Why Bushco Should be Prosecuted for 911

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

There is not a shred of credible and/or admissible evidence to support the Bush administration's official conspiracy theory of 911. The theory is ludicrous on its face --that 19 Arab Hijackers, coordinated from deep inside a cave in the mountains of Tora Bora managed to hijack four commercial airliners with which --it is theorized --they attacked the United States. There is absolutely no evidence to support what is, in fact, a ludicrous, stupid, utterly baseless conspiracy theory.

Right wing partisans concocted it knowing, of course, that Americans have been conditioned by previous GOP regimes to embrace lies and bullshit! At first, it was enough to marginalize critics: just call them conspiracy theorists or truthers. Not merely ludicrous, this is desperate name-calling, a tactic often motivated by guilt and associated with diminishing IQs.

The conclusion consistent with a growing body of peer-reviewed science is this: nothing said by Bush about 911 is true. Secondly, Bushco's ludicrous cover story is the looniest conspiracy since Ali Baba and his 40 thieves! They, too, were 'co-ordinated' from inside a cave but without cell phones! Ali Baba was a thief! Bush, however, is a mass murdering traitor to the people of the United States.

Any theory -especially an 'official' one -must meet certain minimum criteria:

• It must be verifiable!
• Unless it is a revolutionary discovery in the field of physics (like Einstein's Relativity, for example) it must be consistent with the established science of physics.
• It must be consistent with Occam's razor, that is, it must explain rather than raise additional issues or insoluble problems. That's why Einstein's theory survived. It explained. It did not obfuscate. It simplified much of our understanding of the universe by equating gravity with a curvature of space-time.
• It must articulate the 'probable cause' that a crime was committed and the 'probable cause' to begin a specific investigation of suspects not upon 'reasonable suspicion' but 'probable cause'.

It is the job of theory to explain and any theory that does not explain must be trashed. It's time to trash the 'official conspiracy theory' of George W. Bush. It's time to act upon the 'probable cause' that it was the Bush regime itself which conspired, perhaps with foreign entities, to perpetrate a treasonous mass murder in order to accomplish the following goals:

• Justify attacks and invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq
• Secure the oil fields of Iraq for the benefit of Bush's 'oil industry sponsors'!
• Justify and attack civil liberties and due process of law in the U.S. as specifically articulated in the U.S. Patriot Act itself, a law that must be utterly repudiated with massive civil disobedience!

The events of 911 accomplished all these goals with ease fooling a shocked, stunned American public in the bargain. The short list of fatal problems with the official conspiracy theory include numerous false statements by Bush and members of his administration. Demonstrable lies told about 911 are themselves criminal acts and should be prosecuted. When Bush lied to Congress and to the American people about 911, he broke the law; he committed an impeachable offense, a criminal offense for which he may still be prosecuted and sentenced. His order to attack and invade Iraq is itself a war crime, a violation of U.S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 which prescribes the penalty of death!

(a) Offense. Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

--U.S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 War crimes

The lies told about 911 are designed to mislead the public and hide from them the truth. The best suspects are Bush, his NEOCON co-conspirators, the leadership of the GOP, various Pentagon brass, and other complicit murderers inside the Axis of the Military/Industrial Complex and K-Street, specifically the so-called 'Jewish Lobby' which exploits the specter of 'Arab' terrorism to extort BILLIONS from the U.S! This gang of crooks, liars and traitors are responsible for perpetrating the treasonous, murderous crime of 911. Bush is the primary suspect for several reasons:

• Those who lie about crimes do so to cover up guilt. Bush has never told the truth about 911.
• Bush has not merely lied; he has actively, consistently and deliberately tried to cover up the crime of 911 with overt and identifiable instances of obstruction of justice, lies, and overt intimidation. This --I believe -is persuasive evidence of his guilt and/or complicity.

Tim Roemer let the cat out of the bag when, like Donald Rumsfeld, he referred to a 'missile' that struck the Pentagon. In addition, there were the early news reports before 'officialdom' was able to insist that the media report only the official conspiracy theory. Those early reports consisted of anchors like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings talking about 'controlled demolitions', field reporters declaring that no airliner had struck the Pentagon, and, of course, the famous BBC report that WTC7 had fallen even as it was seen still standing behind the reporter.

Who lies about a crime? An innocent person? Indeed, NO! An innocent person has an interest in making sure the truth about a crime is known. By contrast, only the guilty are motivated to lie about a crime. Lies about crimes are told in order to hide the truth.

