[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Breaking my silence on 9/11 Truth OpEdNews Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_kus_070328_breaking_my_silence_.htm Breaking my silence on 9/11 Truth By John Kusumi Initially I preferred to keep silent about the 9/11 Truth Movement, to not be diverted from my issue. I've been associated with the China Support Network, being its founder, and in recent years, I give my speeches in that vein exclusively. That means, I have a cause and I don't need a spare cause, nor a soapbox, nor a reason to be known in the public discourse, where I've contributed since 1980. My 9/11 article is written, not oral; in any public appearance, I remain on the China issue. The article is volunteered and not sponsored; I simply think it fair to have the question, "What happened on 9/11?", and to have the indicated investigation that is genuine and impartial, rather than a whitewash. Read on, to where I suggest a role for Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Recently, Rosie O'Donnell raised the issue of 9/11 Truth, questioning how one or more of the buildings fell in New York City on September 11, 2001. Also, actor Charlie Sheen has come out with his own questions and concerns about what happened that day, and we've learned that he will narrate an updated version of Loose Change, a documentary that questions the official story of 9/11. This led to mentions on television by Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, top conservative commentators who seem to have replaced George Will and Bob Novak. (Note to youngsters: The latter were leading conservative commentators in the post-Watergate period. What's Watergate? Check Wikipedia.) I cannot be counted a fanatic on the issue of 9/11 truth. I do my share of writing, publishing, and speaking; and, but for one related blog post, this is my first article on the subject. The standard that I would like to uphold is truth, period -- something that all should care about, and that journalists in particular should be finicky to discern and record accurately. The field of journalism at least bills itself to be concerned about non-fiction and a first draft of history. I believe that non-fiction and truth are synonyms, and that to sweat these details ought to be right up the alley of U.S. journalists. Imagine if you will a bumper sticker that says: "Pearl Harbor: Roosevelt Knew." In the 1940s, there were many very staunch, patriotic citizens, who likely had full faith in their President Roosevelt (FDR) and for whom our hypothetical bumper sticker may hurt, or sting deeply. The sticker could be rejected on the simple basis that it is alien to the world view, held by those observers, of FDR as an upright and above-board U.S. President. More recent research, however, has convinced many historians that the sticker is indeed accurate. I believe that even our mainstream commentators have allowed the same, so that we now have an accepted view of history, to wit that Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. If so, then the truth behind Pearl Harbor becomes LIHOP -- Let It Happen On Purpose. The above paragraph does NOT prove anything about 9/11. If people make bumper stickers saying, "9/11: Bush Knew," then they still must make their case. For those who assert provocatively, there is an onus or a burden of proof. Words are not "more true" on a bumper sticker, and "less true" elsewhere. The standard of proof is not in the placement of the words. However, I believe and would stand behind a bumper sticker that said: "Tiananmen Square: Bush Knew." (That refers to the elder President Bush, who gave a nod and a wink to Chinese leaders before their troops went to Tiananmen Square. Chinese leaders MIHOP -- Made It Happen On Purpose.) For those who are toying with the possibilities, alternate explanations for 9/11 include (a.) "we were surprised -- they got one by us (totally innocent);" (b.) "we were warned, but we failed to connect the dots (totally incompetent);" (c.) LIHOP (partial inside job, partially sinister); and (d.) MIHOP (an inside job, totally sinister). The official explanation has already migrated, since the early days, from (a.) to (b.). Perhaps one reason why I've avoided 9/11 Truth as a topic is due to its parallel with rejecting the "Roosevelt knew of Pearl Harbor" thought, as above. Explanations (c.) and (d.) for 9/11 entail the culpability of someone in our own government. It is alien to the world view that the U.S. Government protects Americans. In this case, Americans were harmed by perpetrators who were clearly evil, and it is harsh -- indeed anguishing -- to contemplate the case if it were that the hand of evil was partly domestic. Culpability within our own government would make 9/11 the crime of the century. I will not take up the job of re-iterating the case that's been made by the 9/11 Truth Movement. But, increasing numbers of questions have been uncovered, and the awareness of prior warnings, given to the U.S. government in advance, has increased. The number of warnings reported has risen since the early days -- the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This means that we know more now, than previously. For brevity, I'd care to focus on three points that I'll call, "Tip-off #1, Tip-off #2, and The Nub Of The Matter." To me, Tip-off #1 is a point that I earlier blogged: "It seems ridiculously implausible that the FBI tracked down 19 mug shots of 19 hijackers, and got that to the news media the same day as the attacks! Again, without inside knowledge, but with general awareness of the working world, how it goes, and what's plausible -- I look at that, and I say to myself, 'prepared slide.'" Each airplane had more than five passengers. Full investigation took less than a day, and the FBI knew precisely who among the passengers was "in" and "out" of the conspiracy. This was reported with certitude the same day, and the official slide with the 19 men remains an enduring memory, seared in there without additions or deletions. (Where we might have expected a developing story, the slide did not change, although some of the hijackers were reported to be alive and well, still living in the Middle East.) The mere fact that the FBI had those 19 mug shots "tips off" their prior familiarity with these men. Tip-off #2 is a recent point. In late February, 2007, the 9/11 Truth Movement released BBC video from 9/11, in which the BBC reported that building seven had collapsed IN ADVANCE. That is to say that the building was still standing while the BBC reported the demise of the building. The timing of their story was off. Half an hour later, the building came down and "got on the page." It seems that Aaron Brown over at CNN made a similar report, that the building was toast before it was in fact toast. 