« Home | We only believe what we want to » | Hate Mail » | Okay, I'm convinced ... sort of » | 9/11 Truth hits CNN » | Texas arresting bar patrons for being drunk » | The only answer is drugs. Lots of drugs. » | Texas Supreme Court Justice may challenge state's ... » | MichaelMoore.com plugs my paper » | An examination of the 9/11 Truth movement, part on... » | "Controlled Demolition" »

An examination of the 9/11 Truth movement, part two

Attention TNC readers!

By now you probably know that this series will not continue in The News Connection. However, The Lone Star Iconoclast has expressed a deep interest in continuing the series, and I have been getting a lot of positive feedback from their readers. Not so much up here in North Texas, though.

Journalist Henry Louis Mencken, 1880-1956, once said, "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." If you are a frequent reader of this blog, you've probably seen me invoke Mencken more than once. He is still right, even today.

We as Americans fear for our freedoms, and watch with horror at how vicious the attacks against them have been since 9/11/01. If something stinks about the "official" story of what really happened that day, wouldn't you want to know the truth? Wouldn't you begin compiling research from every source you could uncover? Wouldn't you want to tell others that there is a major controversy brewing over this traumatic, catalyzing event?

Well, I've got a bombshell for you. The Government is lying about 9/11.

I'm not stopping this series for anyone. If I did, I doubt I could maintain my sanity here in this propaganda matrix.

I hope you'll keep reading.

Stephen Webster

------------------------------------------

The Webster Retort
By Stephen Webster
Investigative Reporter
Publication date: March 31, 2006

An examination of the 9/11 Truth movement, part two

It is funny, really, how the collective human consciousness works. As I pecked away at my keyboard last week, ready and willing to discuss a topic that has been neigh-taboo for any American save the president, I had no idea that the forces of Hollywood were marshalling to the same ends. Charlie Sheen, famed star of such classics as, um, Navy Seals and The Arrival, has gone public with his doubts about the government’s version of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Sheen is just the first. He is the only soul in the government’s fifth branch to stand up and express doubt, and he is right to do so. Nevertheless, his presence in the debate is unfortunate. Introducing the ever-growing 9/11 Truth movement to the dollops of brain-washed network newshounds is nearly impossible, but a person like Charlie Sheen is perfect for the task because he is easily discountable. Well known, but not well liked. “Attack the messenger, not the message” really does work, as our recent history has shown. But there are others willing to stand up. And when the networks decide these painfully sober questions must be asked and seriously discussed, there are real people with real science ready to take the case of logic to America.

Paul Craig Roberts is one such person. Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan Administration, does not like the state of our nation. Like many conservatives these days, Roberts is angry with the Bushes for completely ignoring Reagan’s policies. He argues that “true conservatives” were the “first victims” of Team Bush, and that to continue on our current path will “bring about Armageddon.” He raises a serious quandary with statements like, “We know the government lied about Iraqi WMD, but we believe the government told the truth about 9/11.” A troubling impasse, indeed.

Another such individual is Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist for the United States Department of Labor under Shrub Jr. Reynolds is a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and the former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas. “I think it is pretty clear that 9/11 was an inside job,” he claims. Since that fateful day, Reynolds has been an active in a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Many of Reynolds’ critics point to one of his theories that many members of the truth movement have discredited. Aside from believing that the 9/11 attacks were carried out primarily through controlled demolition methods, Reynolds has claimed that passenger airliners were not used to hit either tower or the Pentagon. He claims that fake planes or military drones were used to distract observers from the previously planted explosives. Many among the Scholars group disagree with the theory, and it has been effectively debunked. Though the idea crops up in several popular 9/11 Truth documentaries, it has been pretty well established that real planes with real passengers hit those buildings.

These two men bring to the table extensive credentials as members of two Republican administrations. But all the credibility in the world will not make a Nationalist pay attention to a detractor. To the experts we go.

FEMA’s official disaster report attributed the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 on “structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires.” Once the floor-supports liquidated, the collapse began from the top with each level “pancaking,” eventually bringing the entire structure down. However, Underwriters Laboratory executive Kevin Ryan wrote a letter to the government team studying the physics of the collapses and asked they “eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.” Ryan’s company certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fire. According to him, the steel frame had been tested at temperatures over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. “[T]he buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel,” concluded Ryan.

If the “pancake” report is indeed correct, it would have taken at least 30 seconds or longer for WTC One, Two and Seven to hit the ground. I am no physics expert, but the second law of Thermodynamics is not that obscure! Towers One and Two both fell within 10 seconds. WTC 7, which was not hit by an airplane, only suffered minimal damage from debris and fell in just seven seconds – a half second longer than free fall speed.

Frank A. DeMartini, who oversaw the WTC towers’ construction, claims the buildings were built to withstand hurricanes, bombs and multiple impacts from a Boeing 707’s – the largest jetliner in service at the time. The jets that hit the towers - Boeing 747’s – are 10 feet wider and 10 feet longer, and carry 1,000 gallons more fuel, but fly much more slowly. He likened the jet’s impact to a pencil poking a hole in a metal screen. It would cause damage, but would not compromise the structure as a whole. But fires caused the collapses? The facts seem to contradict this assertion.

If the floors had “pancaked,” there would have been large chunks of concrete and broken office equipment everywhere. Parts of the towers would have toppled over sideways and caused additional damage to other buildings. Enormous steel rods would have been protruding from the wreckage hundreds of feet into the air. Instead, one member of the cleanup crew said that the largest piece of office equipment he found was a fourth of a telephone keypad. All the concrete in the tower was turned into a fine powder. The massive support rods were found snapped into sections 30-feet or shorter. FEMA loaded the steel onto trucks and shipped it to Asia to be melted down.

The WTC buildings are the only steel-frame towers to have collapsed because of fire damage in our recorded history. Last year, the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain burned for almost 20 hours. When the fire was extinguished, the steel core of the building was intact. Everything else burned away. Officials expected the building to fall, just like the WTC towers. But it performed as it was designed. Even in the aftermath of an atomic bomb, steel frame buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still standing.

Interestingly enough, a few days after the attacks, FEMA claimed to have found one of the hijackers passports several blocks away from ground zero. But the plane that this person was on? They never even recovered the black box, let alone parts of its engines or cabin. And the 19 hijackers the FBI named? Six of them are alive and well. More on that next week.

In the mean time, I wholeheartedly recommend reading “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” by David Ray Griffin. It’ll tighten your wig.

Stephen Webster is an Investigative Reporter and Syndicated Columnist with The News Connection, a Staff Columnist with George W. Bush’s hometown weekly The Lone Star Iconoclast, and a former Contributor to The Dallas Morning News’ Science & Technology section. For more of Webster’s musings, visit The Gonzo Muckraker.

Links to this post

Create a Link

The Weird, Turned Pro.

Created by The Gonzo Muckraker
Based in Dallas, Texas
More about the author.
----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------
Stories I'm Digging today ...