 9/11 narrative, AA Flight 11 was
flying almost horizontally at 800ft (sea level air pressure,)
travelling 5 knots faster than the Egyptian plane and 70
knots faster than its maximum EAS. UA Flight 175, under
almost identical flight conditions, achieved a staggering 150
knots above its maximum EAS. Bluntly, many conspiracy
theorist pilots and qualified aeronautical engineers don't
believe it.
Something else they don't believe is the reported flight path
of AA Flight 77 that struck the Pentagon. Firstly they are
somewhat perplexed by the NTSB's released flight data,
recovered from Flight 77's 'black box.'[87] The recorded
impact time was 09:37:45 and the last data entry was
&nb
sp; recorded a second earlier at 09:37:44. This placed AA Flight
77 at an altitude of 480ft above sea level. Some 300ft above
the Pentagon.
Despite the fact the Pentagon was covered in CCTV cameras
and advanced surveillance equipment, the only released
footage of AA Flight 77 hitting it, came from an adjacent gas
station. No plane can be seen in this footage. Therefore, the
official narrative relies upon other material evidence to
substantiate the plane's path. This included the destruction
of light poles which, if the black box data recorder is to be
believed, must have been over 300ft tall.
This raises the possibility that Flight 77 didn't hit the
Pentagon at all. However, assuming the black box data is
wrong, what was AA flight 77's officially stated approach to
the Pentagon?
According to the 9/11 Commission Report the terrorist pilot,
Hani Hanjour, took a commercial jet airliner through a 270
degree arcing dive at 400 knots, descending from 2200ft at
maximum power, before levelling off just 30ft off the ground
and flying the jet on full throttle, in perfect level flight, across
the lawn and into the side of the Pentagon. Striking it at 460
knots without leaving even a scuff mark on the grass. This is
an extremely difficult thing to do with Boeing 757 jet airliner.
Highly experienced pilots are not the only conspiracists who
159
A Dangerous Ideology
find this suggested manoeuvre an absurd proposition. While
some feel they may have been able to do this eventually,
given plenty of attempts, they state their own chances of
pulling it off perfectly, first time, to be virtually nil. However,
under no circumstances whatsoever, would the suggested
speed be possible. Hanjour supposedly achieved this physics
defying manoeuvre without any trouble at all. Yet, in
common with all the other 9/11 suicide pilots who had never
flown jets, he was very far from an experienced pilot.
In 1996 Hanjour spent 4 months at a flight school in
Scottsdale, Arizona. He didn't even manage to obtain a
licence to fly a single prop Cessna. In August 2001 he tried
to hire a small Cessna 175. After taking him out for three
test runs, flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner
refused to rent him the plane because he couldn't fly. Which
seems fair enough.[88]
What conspiracists claim is less reasonable, is to suggest