Lies about crimes are obstructions of justice. If told under oath they are perjury. Lies about crimes speak to the issue of guilt because lies about crimes are told by the guilty in order to cover up the crime and escape punishment. Only an idiot would order the destruction of evidence if it might clear him/her of charges and/or prove his innocence. A guilty person, on the other hand, is motivated to:

• lie about the crime
• destroy evidence that might convict him
• blame others for his own deeds
• mislead the public

Bush has done all of those thing and all of those things speak to his guilt! The best suspects are Bush, his NEOCON co-conspirators, the leadership of the GOP, various Pentagon brass, and other complicit murderers inside the Axis of the Military/Industrial Complex and K-Street! This gang of crooks, liars and traitors are responsible for perpetrating the treasonous, murderous crime of 911. Bush is the primary suspect for several reasons:

• Those who lie about crimes do so to cover up guilt. Bush has never told the truth about 911.
• Bush has not merely lied; he has actively, consistently and deliberately tried to cover up the crimes of 911 with overt and identifiable instances of obstruction of justice, lies, and overt intimidation.

The vehemence with which the Bush theory is defended in the face of reason and fact is a clue that this theory is not merely wrong, it is a deliberate lie, a cover story intended to hide to the truth. 'Truth' itself is demonized in defense of lies! The liars should be required to testify before a Federal Grand Jury investigating this act of high treason and mass murder against the sovereign people of the United States. And, if they should lie to the Grand Jury, they should be arrested, charged and locked up! Some may elected to tell truth to avoid this bad outcome. Some may choose to sing like canaries. Some may point the accusing finger at Goerge, Dick, and Donald. Some may implicate the so-called 'Jewish Lobby' or "Mossad'!

Any 'theory' that raises more issues than it explains is a bogus theory; any theory which requires that the many holes in it must be patched up is best discarded in favor of:

• a new investigation an assessment of verifiable facts not additional baseless assertions
• an insistence upon a theory consistent with established and verified science.

There might have been an investigation! What happened? Who brought the hammer down? Who managed to shut up people like FBI Director Robert Mueller who stated that there is no evidence to connect the 'said' 19 'hijackers' with the events of 911.

The 'official' NTSB flight data was released upon an FOIA request. That data places FLT 77 at an altitude of 273 feet above the ground with about a second of impact with the Pentagon which is just 71 feet tall! And --to clear up an ignorant suggestion --the altitude derived from the data released by NTSB is 'above ground', not above 'sea level'.

How did the American public manage to forget that several of the alleged 'hijackers' were interviewed by the BBC after they were said to have died in the attacks. How did the mainstream media miss what should have been the lead story on every major network and that is: there are no hijacker names on the pathologists report released to Dr. Olmsted in response to an FOIA request. There is, therefore, no evidence that Hanjour's remains were autopsied, no evidence that his remains were even recovered or buried in Arlington National Cemetery. There is no evidence that any 'alleged' hijacker ever board any airliner at any time over the period of time in question.

There is no evidence that Hani Hanjour was at any time on any flight connected with 911. The Washington Post reported than Hanjour was not on board Flight 77 because he did not have a ticket. [Washington Post, 9/16/01] It's hard to imagine Hanjour -a skinny 120 lbs -overpowering the crew, forcing his way on board armed only with a box cutter, forcing the hunky pilot and co-pilot out of the cockpit and not only flying the 200 ton airliner but maneuvering it in ways that experienced pilots say is simply impossible. This is not Alice in Wonderland and we are not required to believe six impossible things before losing our lunches. [apologies to Lewis Carroll]

There is, in fact, no case against the 'alleged' 19 Arab Hijackers whatsoever. There is no probable cause to indict them! There is no admissible evidence. There was no case! There is no reason to believe the Bush cover story with respect to 911, Iraq, the nuclear threat, the raison d'etre for the illegal presence of the US in the Middle East. There is no defense against mass murder and war crimes charges against Bush, the government of the United States, the Pentagon brass and co-conspirators throughout K-Street and the Military/Industrial complex!

Major Holes in the Official Lie

There are no Arab names on the autopsy report of Fl 77 victims released to Dr. Olmsted in response to his FOIA. Now --an autopsy report is official, admissible in court. It has bona fides. But anyone can type up a 'passenger list' at anytime, even after the fact. But an autopsy report is evidence. The passenger list is just a meaningless piece of paper that proves nothing. Not a scrap of airliner wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever found at either the Pentagon or PA. Anyone still believing Bush's theory, I say: prove it! Show me the wreckage. If you believe an airliner crashed into the Pentagon, show me the fuselage.

There are more troublesome problems with this aspect of the crime called 911. Proponents of the official theory have often maintained that all the passengers on board Fl 77 were not only autopsied, they were identified by sampling DNA. In the next breath, they will 'explain away' the fact that no fuselage traceable to any airliner of any sort was ever recovered and/or photographed on the Pentagon lawn. It 'vaporized' in the heat, they say. I have bad news for these 'theorists', these violators of Occam's razor and that bad news is this: every reputable scientific source, journal or university source I have consulted agrees that Aluminum vaporizes at 11,000 degrees F which NASA says is about 1000 degrees hotter than the surface of the sun! If Fl 77 burned, it did so at Kerosene fire --camp fire --temperatures! And Kerosene fire temperatures are insufficient to either melt steel or vaporize aluminum!

