Famous for shaggin Paris Hilton: "Wrestling with 9/11", by Glenn Treloar, an earthman.

A study of a personal journey of discovery leading to a conviction that
there is a serious and urgent need for new investigations into the
attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and to the downing
of American Airlines Flight 93. That there is also a serious and urgent
need for an investigation into the words and actions of several members
of the current US administration and the military, as well as members
of intelligence services of several countries and the USA, and several
corporations and media organisations.



There have been moments when I have seriously doubted my own powers of
deduction in the past few months, and I have wondered out loud whether
I might be suffering some sort of mental disorder. Perhaps I am. Let
the reader decide. Is my reasoning flawed or are we really witnessing
the most audacious and chilling crime ever perpetrated against the
people of not only the US, but of the entire world?



I have not included photographs, videos or diagrams, or links to
specific items of interest in this essay. I have, however, at the end
of the essay, listed some of the sites I visited and where I found
interesting or compelling articles, papers, and photographs, as well as
alleged video and audio evidence. I have also listed several movies and
books on the subject.



The government of the USA, or elements within the current
administration, were responsible for the attacks on the World Trade
Centre and the Pentagon, and for the shooting down of American Airlines
Flight 93, in order to garner support at home and abroad for the
ensuing illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The official 9/11
Commission Report, the Federal Emergency Management Authority Building
Performance Study report, and The National Institute of Standards and
Technology WTC report all contain serious lies, distortions and
omissions in support of an immense cover-up, also seemingly aided and
abetted by the corporate controlled mainstream media.



How do I know these things are true? I don't. I must rely only on my
own judgement of the veracity of the information available to me via
the mainstream media and via the internet. This is essentially what
each of us must do. I do however have serious doubts as to how much
help the mainstream media can be, given it has yet to deal with even
the fact that there are thousands, and possibly already millions of
people now asking some of these questions. What a scoop! Where are the
paparazzi now?



If, after all, 9/11 actually was a false-flag operation, it will be to
their eternal shame, that the mainstream media has failed spectacularly
to record and report fearlessly probably the most serious crime ever
perpetrated.



But, whilst I do not actually know the truth, I am very certain, given
that there appear to be serious problems with the official accounts,
and given the independent scientific analyses and witness reports
becoming available, that there is a very real and urgent need for new
and demonstrably independent investigations. There are many others who
believe so too.



There are growing criticisms of the findings of the official reports,
the structure, membership and scope of the commissions, the evidence
available to investigators, the restrictions placed on investigators'
access to Ground Zero and other crash sites, the commission's refusal
to make public much evidence, as well as the confiscation, withholding
and destruction of evidence. The use of gag orders is also noted.



The complete disregard shown by the Bush administration for well
established protocols for the management and handling of crime scenes
and air crash investigations comes in for particular criticism. It is
even claimed that the administration's actions in clearing the crime
scenes and "crash sites" before any forensic examination could be
carried out were in fact illegal.



That it took more than a year for the Bush administration to
reluctantly set up, at the insistence of relatives of victims, the
so-called 911 Commission, with markedly meagre funding, also comes in
for widespread criticism.



There is also much criticism of the refusal by any members of these
investigating bodies to debate their findings in public, and of the
apparent ongoing reluctance by the administration to make evidence
available.



This groundswell of concern is gaining momentum amongst the citizens of
the world, and more importantly the citizens of the USA, who, in ever
increasing numbers, are calling for a new investigation into the events
leading up to, on, and since the eleventh of September, 2001.



Some commentators are seriously concerned that if the attacks in fact
were part of a US managed false-flag operation, used to gain public
support for the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, along with frightening
political changes within the USA, and to a slightly lesser extent in
Britain, Australia and other western democracies, then it is possible,
maybe even highly probable, that a similar outrageous "terrorist"
attack in the US or Europe might be planned.



These commentators believe that the administration's current rhetoric
to do with Iran is not dissimilar to the rhetoric they were spraying
about the place regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban, Iraq and Saddam
Hussein before the 9/11 attacks. They argue that this means the need
for new, fully independent investigations is extremely urgent. Watch
out for an "Iranian sponsored nuclear incident" some time before
the Iranian/Venezuelan bourse scraps the US dollar for the euro.



In my own reading of the information to this point, there is no way
that anyone applying even the most basic commonsense reasoning to the
actions of these groups and individuals as reported could believe
anything other than that there is in fact a very real need for great
concern. Of equal concern to me is the veracity or lack thereof, of
the reports commissioned by the US government, supposedly to truthfully
explain to the American people what happened on that dark day.



Basically the official reports would have us believe that the twin
towers were brought down by a gravity driven collapse sequence,
initiated by the impact of a large commercial aircraft into one wall,
taking out several core as well as outer wall support columns, and the
resulting fires fuelled by jet fuel (kerosene) and building contents
heating the remaining structural steel components to the point where
they were so weakened they gave way, leading to the global collapse and
destruction of the entire structure. The 911 Commission Report does not
even mention the collapse of Building Seven later in the day, and the
FEMA report states that the only scenario they considered for the
collapse of that building did not have much likelihood of occurrence.
Huh? As well, we should remember no plane hit Building Seven.



The reports claim the "collapse initiation sequence" they describe
somehow accounts for the almost free-fall speed of the resulting
collapses, as well as for the complete pulverisation to powder of well
over 100,000 tonnes of concrete floors, plus interior walls, doors,
windows, and office furniture, as well as for breaking up steel
sections into manageable lengths for removal, and the creation of vast
pyroclastic clouds of dust and debris which even flowed out over the
Hudson River.