9/11 was certainly a day of "on the ground" events happening. But Tip-offs #1 and #2 each strongly suggest that 9/11 was also a day of news being spoonfed by the media. The early report of building seven collapsing (at BBC and CNN) was not from eyewitnesses on the ground. The faulty information had to come from somewhere (A prepared plan? A press release?) other than eyeballs on the scene. Where did the media get this information, and who was spoonfeeding it to them? Let's move to the nub of the matter. Many in the 9/11 Truth Movement are screaming that controlled demolition brought the buildings down. The original designs and plans for the World Trade Center were meant to withstand a jetliner impact, although we can admit that the designs probably contemplated earlier planes and less jet fuel. Hence, I believe that the towers natively would have withstood impact from a circa 1970 Boeing 737, and that the real difference in the case of 9/11 was "all that jet fuel." The official explanation of 9/11 hinges on the idea that "all that jet fuel" brought the towers down. (And, in my view, the official explanation cannot explain the fall of building seven, which did not even have an airplane impact.) What's true is this: jet fuel has a particular temperature at which it burns, and steel has a particular temperature at which it melts. These are empirically measurable, so there need not be different melting points for liberals, conservatives, mainstreamers, and "loony wack job internet conspiracy theorists." It is America's chronically-lame news media that is so quick to be so judgmental -- or at least, it was Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck who, on their shows, seemed to circle the wagons for "mainstream thinking" -- at the expense of others, who were the recipients for name-calling and ad hominem attacks. (Note to youngsters: Ad hominem or "to the man" attacks never prove anything. If person A says that "X is true," and then person B says "Yah well, A is a Communist," that does not prove that X is false. X will be true or false, independently of whether A is a Communist. Even Communists can say true things --so really, personal details about A are irrelevant to X.) In their recent televised statements, O'Reilly and Beck "took sides," fulfilling their (God-given? Bush-given?) roles as defenders of "official truth." And, it seems to me, this taking of sides was in the absence of kicking the tires or full investigation. (An entire separate article could be made with the reservations about the 9/11 Commission.) If we actually cared to get to the bottom of 9/11, I believe that we would measure the temperature of burning jet fuel, and the melting point of structural steel. I've never done it personally, so perhaps I could still join Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck -- I do not know the outcome of the test that I propose. (Are there published specifications that state these two temperatures? Yes, but the 9/11 Truth Movement is where arguments have broken out over empirical data. One side or the other might warn me against trusting a high school chemistry book, so I am now too skeptical for any approach that cannot "show me." It remains true, for me, that seeing is believing.) I want to see a test in which they try to melt steel with jet fuel. While I personally lack a handy supply of either, there are 50 State Governors who could order their National Guard to undertake this test (and, if Fox and CNN want to save their credibility, they could fund this test). A vat of jet fuel should be prepared, perhaps sunken into the ground as in a foundation or a back yard swimming pool. A steel girder meeting the same specifications as WTC columns should be placed across this vat. I don't require a re-creation of the towers; just one girder. For good measure, one could place a heavy weight like a wrecking ball atop the girder. Then simply ignite the vat and let the jet fuel burn. Show me that jet fuel can melt steel. Here, I have devolved the case to a test of an empirical nature with a boolean outcome: the test either will, or will not, melt the steel. If it will, then I will be more ready to believe the official story. If it will not, then "Houston, we have a problem," and a full explanation of 9/11 must then involve more effort to bring down the towers; more than merely the thought of letting the jet fuel burn to do its thing. What's notable about America's news media has been its LACK of inquiry, curiosity, and skepticism. As one of the biggest atrocities against Americans on our own soil, 9/11 should logically be the MOST deserving of investigation, skepticism, and critical inquiry. O'Reilly and Beck share that "oh so certain" quality of the suave, sophisticated media announcers who read the news from Easy Street, while truth-seekers are derided for being "out of the mainstream." How sure are they, really? How will they react to my proposal of this test? Are they just smoothies who are putting one past the public? This test could tell us the answer, and for one more requirement: --I want it to be Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck who presses the button to ignite the jet fuel. Either the girder, or their credibility, will become toast. Authors Website: http://www.kusumi.com Authors Bio: John Kusumi, in 1984, was the independent "18-year-old" for U.S. President. Presidential politics has no earlier introduction of "the politics of practical idealism," which Kusumi championed with his "People Are Important" bumper stickers. He continues to work on a manuscript, 'Genocidal Correctness' to define and debunk "the reservation" of "mainstream thinking." See http://Kusumi.com.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 43.
#2. To: Kamala (#0)
How about jet fuel melting steel across the street? WTC-7 is a REAL eye opener. (Among NUMEROUS others).