The Worst is Yet to Come

It must be pointed out that to posit a 'vaporization theory' is to concede that no fuselage traceable to a 757 was ever recovered; else --why try to why no airliner fuselage was found. Bush proponents are left with facts that utterly destroy their position: there was no fuselage, there was no wreckage, there was no airliner! Bush lied about acts of high treason and mass murder in order to cover them up! There are but two motives to lie about it: a) he is held hostage my the axis of CIA/Mossad; b) he is a willing partner, a traitor, a mass murderer!

"Multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity."

A U.S. Global Hawk was, in fact, flown by remote control from the U.S. to Australia completely by remote control. The test was a success. And so too it's lethal and murderous strike on the Pentagon where it deposited and left behind its rotor! Pennsylvania

There are photographs of a ditch in PA, a small ditch at that. We are expected to believe that a 757 managed to bury itself via that small ditch. I don't think so! I have bad news for the official theorists and a much better, common sense explanation: a) the ditch was dug by the backhoe clearly seen in photographs of the scene; b) like the Pentagon, there was absolutely no wreckage found that was or is traceable to a 757; c) no --the 757 did not penetrate the earth like a meteorite.

Not even meteorites do that. Meteorites break up upon impact, exploding creating a crater. They do not bury themselves into the ground unless the ground is either molten or marshy and the PA was neither.

I grew up within ten or twenty minutes of the world's third largest meteor crater near Odessa, TX. Back the in the 30s the University of Texas attempted an expensive retrieval of a 'mass' that was hoped had buried itself beneath just inside the Earth's outer crust. It was hoped that the mass would be found, retrieved, studied. It didn't happen because there was no such large mass.

Most meteorites explode on impact which explains the fact that around a meteorite crater may be found huge chunks of stony-iron meteorites. The Odessa crater, it is believed, is but a fragment of a much larger mass that continued on to crash into Arizona. Briefly --NO! Flight 93 did NOT bury itself beneath the top soil. Neither meteorites nor airliners bury themselves under the soil like a gopher. Both meteorites and airliner leave behind clearly identifiable 'wreckage'! And to those who believe an airliner did a gopher routine in PA, I say: PROVE IT! Dig it up and show me! Otherwise shut up!

And, if you happen to be a part of the Bush team, give yourself up and submit to prosecution for accessory to mass murder and high treason!

Has anyone put forward an explanation for the existence of the backhoe? There is no other evidence of any other 'work' underway at that location. One must conclude that the backhoe raison d'etre was the creation of a 'ditch' that Bushies could point to and say: Fl 93 buried itself into the earth there! BS!

Hijacked Flights Had Been 'Mothballed'

There is a cloud of suspicion about all the flights that were said to have been involved with 911. American Airlines itself made an entry on WIKI that none of the AA flights said to have been involved in 911 had been scheduled to fly that day, indeed, had not been scheduled to fly for the previous six months. What does the 'official conspiracy theory' have to say about that? The 'official conspiracy theory' cannot explain why only 'mothballed' flights were was suddenly pressed into 'service' on 911, pressed into service which would result in every one of them being utterly incinerated, vanished, buried in a rabbit hole in PA, or, perhaps beamed into another dimension. As of this date, no one has yet produced a single scrap of wreckage that that has been or is traceable to any of the flights that are 'alleged' to have been involved in the events of 911.

How does the 'official conspiracy theory' explain how flights not scheduled to fly managed to get into the air that day?

The information from AA changes the paradigm by raising compelling doubt that the said flights flew at all! At the very least, the burden of proof is upon Bushco to prove that the flights flew. It is incumbent upon the official conspiracy theorists to explain why the said flight were suddenly taken off the 'no-fly' list on this day of all days! Why? Bushco must explain the timing and the reason for the sudden change!

The Spontaneous Collapse of WTC 7

WTC 7 was NOT struck by an airliner yet it collapsed but not before its collapse was reported by a BBC reporter while it was still standing for TV viewers to see still standing behind her as she reported its collapse. If there is an innocent explanation, I have never heard it! Moreover, the collapse of WTC 7 is completely inexplicable and utterly unexplained by Bushco's official conspiracy theory. I suggest that whomever 'leaked' the report to BBC knew that the collapse was imminent. Their timing was bad! With any luck, their timing may yet prove fatal!

The 'Buscho Official Conspiracy Theory' is Impossible

Therefore, it is a lie! Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes said: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!" The key points of the official conspiracy --the Pentagon Strike, the backhoe ditch in PA --have eliminated essential ingredients of the official lie. I am content to let the work of my friend Dr. David Griffin and Professor Steven Jones address the utter impossibility of the official stories with regard to the Twin Towers. The collapse of wTC 7 is an obvious controlled demolition, the fall of which was reported before it happened.

I will venture but one scenario at this point: a US GLOBAL HAWK was programmed to strike the Pentagon. It carried a conventional payload --not a nuclear one. It left behind a 'smoking gun', an engine rotor traceable to a U.S. Global Hawk and it would have been had there been a real investigation.