Every day there are more people who come to the conclusion that the
findings of these official documents are entirely unsatisfactory, and
do not truthfully explain what happened on September 11, 2001.



The many groups and individuals joining the chorus to demand new
investigations into all aspects of the attacks are beginning to be seen
as a movement. As yet a disparate and disorganised movement often
referred to as the 911 Truth Movement, but a movement nonetheless.



My introduction to this ongoing search for believable explanations was
with my, by chance, catching a documentary called "911 In Plane
Site" late one evening on SBS television some months ago. It has been
replayed again recently, and the lack of a reported response to it
again must mean I am the only person who was watching on both
occasions, or people just do not see the danger now facing the world.



I came away from that viewing convinced that there really is serious
reason for concern, and also convinced that it was not American
Airlines Boeing 757-200 Flight 77 being piloted by an Arab terrorist
that smashed into the western wall of the Pentagon. However, I was not
convinced that there was anything too suspicious about the official
version of the destruction of the WTC, and I was still incredulous of
the allegation that insiders were actually involved.



At the time I did not have an internet connection, and apart from an
occasional rant I would inflict upon disbelieving and incredulous
family and friends and the occasional stranger, I did not really think
all that much about it. I had not at that point even surmised that if
it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon then it was possible and
even likely that at least some of the other allegations alluded to in
the documentary might also be worth investigating. At that point I
think I was still of the opinion that there were some discrepancies in
the official stories being released, but I supposed that was maybe to
be expected under the circumstances of what I still basically believed
was actually an attack carried out by Arab terrorists, and that Osama
Bin Laden was most likely the mastermind.



I admit I was already suspicious of the Bush administration due to my
belief that there are serious issues still to be played out regarding
what might to all intents and purposes be described as a coup rather
than an election when they first seized power. I am still amazed that
the American people allowed that "election" result to stand, and
that there has to this day still not been any noticeable attempt to
have that result over-turned. I am assuming that is mostly to do with
my ignorance of the political process in the US. I hope so.



I still did not, however, really believe that elements within the Bush
administration were involved not only with allowing the attacks to take
place, but were involved in the planning and execution of the attacks,
and were now actively involved in a very determined, and thus far
successful, avoidance of free and fair discussion, in aid of a massive
cover-up.



That began to change as I read more and more of the written information
appearing on the internet, and as I viewed more of the video evidence,
and listened to more audio evidence from that day and days leading up
to it. I downloaded and watched and listened to seminars, interviews,
and news updates, and I continued to search online for any verification
I could find for any of the information I found compelling.



Sadly there was none of this information being disseminated by the
mainstream media, and it concerns me that there still is very little of
this easily accessed and in many cases easily verifiable information
getting to the masses. This is a serious indictment of the existing
media organisations, and especially of arguments for any changes to
media rules in Australia, which will further centralise ownership.
Especially since such centralisation invariably works in favour of
groups close to the media owners. Somebody should investigate and write
an article about how the 911 issue actually proves that a corporative
and highly centralised media does not work in the best interests of
society. It merely becomes a tool for marketers and propagandists.



The first article I read on the internet and the evidence it presented
and linked to, actually lead me to question the "In Plane Site"
video, and whether I was right to believe it was not Flight 77 that hit
the Pentagon, because there was a probability that the "no plane
theory" was, and is, a straw man being used by the administration to
create doubt in the community, and to add to the lack of credibility
attributed to much maligned "conspiracy theories"



The author asserted that rather than waste time trying to decipher the
perhaps questionable evidence for the "no plane theory" it would be
better spent looking at issues for which the amount of empirical
evidence was growing and which was less contentious.



Further reading of the information on that first site whet my appetite
to learn more, mainly because I had not really thought about the actual
collapses of the buildings, or the fact that the ENTIRE World Trade
Centre site had been destroyed. Even one 47 storey building that was
part of the complex, and was owned by the same people who had only
recently taken over the rest of the WTC, but which was physically on
another block about 100 metres from the twin towers, mysteriously
collapsed at almost free-fall speed, and almost completely within
it's own footprint, several hours after the towers collapsed, in a
way reminiscent to many witnesses, and as seen on existing video
footage, of controlled demolitions.



In hindsight, my missing the point about the evidence of demolition
might be an example of the straw man at work. Because I was
concentrating on things that concerned the actual impacts, rather than
on the actual destruction of the buildings, I had not seen that there
is glaringly obvious evidence for the possibility that at the very
least, one controlled demolition of a steel framed high rise building
had occurred that day.



Jim Hoffman, the author of the above mentioned article, suggested that
there was far more reliable evidence for the hypothesis that the twin
towers and building seven at the WTC were brought down by a controlled
demolition process than by the very unlikely process described in the
official reports. Other compelling information on this site included
Hoffmann's calculation of the energy required to form the vast
pyroclastic clouds seen billowing over and covering much of Lower
Manhattan that day.



My searches for more evidence for the "controlled demolition
theory" lead me to a number of sites. The most convincing for me was
the site for The Journal of 9/11 Studies, which presents several very
interesting and compelling peer-reviewed papers by respected scientists
and engineers. Reading all of the papers on that site convinced me that
if the evidence cited is real, and the mathematics can be corroborated,
then the official reports are severely flawed and that all three of the
buildings that collapsed that day were brought down by controlled
demolition.



Other articles discussed the highly unusual, near free-fall speed of
all three building collapses, their close resemblance to observed
controlled demolitions of other buildings, as well as other serious
anomalies contained in the official reports. Also discussed are energy
audits considering the physical laws of conservation of momentum and
conservation of energy, which I found very compelling in their
descriptions of and proofs for the energy required to achieve the
several components of the collapse of all three of the buildings which
did collapse.