WTC 7 is a big issue with me, too. As for whether the planes crashing into the twin towers could have brought them down, I am satisfied that it could have and probably did. The reason I say this is that the planes hitting the towers alone would have accomplished all the objectives that 9-11 (assuming it was an inside job) planners could have hoped for. What use in blowing up the buildings in addition (and assuming the additional risk of being caught)? Building 7 is a horse of a different color, and it sure looks like a controlled demo to me.
So let's see if we have your theory right ... The planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2, and bringing them down, was just a cover for the deliberate destruction of WTC7. Is that it???
The planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2, and bringing them down, was just a cover for the deliberate destruction of WTC7. Is that it??? I don't have a theory. I'm a liberal and we're open minded. What I'm saying is that I haven't heard you come up with a coherent reason for building 7 coming down, or the fact that it was announced as having collapsed before it did by the BBC and others, or the fact that someone said "we made the decision to pull-it", or the fact that when it comes down the roofline stays intact and it collapses into its own footprint. I haven't heard a reasonable explanation for WTC7 from the official conspiracy theorists like yourself that rebuts the unofficial conspiracy theorists. I seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a bunch of highly connected American people wanted to bring down the WTC they could co-opt a former CIA asset (Bin- Laden) to recruit some crazy Muzzies to fly the planes, and plant some explosives to make sure the job got done completely. Who knows? Maybe the plane that went down in PA was supposed to hit building 7. All I know is that there's no good reason why a structurally sound building with only minor fires that was located across the street from the Towers should have collapsed. You've posted fairly convincing diagrams of the impacts of planes on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers; and I don't have to believe they were blown up to understand how they could have collapsed from being hit by planes. What I haven't seen is a solid explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, which fell like a house of cards collapsing.
Well let's see. The structure was hit by large chunks of falling debris. As one of the videos someone published today shows some of that debris was really hot ... glowing, in fact. So in addition to opening up some rather extensive holes in the structure (firemen described one about 20 twenty stories high in the center of one face), it also set the building on fire. A fire which burned, basically without firefighting, for close to 7 hours. That seems coherent enough. And curiously enough, there is only one demolition expert in the whole world that seems to think WTC was a controlled demolition. And he came to that conclusion after just watching a videotape supplied by a conspiracist such as yourself, without knowing that what he was watching was part of 9/11, without knowing that the building had been on fire for hours, and without knowing that firemen had said the structure was starting to lean long before the collapse. And based on other statements by that *expert*, he seems to have been predisposed to thinking in terms of conspiracies. But even so, note that that expert said WTC1 and WTC2 were definitely not controlled demolitions. Not a complete wacko ... Actually, what was said is that "I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Pull it in that context could certainly mean pulling the firefighters out. Furthermore, several demolition organizations are now on record saying that the term "pull it" is NOT used to describe an explosives demolition of a building. One of them happens to be that of the demolition expert I mentioned above. You might find this of interest. It's by one of the premiere demolition outfits in the world, Protec. ********** http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf "Our company's archived recordings of original news broadcasts from the morning of 9/11 begin well prior to the collapse of the first tower and continue uninterrupted beyond the collapse of WTC 7. These original unedited recordings have allowed us to compare and scrutinize the collapse of all three structures free from any possibility of image tampering or modification. In addition, we have examined dozens of freelance and amateur video recordings incorporated into various documentary programs chroniclying 9/11 and studied countless ground-based and aerial images captured by private, press and government-contracted photographers. Protec and its employees have not been paid or hired by anyone to analyze this event, nor do we possess any political affiliations or contribue to any political party or individuals. We have undertaken this endeavor entirely at our own expense, with the singular goal of facilitating constructive dialog and providing a factual voice of reason to our friends and associates who were affected by the attack." ... snip ... As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower's collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from the footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north) the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure. ... snip ... 2. "We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway." ... snip ... 4. Saying, "No airplane hit it" implies the structure suffered minimal effects from the planes crashing into the adjacent towers. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Video and photographs of the north tower collapse clearly depict substantial upper sections of the building falling outward and inpacting WTC buildings 6 and 7. This was not a glancing blow from extraneous material, rather thousands of tons of steel girders falling directly into the building from hundreds of feet above. WTC 7 sustained significant impact damage to its southwest corner up to the 18-20th floor, or a little less than halfway up the building. There was also significant damage to the building's south face, although dense smoke present in most photos hinders an exact assessment. Other photos depict several lower floors fully involved in a large fire that either began upon impact or shortly thereafter, and most experts point to the large stockpile of diesel fuel stored in the basement as the likely catalyst. WIth most local firefighting equipment destroyed and the search for survivors being of primary concern, these intense fires were left to burn uncontrolled for more than six hours, further compromising the already badly damaged structure. Given these facts, any implication that WTC 7 was not substantially affected by the original plane crashes is not accurate." 5. Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless ... we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming ... but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went." ***************
There are no replies to Comment # 43. End Trace Mode for Comment # 43.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||