Bushco ordered the destruction of evidence. The destruction of material evidence of a crime IS a crime and should be prosecuted. It has not been as yet but there is no statute of limitations on mass murder, nor, I believe, high treason, nor violations of U.S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441, war crimes triggered by the events of 911!

As most of the evidence has been destroyed upon orders from Bushco, the above approach, I believe, is all that we have left. Keep in mind, however, that the above cited U.S. carry with them the death penalty for violations resulting in death. How many civilians have died in both Afghanistan and Iraq because Bush participated in the events of 911? How U.S. citizens have likewise died because they were ordered to attack and kill Iraqis though Iraq had nothing to do with 911, in fact, had nothing but the oil that was coveted by Dick Cheney's 'Energy Task Force' which met, before 911, for the purpose of carving up the oil fields of Iraq! I ask you: what guilty knowledge would motivate the conspirators if not the guilty knowledge that soon, the U.S. would find a way to be at war with Iraq!

In the meantime, evidence that would earn Bush a death sentence was destroyed for the same reasons that EVIDENCE is destroyed in every other cover up of every other crime since crime became profitable. The evidence was removed and ordered destroyed by 'usual suspects', suspect who might have been convicted by it and sentenced to death! Death is motive enough for guilty peole to cover up their crimes, destroy evidence and lie about their crimes! The evidence was ordered destroyed by Bush to protect the guilty. Who BUT the guilty are most motivated to ORDER the destruction of evidence? The corollary is also true: only an IDIOT would order the destruction of evidence IF it would clear him of all charges or, in other ways, prove his innocence. In that scenario --Bush is either GUILTY or he is an idiot. He just wants to you think he's a completely idiot! Never fear, he is smart enough to save his own sorry ass!

The demonstrable lies told by this gang of traitors is probable cause to convene an independent Federal Grand Jury that will use the power of the subpoena to 'roundup the usual suspects' --Bush, Cheney, Rummie, Rice, Myers, various Pentagon Brass and Bush partisans inside the CIA. Recall --that Bush Sr was, at one time, director of the CIA and there is evidence he had connections with the CIA at the time of the JFK assassination.

It is my hope that a Federal Grand Jury will 'round up the usual suspects', subpoena them, and prosecute them for the lies that will be proven! By law, anyone knowingly spreading Bush's lie with respect to 911 are guilty of obstruction of justice. That surely applies to anyone in the Bush administration which knew better but fell into line and supported the Bush cover story anyone. I urge these people to come forward. A compassionate prosecutor may find it useful to be merciful to anyone willing to tell the truth about how the Bush administration may have conspired and assisted Mossad in a murderous, treasonous attack on the people of the United States. Should one among these traitors cracks and spills the beans so much the better.

SPECIAL TO AmerCIAnassassinations:

Re-posting my articles without my permission and without both byline credit AND a link back is an illegal infringement of copyright and a violation of your Blogger T.O.S. You have done it several times and I will file a formal complaint with Blog Spot.

I have often given other bloggers permission to cross-post, excerpt and, in other ways, share links and information. 'Fair use' often covers quoting or citing original or differing sources and, in those cases, a citation and a link back is considerate. In every case, there is reciprocity. I have found at least two of my recent articles in their entirety on the above named site and there is no link back or author credit given. I find this to be an egregious breach of common sense and etiquette. Stop ripping me off!

---

---

Prosecute the NIST for Obstruction of Justice

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

NIST may have deliberately lied about the collapse of Building 7 --said to have been 'pulled' even by Larry Silverstein, its owner. The NIST, charged with investigating the building's collapse, is still trying to peddle the absurd ex post facto rationalization that 'heat expansion' is responsible for the perfectly symmetrical collapse of a building that had never been struck by aircraft.

Lies about crimes are crimes. 911 was a crime. Lies about 911 are obstructions of justice. NIST lied about 911 and now, a group urging a real investigation of 911, is suing to charge NIST with obstruction of justice.

Prosecute NIST 'Authors for Lying About Building 7

In case after case, scandal after scandal, American federal law enforcement officials have clearly shown by their indictments and prosecutions that there is no confusion in their minds—lying is a crime. Businesspersons need to clearly understand those rules and what prosecutors define as lying.

In recent corporate scandals, some executives have learned the hard way that lying is still a crime in corporate America. Martha Stewart was accused of selling her ImClone stock allegedly after receiving insider information. However, she was not convicted of securities fraud. She was instead convicted for lying. In addition, Computer Associates executives were indicted and some have already pleaded guilty for lying to their own company’s attorney during an internal investigation when their lies were passed on by their attorney to the government.

--Linnea B. McCord, JD, MBA, Kim Greenhalgh, JD, and Michael Magasin, JD, The rules regarding lying in business in the U.S. are currently being vigorously enforced

911 liars held to a lesser standard, a parallel system of justice in which the laws that apply to everyone else are ignored or winked at whether the 'persons of interest' happen to be proponents of new and phony laws of physics or the numerous lies told by George W. Bush himself.