My understanding of the physics involved is limited, but I believe good
enough to see that the energy required to achieve all of the components
of the collapses that were witnessed that day is far greater than would
be available in a gravity driven collapse, initiated by the impact and
resultant fire caused by the aircraft crashing into the buildings.
Building Seven is a special case as it was not hit by a plane.



The articles and papers on this site were to me, at this time, the most
interesting and compelling I had read. It was at this site I had my
introduction to the work of Steven Jones, a physics professor at
Brigham Young University in Utah who claims there is unmistakeable
evidence for the use of high temperature "cutter" charges in the
collapse of all three of the WTC high-rises. This implicitly shows that
the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, not by the
impact of a large air-craft and relatively low temperature and
short-lived fires and gravity as stated in the official report.



Professor Jones' paper points to what could very well be irrefutable
evidence of the use of a particular class of explosive commonly used in
controlled demolition. And by the military. There is also a great deal
of video, photographic and anecdotal evidence showing that there were
several indicators present, on the day and in the weeks after, of the
use of this type of demolition.



In his peer reviewed (three times) paper Professor Jones points to
flows of molten metal seen, photographed and filmed pouring from the
buildings. He also cites irrefutable evidence of hot spots under the
pile of rubble left after the collapse of all three buildings, imaged
by NASA satellites, and large pools of molten metal under the rubble,
witnessed by clean-up crews for weeks after 911. Video footage of flows
of molten metal flowing from windows just before the collapses compares
remarkably with video footage of a thermite reaction. This does not
rule out the use of more modern types of chemicals with similar
properties, as used in advanced military weapons. The professor and
some of his students carried out several experiments based on
metallurgical principles and using well established colour indications
to determine the temperature of the metal and the most likely major
component of the molten metal.



It is far more likely that the molten metal seen flowing from the
buildings and the molten mass at the base of all three buildings is the
molten iron produced in thermite or thermate type reactions, than
molten aluminium as asserted by the official reports.



In what I feel are very disturbing circumstances, the day after I read
his paper, Professor Jones was stood down from his position at BYU
pending a further review of his work on this issue. More will come of
this I am certain.



Other papers available on the site include equally compelling
discussions of the physics of the observed collapses, including a
discussion of the observed evidence for the controlled demolition of
all three WTC buildings which collapsed and of the implication of
complicity of elements within the US administration and others, by
Frank Legge, an engineer from Perth in Western Australia.



There is also mathematical analyses of the momentum transfer in a
gravity driven collapse by Gordon Ross, who holds degrees in mechanical
and manufacturing engineering, which shows that the energy created by a
large section of the building above the crash site falling onto the
lower section of the building after the instantaneous removal of a
single floor dividing them, would not be enough to cause the lower
section to globally collapse. In a second paper, replying to criticism
of his original work, Mr Ross easily dispenses with what appears to
even a laymen like myself to be an inept attempt by a physical chemist
from Canada, Mr Frank R. Greening, to explain away evidence rather than
explain it.



In my layman's view, the initial impact of the aircraft and the jet
fuel and office contents may have added to very slight weaknesses in
the building's structural elements, but nowhere near enough to cause
the large number of the 47 massive core support columns and the roughly
75% of perimeter columns intact after the impact, all fire rated steel
components, across an entire floor, to suddenly collapse. Even if that
completely implausible collapse were to occur, there is no way for it
to account for the complete destruction of a 110 storey steel-framed
building, twice, and other phenomena seen that day.



Gordon Ross again, in two excellent articles on another site, presents
a well researched and completely feasible step by step hypothesis of
how the observed collapses might technically have been achieved, and he
also shows that the total amount of gravitational energy available when
the potential energy contained in the upper section of the building is
converted to the kinetic energy of the fall and impact with the lower
section, is not nearly enough to achieve the observed destruction.
There is no way for it to account for the energy needed to break up the
main support structures, core and perimeter, into relatively short
lengths, and pulverise the concrete floors and building contents and
windows to dust, and to create the explosive ejections seen throughout
the collapses, and then still provide the heat required to form the
vast pyroclastic clouds of dust and minute debris which had a distinct
resemblance to the pyroclastic flows often accompanying volcanic
eruptions, and often associated with explosive/implosive demolitions of
buildings.



To learn also that in the history of steel framed high rise buildings
throughout the world until and since September 11th, 2001 there has
never been a complete, global collapse of a steel framed building due
to anything other than controlled demolition was a revelation. It is
also a fact that there has never been a global collapse which displayed
all the characteristics of a controlled demolition that was not a
controlled demolition. On that one day in September not one, but three,
steel framed buildings controlled by the same owner/lessee completely
collapsed mostly into their own footprint, in what to me by this time,
appeared to have all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition as
described and as shown in various videos.



Some articles discussed the implausibility of the findings presented in
the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA and NIST. All had
apparently produced reports with the semblance of political
investigations wherein supposed facts are selected to support a
pre-conceived conclusion, as opposed to scientific investigations where
a conclusion is drawn after a study of the facts. On reading some of
the excerpts from the reports discussed by the authors of these
articles I am amazed that anyone, especially engineers and scientists,
actually believed the findings presented in the official reports, so
obviously flawed from a scientific point of view.



Learning that the 9/11 commission was composed of people with dubious
connections under the circumstances, and of all the restrictions placed
on investigators, plus the hasty and closely controlled removal of
crucial items of evidence, added to my understanding of why the report
was held in such contempt by a growing number of people concerned about
these issues. It certainly added to the doubt I had that a commission
composed of and chaired by people with either very close ties to the
Bush administration and/or obvious conflicts of interest could or would
present findings not consistent with the official narrative.



By this time I was almost convinced that all the real evidence showed
that there were real anomalies with the officially accepted theory that
the buildings collapsed due to gravitational forces acting upon a
structure severely weakened by intense fires fuelled by jet fuel and
the contents of offices. Later amended to include aluminium from the
fuselage and frame of the impacting plane, when it was shown that fires
fuelled by jet fuel and office contents would not reach the
temperatures required to weaken the 47 massive fire rated steel columns
in the core as well as the estimated 75 per cent of the more than 200
perimeter columns which were not damaged in the impact.



The way in which the commission especially has not answered critics
directly, but addresses any embarrassing queries by posing its own
carefully worded, but nonetheless obviously self serving questions, is
another example of how many supporters of the official narrative seem
unable to just come out and discuss or debate the issues in full view
of the public, to be reported in the mainstream media.



I also watched video of the collapses again and again, and the evidence
for explosive demolition is in my view almost overwhelming. Added to
the scientific studies of the physics involved, the evidence for the
use of thermites or thermates, and the oral histories of rescue workers
and others, I was now convinced that the three buildings that collapsed
at the WTC were in fact brought down by controlled demolition. And if
thousands of laymen like me can come reasonably to these conclusions,
using little more than common-sense, this surely is argument enough for
another in depth and far reaching investigation.



It should at the very least have a few so-called investigative
journalists working for the mainstream media asking questions and
demanding the publication of more work critical of the official line. I
cannot believe that all journalists have sold out to the extent that
the current coverage seems to indicate.



So, after weeks of trolling for information on the internet, and
viewing, reading and listening to criticism of and support for the
three US government authorised reports, weighing the mountain of
observational, empirical and circumstantial evidence for believing that
WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all destroyed by controlled demolition, and
the lack of same, plus the obvious reluctance of the administration for
proper investigations, and the obvious use of gag orders,
misinformation and ad hominem attacks on people with dissenting views,
I feel certain that internationally convened panels of experts in the
relevant fields, reviewing all the available evidence would find that
the WTC was deliberately destroyed using controlled demolition
techniques disguised by the deliberate crashing of aircraft into the
twin towers.



In conclusion, I will state that I have no faith whatsoever that the
three officially authorised investigations into 911 are genuine
attempts to discover and explain the truth about what happened leading
up to, on, and since September 11, 2001.



I find that the explanations provided by these reports for the collapse
of three steel framed buildings on that one day are completely
implausible, and not based on good scientific research or engineering
principles. I also find that there are good arguments and good evidence
for the contention that processes other than those mentioned by the
official reports were far more likely to have caused the ultimate
destruction of the entire WTC site. And I believe that until there is a
full and open enquiry, political decisions being made throughout the
world, and not just in the US, are open to the charge that they are
based on a lie, and therefore are not valid.



This conclusion inevitably raises the questions of why such an attack
was staged, who had the wherewithal and the capacity to pull off such
an outrageous attack, and most important, who benefited when the smoke
cleared.



It also raises the possibility that other contentious issues for which
the official reports have highly suspect explanations, and which are
also being disputed by a growing number and cross-section of concerned
citizens world-wide are worthy of further investigation, discussion and
debate.



In this essay, I have concentrated on my current understanding of only
the building collapses at the World Trade Center, but there are a
number of other very serious issues that need to be looked at more
closely by more scientists, engineers, political scientists, police and
other scholars.



In my next essay I intend to detail my own attempts to arrive at a
satisfactory explanation for what happened at the Pentagon. In other
essays, I will look at the actual hijackings and hijackers, "war game
drills" carried out that day, suspected pre-positioning of crucial
personnel, changes to standing orders, evidence of complicity, and
reported links between al Quaeda, ISI, Mossad, MI5, MI6, NSA, CIA, FBI
and other intelligence services, the supposed hijackers, government
departments and conspicuous individuals.



The similarities between a plan laid out in the defining document of an
extreme right wing think tank called the Project for a New American
Century and recent events is also worth an essay, if not a full-blown
investigative piece by a respected member of the mainstream media. In
fact, the implication of complicity inherent in the mainstream
media's adherence to the official line and ignorance of alternative
views is difficult to ignore, and is worthy of a book, let alone an
essay.



Hopefully somebody will soon also look into our own government's
jumping onto the US bandwagon, taking political advantage, passing
draconian "security" laws, making obscene increases in
"defence" spending, and attacking civil liberties. Such a task is
yet beyond my abilities as a researcher and writer.



I could go on. But I'm tired. Just go and have a look for yourself.
If this essay has been of any help in your own search for the truth,
have a read of my next essay, "What Actually Happened at the
Pentagon?" which will be posted on this site soon.



Postscript: Since completing this essay I came across an interesting
essay on another blog by 911oz, which put forward good arguments, with
which I agree, for not pushing too hard for immediate investigations,
but rather to keep on gathering evidence and witness testimony, and on
swelling the numbers of ordinary citizens, academics, scientists,
engineers, and politicians calling for more immediate solutions like
grand juries for impeachment, and possibly even for criminal
prosecution on charges including treason and mass murder.


posted 02 Oct 2006 01:39 by 911oz2 | Email: |
Comments | Trackback

Fark.... if EVERYONE who shagged Paris Hilton was famous........
--
Clem

Q: Does anything say "I'm a ******" louder than whinging about top-posting?

wrote in message
ups.com...
A study of a personal journey of discovery leading to a conviction that
there is a serious and urgent need for new investigations into the
attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and to the downing
of American Airlines Flight 93. That there is also a serious and urgent
need for an investigation into the words and actions of several members
of the current US administration and the military, as well as members
of intelligence services of several countries and the USA, and several
corporations and media organisations.