Recently, Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002[15], which included a specific section declaring that the destruction or alteration of documents (or the inclusion of false entries in such documents) constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice, which carries a twenty-year prison sentence. Destroying documents—or otherwise concealing tangible evidence—clearly can subject anyone engaging in such conduct to criminal prosecution.

From the legislative history of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, it appears that the new obstruction of justice section was intended to be broader in scope and to eliminate some of the ambiguities and technicalities that had been required for a conviction as described above.[16]

--Linnea B. McCord, JD, MBA, Kim Greenhalgh, JD, and Michael Magasin, JD, The rules regarding lying in business in the U.S. are currently being vigorously enforced

It is clear enough to anyone who has followed the time line of events. Bush --his administration, his gang of 'close supporters' --exploited the events of 911, overtly obstructed investigations, and repeatedly lied about the crimes. The result has been the disastrous and criminal regime of George W. Bush. It matters.

The official theories about 911 are all indefensible, revised often to overcome new objections as they arise. All are lies, ex post facto rationalizations to cover up the crime. Certainly --the lies themselves are crimes and it is time to bring the 911 liars to justice. Bush may defy the 'laws of this nation' but he is impotent against the 'laws of physics' and entropy. No more lies. No more bullshit. No more re-inventing the laws of physics. No more new-speak. No more double plus good.

There is no reason to suppose that anything supernatural happened at WTC 7; there is no reason to suppose that laws of physics discovered and described by William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, Newton, Galileo et al were repealed.

There is reason to suspect that something highly illegal happened at WTC 7. Persistent heat patterns, observed and photographed from space are big holes in Bush's official theory which cannot explain them innocently. If 'thermal expansion' is to be implicated, the source of additional heat --a violation of fundamental physics --must be demonstrated. An ex post facto cover story, like Arlen Spector's magic bullet theory, is not it. Anyone who has ever built a fire knows that fires run down, get cooler and eventually burn out. Left alone, fires never get hotter. Likewise, steel exposed to fire will only get cooler over time. The only thing that might have saved the sorry assess of the 911 liars is an non-existent exception to the laws of entropy.

In thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is a measure of the amount of energy no longer capable of conversion into work after a transformation process has taken place. Things run down. Hot things get cooler. If the 'cool' kerosene fires were insufficient to melt steel, then the presence of melted steel must be explained in another manner. If the fires are now said to have gotten hotter, the additional energy must be explained rationally. Neither Bush nor his legion of paid 911 liars can change the laws of physics.

The best explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is still the simplest --Silverstein's simple statement that the building had been 'pulled' following his discussion and agreement with firefighters. Silverstein's own explanation --that the building was 'pulled' --explains everything while providing sufficient probable cause to bring mass murder charges against Silverstein.

A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).

It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).

When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.

--probable cause

Silverstein is on video tape confirming that within minutes of his discussion with firefighters, in which it was agreed that the building be pulled. The building would not be pulled, however, until two major news outlets reported the collapse before it happened in fact. That building 7 is irrefutable. It looks like every other controlled demolition because that is precisely what it was.

'Thermal expansion' differs among various materials. The 'thermal expansion' co-efficient of steel can be looked up on the internet for free! If you are willing to pay a small yearly subscription fee, you can plug that coefficient (for steel) into an 'online' calculator that will tell you precisely how much 'expansion' can be expected per degree of heat in various scales. The coefficients are one thing. Of more interest are the exponents which, as I recall, are always negative, as in negative 6. Any positive number to the power of negative six, for example, is very, very, very small. Any coefficient to a negative power is very, very, very small.

---

Official Conspiracy Theorists Suckered a Gullible Michael Shermer

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Skeptic Michael Shermer has fallen for the most outlandish conspiracy theory of them all: the official conspiracy theory for which there is not a shred of evidence.

Shermer has bought into an official lie. Fallaciously, Shermer simply discounts as untrue anything that contradicts his pre-conceived notion, an elementary breach of logic. Shermer should know better. If he knows better and persists in spite of it, he is dishonest.

Jean-Paul Sartre termed this behavior -- "bad faith". Bertolt Brecht was more blunt: "A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!" Shermer, which one are you?

Shermer's recent attempt to "debunk the 911" truth movement is flawed at the outset. His very headline on the Huffington Post is an ad hominem --the 911 movement, he says, are "liars". The bulk of his article is a strawman. Shermer chooses to zero in on Alex Jones, hardly the founder and most certainly not the "leader" of what is, in fact, a world-wide grassroots movement, a fact that must be terribly inconvenient for top-down, authoritarians who insist upon attacking a symbol or a figure-head. The pursuit of pure truth has no need of either. Shermer, I suspect, wanted an easy target, a fuhrer and finding none settled for a strawman.

Why Jones? Many folk dislike Jones and/or his style. Would Shermer have chosen Jones in order to inject personality and emotion into an issue that is difficult enough to discuss rationally? Certainly --Shermer's tactic does not illuminate but obscures with personality and emotion. Until the events of 911 are discussed critically and dispassionately, there is little hope that the truth about this crime against the American people will ever be attained. If I wished to demagogue an issue, I might be tempted to choose the most visible, the easiest target. I had hoped Shermer would not have taken this low road.