There have been moments when I have seriously doubted my own powers of
deduction in the past few months, and I have wondered out loud whether
I might be suffering some sort of mental disorder. Perhaps I am. Let
the reader decide. Is my reasoning flawed or are we really witnessing
the most audacious and chilling crime ever perpetrated against the
people of not only the US, but of the entire world?



I have not included photographs, videos or diagrams, or links to
specific items of interest in this essay. I have, however, at the end
of the essay, listed some of the sites I visited and where I found
interesting or compelling articles, papers, and photographs, as well as
alleged video and audio evidence. I have also listed several movies and
books on the subject.



The government of the USA, or elements within the current
administration, were responsible for the attacks on the World Trade
Centre and the Pentagon, and for the shooting down of American Airlines
Flight 93, in order to garner support at home and abroad for the
ensuing illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The official 9/11
Commission Report, the Federal Emergency Management Authority Building
Performance Study report, and The National Institute of Standards and
Technology WTC report all contain serious lies, distortions and
omissions in support of an immense cover-up, also seemingly aided and
abetted by the corporate controlled mainstream media.



How do I know these things are true? I don't. I must rely only on my
own judgement of the veracity of the information available to me via
the mainstream media and via the internet. This is essentially what
each of us must do. I do however have serious doubts as to how much
help the mainstream media can be, given it has yet to deal with even
the fact that there are thousands, and possibly already millions of
people now asking some of these questions. What a scoop! Where are the
paparazzi now?



If, after all, 9/11 actually was a false-flag operation, it will be to
their eternal shame, that the mainstream media has failed spectacularly
to record and report fearlessly probably the most serious crime ever
perpetrated.



But, whilst I do not actually know the truth, I am very certain, given
that there appear to be serious problems with the official accounts,
and given the independent scientific analyses and witness reports
becoming available, that there is a very real and urgent need for new
and demonstrably independent investigations. There are many others who
believe so too.



There are growing criticisms of the findings of the official reports,
the structure, membership and scope of the commissions, the evidence
available to investigators, the restrictions placed on investigators'
access to Ground Zero and other crash sites, the commission's refusal
to make public much evidence, as well as the confiscation, withholding
and destruction of evidence. The use of gag orders is also noted.



The complete disregard shown by the Bush administration for well
established protocols for the management and handling of crime scenes
and air crash investigations comes in for particular criticism. It is
even claimed that the administration's actions in clearing the crime
scenes and "crash sites" before any forensic examination could be
carried out were in fact illegal.



That it took more than a year for the Bush administration to
reluctantly set up, at the insistence of relatives of victims, the
so-called 911 Commission, with markedly meagre funding, also comes in
for widespread criticism.



There is also much criticism of the refusal by any members of these
investigating bodies to debate their findings in public, and of the
apparent ongoing reluctance by the administration to make evidence
available.



This groundswell of concern is gaining momentum amongst the citizens of
the world, and more importantly the citizens of the USA, who, in ever
increasing numbers, are calling for a new investigation into the events
leading up to, on, and since the eleventh of September, 2001.



Some commentators are seriously concerned that if the attacks in fact
were part of a US managed false-flag operation, used to gain public
support for the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, along with frightening
political changes within the USA, and to a slightly lesser extent in
Britain, Australia and other western democracies, then it is possible,
maybe even highly probable, that a similar outrageous "terrorist"
attack in the US or Europe might be planned.



These commentators believe that the administration's current rhetoric
to do with Iran is not dissimilar to the rhetoric they were spraying
about the place regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban, Iraq and Saddam
Hussein before the 9/11 attacks. They argue that this means the need
for new, fully independent investigations is extremely urgent. Watch
out for an "Iranian sponsored nuclear incident" some time before
the Iranian/Venezuelan bourse scraps the US dollar for the euro.



In my own reading of the information to this point, there is no way
that anyone applying even the most basic commonsense reasoning to the
actions of these groups and individuals as reported could believe
anything other than that there is in fact a very real need for great
concern. Of equal concern to me is the veracity or lack thereof, of
the reports commissioned by the US government, supposedly to truthfully
explain to the American people what happened on that dark day.



Basically the official reports would have us believe that the twin
towers were brought down by a gravity driven collapse sequence,
initiated by the impact of a large commercial aircraft into one wall,
taking out several core as well as outer wall support columns, and the
resulting fires fuelled by jet fuel (kerosene) and building contents
heating the remaining structural steel components to the point where
they were so weakened they gave way, leading to the global collapse and
destruction of the entire structure. The 911 Commission Report does not
even mention the collapse of Building Seven later in the day, and the
FEMA report states that the only scenario they considered for the
collapse of that building did not have much likelihood of occurrence.
Huh? As well, we should remember no plane hit Building Seven.



The reports claim the "collapse initiation sequence" they describe
somehow accounts for the almost free-fall speed of the resulting
collapses, as well as for the complete pulverisation to powder of well
over 100,000 tonnes of concrete floors, plus interior walls, doors,
windows, and office furniture, as well as for breaking up steel
sections into manageable lengths for removal, and the creation of vast
pyroclastic clouds of dust and debris which even flowed out over the
Hudson River.



Every day there are more people who come to the conclusion that the
findings of these official documents are entirely unsatisfactory, and
do not truthfully explain what happened on September 11, 2001.



The many groups and individuals joining the chorus to demand new
investigations into all aspects of the attacks are beginning to be seen
as a movement. As yet a disparate and disorganised movement often
referred to as the 911 Truth Movement, but a movement nonetheless.



My introduction to this ongoing search for believable explanations was
with my, by chance, catching a documentary called "911 In Plane
Site" late one evening on SBS television some months ago. It has been
replayed again recently, and the lack of a reported response to it
again must mean I am the only person who was watching on both
occasions, or people just do not see the danger now facing the world.



I came away from that viewing convinced that there really is serious
reason for concern, and also convinced that it was not American
Airlines Boeing 757-200 Flight 77 being piloted by an Arab terrorist
that smashed into the western wall of the Pentagon. However, I was not
convinced that there was anything too suspicious about the official
version of the destruction of the WTC, and I was still incredulous of
the allegation that insiders were actually involved.



At the time I did not have an internet connection, and apart from an
occasional rant I would inflict upon disbelieving and incredulous
family and friends and the occasional stranger, I did not really think
all that much about it. I had not at that point even surmised that if
it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon then it was possible and
even likely that at least some of the other allegations alluded to in
the documentary might also be worth investigating. At that point I
think I was still of the opinion that there were some discrepancies in
the official stories being released, but I supposed that was maybe to
be expected under the circumstances of what I still basically believed
was actually an attack carried out by Arab terrorists, and that Osama
Bin Laden was most likely the mastermind.



I admit I was already suspicious of the Bush administration due to my
belief that there are serious issues still to be played out regarding
what might to all intents and purposes be described as a coup rather
than an election when they first seized power. I am still amazed that
the American people allowed that "election" result to stand, and
that there has to this day still not been any noticeable attempt to
have that result over-turned. I am assuming that is mostly to do with
my ignorance of the political process in the US. I hope so.



I still did not, however, really believe that elements within the Bush
administration were involved not only with allowing the attacks to take
place, but were involved in the planning and execution of the attacks,
and were now actively involved in a very determined, and thus far
successful, avoidance of free and fair discussion, in aid of a massive
cover-up.



That began to change as I read more and more of the written information
appearing on the internet, and as I viewed more of the video evidence,
and listened to more audio evidence from that day and days leading up
to it. I downloaded and watched and listened to seminars, interviews,
and news updates, and I continued to search online for any verification
I could find for any of the information I found compelling.



Sadly there was none of this information being disseminated by the
mainstream media, and it concerns me that there still is very little of
this easily accessed and in many cases easily verifiable information
getting to the masses. This is a serious indictment of the existing
media organisations, and especially of arguments for any changes to
media rules in Australia, which will further centralise ownership.
Especially since such centralisation invariably works in favour of
groups close to the media owners. Somebody should investigate and write
an article about how the 911 issue actually proves that a corporative
and highly centralised media does not work in the best interests of
society. It merely becomes a tool for marketers and propagandists.



The first article I read on the internet and the evidence it presented
and linked to, actually lead me to question the "In Plane Site"
video, and whether I was right to believe it was not Flight 77 that hit
the Pentagon, because there was a probability that the "no plane
theory" was, and is, a straw man being used by the administration to
create doubt in the community, and to add to the lack of credibility
attributed to much maligned "conspiracy theories"



The author asserted that rather than waste time trying to decipher the
perhaps questionable evidence for the "no plane theory" it would be
better spent looking at issues for which the amount of empirical
evidence was growing and which was less contentious.



Further reading of the information on that first site whet my appetite
to learn more, mainly because I had not really thought about the actual
collapses of the buildings, or the fact that the ENTIRE World Trade
Centre site had been destroyed. Even one 47 storey building that was
part of the complex, and was owned by the same people who had only
recently taken over the rest of the WTC, but which was physically on
another block about 100 metres from the twin towers, mysteriously
collapsed at almost free-fall speed, and almost completely within
it's own footprint, several hours after the towers collapsed, in a
way reminiscent to many witnesses, and as seen on existing video
footage, of controlled demolitions.



In hindsight, my missing the point about the evidence of demolition
might be an example of the straw man at work. Because I was
concentrating on things that concerned the actual impacts, rather than
on the actual destruction of the buildings, I had not seen that there
is glaringly obvious evidence for the possibility that at the very
least, one controlled demolition of a steel framed high rise building
had occurred that day.



Jim Hoffman, the author of the above mentioned article, suggested that
there was far more reliable evidence for the hypothesis that the twin
towers and building seven at the WTC were brought down by a controlled
demolition process than by the very unlikely process described in the
official reports. Other compelling information on this site included
Hoffmann's calculation of the energy required to form the vast
pyroclastic clouds seen billowing over and covering much of Lower
Manhattan that day.



My searches for more evidence for the "controlled demolition
theory" lead me to a number of sites. The most convincing for me was
the site for The Journal of 9/11 Studies, which presents several very
interesting and compelling peer-reviewed papers by respected scientists
and engineers. Reading all of the papers on that site convinced me that
if the evidence cited is real, and the mathematics can be corroborated,
then the official reports are severely flawed and that all three of the
buildings that collapsed that day were brought down by controlled
demolition.



Other articles discussed the highly unusual, near free-fall speed of
all three building collapses, their close resemblance to observed
controlled demolitions of other buildings, as well as other serious
anomalies contained in the official reports. Also discussed are energy
audits considering the physical laws of conservation of momentum and
conservation of energy, which I found very compelling in their
descriptions of and proofs for the energy required to achieve the
several components of the collapse of all three of the buildings which
did collapse.