If I wished to advance a fallacious argument, I might wish to choose someone upon which I might pin a strawman. Is this what Shermer has done? I leave that to you. If I were going to "debunk" a bogus campaign of pure propaganda, I would certainly not choose an easy target, as Shermer has done.

The official theory is a fire theory. If the "fires" did not bring about the collapse, then the official theory is bunkum! I challenge Michael Shermer to cite a single case in which fire has been determined decisively, authoritatively to have been the cause of the collapse of a large steel-frame building. Cite it! There are no such cases --until 911 that is. Cite it, Michael, or shut up!

As David Ray Griffin accurately pointed out: Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit. Nor did the towers collapse because the fire had weakened the steel because the fires could not have burned long enough or hot enough for even that to have happened.

I have covered many fires in my day. A fire is considered spent when the smoke turns black. On 911 --the jet fuel, as to be expected, burned up quickly in enormous fireballs, coughing up black smoke very quickly. Any firefighter, any one who has 'covered' a fire, knows that black smoke indicates a 'spent' fire, a relatively 'cool' or cooling fire.

/p>The 911 fires --like all fires --cooled rapidly as the fuel was consumed rapidly. That was the case on 911. The fires cooled as fuel is spent. most certainly did not and could not have burned hot enough or long enough to have melted or weakened the steel! It is highly doubtful that even aluminum ( melting point 1220.666 °F)) would have utterly melted under 911 conditions and even if it had, it would not have affected the core known to have been made of steel --not aluminum. The very existence of the core was omitted from officialdom's earliest versions, namely, the idiotic 'pancaking' theory.

Shermer thinks melted (molten) alumininum had been mistaken for molten steel. So what? Even if melted aluminum had been found, it does not explain the utter collapse of a steel core. It does not explain why steel --in fact --melted!

Additionally --if the steel core did not melt the towers would not have collapsed? Kerosene fires are about a thousand degrees too cool to melt steel. How, then, does Shermer account for the fact that a dense, steel core melted and collapse on 911!

Shermer needs to get a clue: kerosene will not melt steel and did not melt steel on 911! Neither Muslims nor the NIST have changed the laws of physics. Shermer's reference to aluminum is utterly irrelevant!

The implication that molten aluminum had been mistaken for aluminum is baseless and begs the question. It's a cover story proposed ex post facto as a result of 911 movement criticism, an attempt to paper over the glaring inadequacies of the official conspiracy theory. Additionally, it is put forward disingenuously by those who understand that the mere presence of molten steel, by itself, utterly discredits Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911.

In a nutshell: the towers collapsed because both core and frame-work melted. Secondly, both core and frame were made of steel. Third, kerosene fires caused by the airliner crash were about a thousand degrees too cool to have melted steel. Fourth: both kerosene fires began to cool almost immediately as evidenced by the fact that the smoke turned black within minutes if not seconds of impact.

Conclusion: the airliners DID NOT cause the collapses of the towers. If the airliners were not the cause, what was?

I submit that the falls looked like 'controlled demolitions' because they were controlled demolitions.

Lesser known "debunkers" than Shermer have claimed that emergency responders mistook molten aluminum for steel. There is simply no compelling reason, and certainly no evidence to suspect that that is the case. See the papers by Professor Steven Jones that I have cited in this post. The truth of all this might have been known if only there had been an investigation. Only a tiny portion of the steel columns were available for scrutiny; government officials --most certainly under orders from the Bush administration --ordered the steel sold and shipped off to China, as I recall. The willful concealment or destruction of evidence from a crime scene is a felony!

"We start with the fact that large quantities of molten steel were observed in basement areas under rubble piles in all three building: the Twin Towers and WTC7. ...The photographs ...by Frank Silecchia show chunks of the hotel metal being removed from the North Tower on September 27, 2001 (according to the photographer's aid). Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal --this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see." ..."On the basis of photographic and video evidence as well as related data and analyses, I have provide thirteen reasons for rejecting the official hypothesis, according to which fire and impact damage caused the collapse of the Twin Tower and WTC7, in favor of the controlled-demolition hypothesis. The goal of this paper is to promote further scrutiny of the official government-sponsored reports as well as serious investigation of the controlled-demotion hypothesis. (No rebuttal of my arguments for an in-depth investigation can be complete, of course, unless it addresses all of these points.)"

--Dr, Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archeometrist. [Prof. Jones' peer-reviewed paper is available as a PDF file here.]

Shermer's "rebuttal" of Jones consists of quoting Jones and contradicting him. But Shermer never touches the science. Shermer's practiced fallacies are not confined to Jones. For those who believe that Building 7 fell due to controlled demolition, some of the most powerful “evidence” seemingly comes from WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein’s alleged “confession” that he authorized the tower’s destruction. The quote in question comes from a September, 2002 PBS Special called America Rebuilds, in which Silverstein says:

I remember getting a call from the, er, 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.