My understanding of the physics involved is limited, but I believe good
enough to see that the energy required to achieve all of the components
of the collapses that were witnessed that day is far greater than would
be available in a gravity driven collapse, initiated by the impact and
resultant fire caused by the aircraft crashing into the buildings.
Building Seven is a special case as it was not hit by a plane.



The articles and papers on this site were to me, at this time, the most
interesting and compelling I had read. It was at this site I had my
introduction to the work of Steven Jones, a physics professor at
Brigham Young University in Utah who claims there is unmistakeable
evidence for the use of high temperature "cutter" charges in the
collapse of all three of the WTC high-rises. This implicitly shows that
the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, not by the
impact of a large air-craft and relatively low temperature and
short-lived fires and gravity as stated in the official report.



Professor Jones' paper points to what could very well be irrefutable
evidence of the use of a particular class of explosive commonly used in
controlled demolition. And by the military. There is also a great deal
of video, photographic and anecdotal evidence showing that there were
several indicators present, on the day and in the weeks after, of the
use of this type of demolition.



In his peer reviewed (three times) paper Professor Jones points to
flows of molten metal seen, photographed and filmed pouring from the
buildings. He also cites irrefutable evidence of hot spots under the
pile of rubble left after the collapse of all three buildings, imaged
by NASA satellites, and large pools of molten metal under the rubble,
witnessed by clean-up crews for weeks after 911. Video footage of flows
of molten metal flowing from windows just before the collapses compares
remarkably with video footage of a thermite reaction. This does not
rule out the use of more modern types of chemicals with similar
properties, as used in advanced military weapons. The professor and
some of his students carried out several experiments based on
metallurgical principles and using well established colour indications
to determine the temperature of the metal and the most likely major
component of the molten metal.



It is far more likely that the molten metal seen flowing from the
buildings and the molten mass at the base of all three buildings is the
molten iron produced in thermite or thermate type reactions, than
molten aluminium as asserted by the official reports.



In what I feel are very disturbing circumstances, the day after I read
his paper, Professor Jones was stood down from his position at BYU
pending a further review of his work on this issue. More will come of
this I am certain.



Other papers available on the site include equally compelling
discussions of the physics of the observed collapses, including a
discussion of the observed evidence for the controlled demolition of
all three WTC buildings which collapsed and of the implication of
complicity of elements within the US administration and others, by
Frank Legge, an engineer from Perth in Western Australia.



There is also mathematical analyses of the momentum transfer in a
gravity driven collapse by Gordon Ross, who holds degrees in mechanical
and manufacturing engineering, which shows that the energy created by a
large section of the building above the crash site falling onto the
lower section of the building after the instantaneous removal of a
single floor dividing them, would not be enough to cause the lower
section to globally collapse. In a second paper, replying to criticism
of his original work, Mr Ross easily dispenses with what appears to
even a laymen like myself to be an inept attempt by a physical chemist
from Canada, Mr Frank R. Greening, to explain away evidence rather than
explain it.



In my layman's view, the initial impact of the aircraft and the jet
fuel and office contents may have added to very slight weaknesses in
the building's structural elements, but nowhere near enough to cause
the large number of the 47 massive core support columns and the roughly
75% of perimeter columns intact after the impact, all fire rated steel
components, across an entire floor, to suddenly collapse. Even if that
completely implausible collapse were to occur, there is no way for it
to account for the complete destruction of a 110 storey steel-framed
building, twice, and other phenomena seen that day.



Gordon Ross again, in two excellent articles on another site, presents
a well researched and completely feasible step by step hypothesis of
how the observed collapses might technically have been achieved, and he
also shows that the total amount of gravitational energy available when
the potential energy contained in the upper section of the building is
converted to the kinetic energy of the fall and impact with the lower
section, is not nearly enough to achieve the observed destruction.
There is no way for it to account for the energy needed to break up the
main support structures, core and perimeter, into relatively short
lengths, and pulverise the concrete floors and building contents and
windows to dust, and to create the explosive ejections seen throughout
the collapses, and then still provide the heat required to form the
vast pyroclastic clouds of dust and minute debris which had a distinct
resemblance to the pyroclastic flows often accompanying volcanic
eruptions, and often associated with explosive/implosive demolitions of
buildings.



To learn also that in the history of steel framed high rise buildings
throughout the world until and since September 11th, 2001 there has
never been a complete, global collapse of a steel framed building due
to anything other than controlled demolition was a revelation. It is
also a fact that there has never been a global collapse which displayed
all the characteristics of a controlled demolition that was not a
controlled demolition. On that one day in September not one, but three,
steel framed buildings controlled by the same owner/lessee completely
collapsed mostly into their own footprint, in what to me by this time,
appeared to have all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition as
described and as shown in various videos.



Some articles discussed the implausibility of the findings presented in
the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA and NIST. All had
apparently produced reports with the semblance of political
investigations wherein supposed facts are selected to support a
pre-conceived conclusion, as opposed to scientific investigations where
a conclusion is drawn after a study of the facts. On reading some of
the excerpts from the reports discussed by the authors of these
articles I am amazed that anyone, especially engineers and scientists,
actually believed the findings presented in the official reports, so
obviously flawed from a scientific point of view.



Learning that the 9/11 commission was composed of people with dubious
connections under the circumstances, and of all the restrictions placed
on investigators, plus the hasty and closely controlled removal of
crucial items of evidence, added to my understanding of why the report
was held in such contempt by a growing number of people concerned about
these issues. It certainly added to the doubt I had that a commission
composed of and chaired by people with either very close ties to the
Bush administration and/or obvious conflicts of interest could or would
present findings not consistent with the official narrative.