--Larry Silverstein, 911 Quotes [my link, LH]

To conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones at prisonplanet.com, this quote seems to be a “smoking gun” because they interpret the phrase “pull it” to be “industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.”15 Silverstein seems to be saying that he and the firefighters decided to pull (destroy) Building 7, and watched it fall after authorizing the demolition. No building could be controllably demolished so quickly, the conspiracy theorists go onto argue, so WTC 7 must have been prepared for demolition long in advance.

On closer inspection, this supposedly devastating evidence does not seem to mean what the 9/11 Truth Movement thinks it means. There is far from unanimous industry agreement that the phrase “pull it” always signifies a controlled demolition with explosives — more specific phrases such as “pull away” would be used to designate the specific operation to be performed.16 And of course, “pull” has many common language uses quite separate from demolition lingo. But if Silverstein wasn’t describing a decision to destroy WTC 7, what could the words “pull it” mean?

--Michael Shermer

If I may address this reply to Shermer: well, Michael, apply Occam's Razor. Did it ever occur to you that that is, in fact, precisely what Silverstein meant? The term 'pull' is, in fact, industry jargon for"controlled demolition".

I submit that the word "pull" means precisely what it means to those who "pull" buildings for a living and I would suggest that Shermer conduct some field research to include interviews of people who make a living doing this kind of thing. Shermer posits that the word "pull" was used to mean "pull out" as in "pulling out the firefighters" still at work on Building 7. That is an illogical and unnecessary complication of a simple, straight forward explanation to be found in the very meaning of the word "pull" as it is, in fact, used by experts. Besides --why would firefighters have pulled out? What was the sudden urgency? The 'Twin Towers' had already collapsed and the fires in Building 7 were certainly insignificant by comparison if not already under control. There was simply no compelling reason to conclude anything other than Silverstein authorized the "controlled demolition" of the building, ordering it pulled just as he had said he did.

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

--Larry Silverstein, 911 Quotes

If Silverstein had been referring to the "firefighters" themselves, he might have said "pull them" or "pull them out! But he didn't! He said "pull it" and, in the jargon of the trade "it" was Building 7. Since when do even callous people begin referring to other people (plural) as "it"? Not even Silverstein would have done that! People are a "them". A building is an "it"!

According to Debunking911, Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Compare the "clarification" with Silverstin's actual words! The "clarification" hardly supports either the Debunking site or Shermer. It is the work of a PR flack. In other respects, Shermer's argument in this respect is not really Shermer's. It belongs to 911 Research.net, what Shermer would fallaciously "label" a conspiracy site, who plays a better "devil's advocate" than Shermer plays the devil himself. In other words, Michael, we've heard all your stuff before and are even less than impressed with it now.

However, there are several problems with this explanation.

• According to Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study , firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
• Silverstein's statement implies a close temporal proximity between "that decision to pull" and "watch[ing] the building collapse," giving no time for the fires to become more severe and do what fires have never before done: cause the total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.

Of course there are even greater problems with the implication that Silverstein
and the FDNY decided to demolish the building only after the attack on the Twin
Towers.

• Rigging a building for controlled demolition normally takes weeks of preparation -- far longer than the at most a few hours between the determination that "they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire," and the 5:20 PM collapse of the building.


• The building had several areas of fire -- hardly conditions under which a demolitions team could be expected to lay high explosives.

However, if we imagine that the "decision to pull" had been made before 9/11/01, Silverstein's comment makes more sense as an admission that there had been a deliberate decision to demolish the building.

--911 Research

Shermer's conclusion sounds remarkably similar:

There’s also the problem that, as even the 9/11 Truth Movement admits, prepping a building for demolition takes considerable time and effort. Usually a building targeted for demolition has been abandoned for considerable time and partially gutted to allow explosives intimate contact with the structure of the building. But since all of the WTC buildings were occupied right up to 9/11, how did the government gain access to wire 3 towers for complete demolition without anyone noticing? Imagine trying to sneak wires and bombs into buildings while thousands of people are working in offices, riding the elevators and milling about in the halls — that scenario is unlikely in the extreme.

The fact is: someone did do the "wiring" and getting in and out was not a problem. There numerous witnesses to the comings and goings. Had this crime been investigated all that testimony might have made its way into an official record. But --not! Bush has covered this crime up! Unless, of course, you subscribe to the "theory" that concrete-coated steel girders can be melted in minutes with cool burning kerosene fires! Absurd!

If one wishes to be logical, one simply must be prepared to follow facts to logical conclusions --even if you don't like the consequences, even if the conclusions run counter to your prejudices and pre-conceived notions. No one wanted to believe what the evidence points to. No one wanted to accept the logical consequences of the facts, the multitudinous Bush lies, the laws of physics.

The Twin Towers were largely "un-occupied" at the time of the attacks. Access prior to the attacks was not the problem. Entire floors were unoccupied and were the "site" of extensive and even "mysterious" renovations. A recently published chart proves that the offending airliners seemed to "target" precisely those floors where "renovations" were known to have been going on in the months preceding 911.

NIST report NCSTAR1-6A, page xxxvii (Via 911 Blogger): in WTC 1, floors 92 through 100 and 102 were upgraded; and in WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97 were upgraded. [See: Chart I, Chari II, Chart III, ] a number of the floors affected by the fires on September 11, 2001. Specifically, In the years between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded in These renovations covered the almost exact same floors as where the "planes" hit-- particularly they spanned the "plane-hit" floors perfectly for WTC1 (94-98), and covered the lowest floor of the "plane-hit" floors (78-84) for WTC2.

Simply put, this is too much of a coincidence to be mere chance: that the same regions of both towers where the demolition started following the "plane hits" were the same regions that were recently "upgraded".

Renovations would have been perfect times to plant explosives and other devices that could mimic plane hits and subsequent fires. [See: Chart I, Chart II, Chart III]

At 610 feet, 47 stories, Building 7 would have been the tallest building in 33 states. It was not hit by an airplane and there is absolutely no mention of it in the report of the 911 Commission, lately disowned by the committe co-chairs. Watch the collapse video here. Six years on, our government has not seen fit to publish a complete explanation of its fall.

Conan Doyle's creation, Sherlock Holmes, said:

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -Sherlock Holmes.

When the "official conspiracy theory" is, thus, eliminated, that leaves the only logical and scientific explanation that makes sense and explains the observable facts consistent with the laws of science and logic.

It is interesting to note that Bush himself may have given the game away, implying that the airliner fires alone did not bring down the towers.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

--Bush, Press Conference of the President, The Rose Garden, September 2006

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

--Debunking911

Check the bolded part. The bolded assertion is ludicrous and would be hilarious if the event had not been so tragic. That is not what happened. The towers did not tip over onto Building 7. Worth repeating: the towers did not tip over onto Buliding 7.

Nor did they "peel open". Who comes up with this stuff? What cold blooded liar is paid to put this utter shit into print?

Any cursory examination of any video of the Twin Towers collapse disproves it; you don't have to take my word for it. Just open your eyes. Certainly, the damage done by debris from the Twin Towers was relatively minor; it would not have necessitated that the building be pulled, nor would it have caused its collapse. Statements by "Debunking911" are evidence striking writers are moonlighting.

bombing of the Murrah building in OK City. Both buildings were constructed using the same bridge beam system that, in WTC 7's case, allegedly contributed to its demise. But more importantly WTC 7, like the Murrah building, housed high-level government offices including the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service. WTC 7 was also the storage facility for millions of files pertaining to active cases involving international drug dealing, organized crime, terrorism and money laundering.

There's also disturbing correlations between the collapse of WTC 7 and the Murrah Bldg

--Owner of WTC admits explosives were used!

Method and opportunity can be demonstrated. But what of motive? Why would Silverstein want to blow up his own buildings?

Six months before the attacks on the World Trade Center, the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion 6 weeks before 911. But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate prize the Silverstein Group might have been led to believe. The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.

The attacks on 9/11 changed the picture. Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex. The destruction of the World Trade Towers may make Silverstein one of the wealthiest men alive.

Giuliani Was Warned About The Demolitions

Before either of the Twin Towers had collapsed, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his associates were told to leave the headquarters that they had set up within Building 7.

" We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that morning, "and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."

Mind you, no steel building had ever collapsed because of a fire in the world's
history. So, how did they know that the Twin Towers were going to collapse if
it was such an unprecedented occurrence?

--Portland Indymedia

Much is said about the how the towers collapsed, or more properly, were collapsed. Most violate Occam's Razor with unnecessary complications, rationalizations after the fact. There is no reason to come up with crazy explanations about how they might look like controlled demolitions but are not really. Simply: the collapse of the Twin Towers looked like controlled demolitions because they were controlled demotions.

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

--The Bigger They Come, the Harder They Fall

At last, some straight talk about "controlled demolitions", the only process which can explain what was witnessed and what happened on 911.

You can demolish a stone wall with a sledgehammer, and it's fairly easy to level a five-story building using excavators and wrecking balls. But when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a 20-story skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint.

--How Building Implosions Work

My conclusion: if airliners had merely crashed into the Twin Tower of the WTC that day, there would have been fires and loss of life. The fires would have burned out as rapidly as they, in fact, did that very day. In the absence of "help", that would have been the beginning and the end of it. The towers would not have fallen and there would have been no need to "pull" Building 7.

There would have been no need for the vast propaganda and strong-arm machine that this crooked administration marshaled to cover up its crimes that day and its criminal complicity in a cover up. The destruction of evidence in and of itself should have been sufficient to send this administration up the river on felony charges of obstruction of justice.

Power corrupts and absolute power has corrupted absolutely this most corrupt, the most evil administration that the United States, possibly the world, has ever seen.

---