By this time I was almost convinced that all the real evidence showed
that there were real anomalies with the officially accepted theory that
the buildings collapsed due to gravitational forces acting upon a
structure severely weakened by intense fires fuelled by jet fuel and
the contents of offices. Later amended to include aluminium from the
fuselage and frame of the impacting plane, when it was shown that fires
fuelled by jet fuel and office contents would not reach the
temperatures required to weaken the 47 massive fire rated steel columns
in the core as well as the estimated 75 per cent of the more than 200
perimeter columns which were not damaged in the impact.



The way in which the commission especially has not answered critics
directly, but addresses any embarrassing queries by posing its own
carefully worded, but nonetheless obviously self serving questions, is
another example of how many supporters of the official narrative seem
unable to just come out and discuss or debate the issues in full view
of the public, to be reported in the mainstream media.



I also watched video of the collapses again and again, and the evidence
for explosive demolition is in my view almost overwhelming. Added to
the scientific studies of the physics involved, the evidence for the
use of thermites or thermates, and the oral histories of rescue workers
and others, I was now convinced that the three buildings that collapsed
at the WTC were in fact brought down by controlled demolition. And if
thousands of laymen like me can come reasonably to these conclusions,
using little more than common-sense, this surely is argument enough for
another in depth and far reaching investigation.



It should at the very least have a few so-called investigative
journalists working for the mainstream media asking questions and
demanding the publication of more work critical of the official line. I
cannot believe that all journalists have sold out to the extent that
the current coverage seems to indicate.



So, after weeks of trolling for information on the internet, and
viewing, reading and listening to criticism of and support for the
three US government authorised reports, weighing the mountain of
observational, empirical and circumstantial evidence for believing that
WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all destroyed by controlled demolition, and
the lack of same, plus the obvious reluctance of the administration for
proper investigations, and the obvious use of gag orders,
misinformation and ad hominem attacks on people with dissenting views,
I feel certain that internationally convened panels of experts in the
relevant fields, reviewing all the available evidence would find that
the WTC was deliberately destroyed using controlled demolition
techniques disguised by the deliberate crashing of aircraft into the
twin towers.



In conclusion, I will state that I have no faith whatsoever that the
three officially authorised investigations into 911 are genuine
attempts to discover and explain the truth about what happened leading
up to, on, and since September 11, 2001.



I find that the explanations provided by these reports for the collapse
of three steel framed buildings on that one day are completely
implausible, and not based on good scientific research or engineering
principles. I also find that there are good arguments and good evidence
for the contention that processes other than those mentioned by the
official reports were far more likely to have caused the ultimate
destruction of the entire WTC site. And I believe that until there is a
full and open enquiry, political decisions being made throughout the
world, and not just in the US, are open to the charge that they are
based on a lie, and therefore are not valid.



This conclusion inevitably raises the questions of why such an attack
was staged, who had the wherewithal and the capacity to pull off such
an outrageous attack, and most important, who benefited when the smoke
cleared.



It also raises the possibility that other contentious issues for which
the official reports have highly suspect explanations, and which are
also being disputed by a growing number and cross-section of concerned
citizens world-wide are worthy of further investigation, discussion and
debate.



In this essay, I have concentrated on my current understanding of only
the building collapses at the World Trade Center, but there are a
number of other very serious issues that need to be looked at more
closely by more scientists, engineers, political scientists, police and
other scholars.



In my next essay I intend to detail my own attempts to arrive at a
satisfactory explanation for what happened at the Pentagon. In other
essays, I will look at the actual hijackings and hijackers, "war game
drills" carried out that day, suspected pre-positioning of crucial
personnel, changes to standing orders, evidence of complicity, and
reported links between al Quaeda, ISI, Mossad, MI5, MI6, NSA, CIA, FBI
and other intelligence services, the supposed hijackers, government
departments and conspicuous individuals.



The similarities between a plan laid out in the defining document of an
extreme right wing think tank called the Project for a New American
Century and recent events is also worth an essay, if not a full-blown
investigative piece by a respected member of the mainstream media. In
fact, the implication of complicity inherent in the mainstream
media's adherence to the official line and ignorance of alternative
views is difficult to ignore, and is worthy of a book, let alone an
essay.



Hopefully somebody will soon also look into our own government's
jumping onto the US bandwagon, taking political advantage, passing
draconian "security" laws, making obscene increases in
"defence" spending, and attacking civil liberties. Such a task is
yet beyond my abilities as a researcher and writer.



I could go on. But I'm tired. Just go and have a look for yourself.
If this essay has been of any help in your own search for the truth,
have a read of my next essay, "What Actually Happened at the
Pentagon?" which will be posted on this site soon.



Postscript: Since completing this essay I came across an interesting
essay on another blog by 911oz, which put forward good arguments, with
which I agree, for not pushing too hard for immediate investigations,
but rather to keep on gathering evidence and witness testimony, and on
swelling the numbers of ordinary citizens, academics, scientists,
engineers, and politicians calling for more immediate solutions like
grand juries for impeachment, and possibly even for criminal
prosecution on charges including treason and mass murder.


posted 02 Oct 2006 01:39 by 911oz2 | Email: |
Comments | Trackback

"TonyJB" wrote in message
...

Tony; don't respond to the troll (aka Jake McCrann), just report it (the
troll, aka Jake McCrann) to and

It (the troll - aka Jake McCrann) is seeking attention and if you don't
respond directly (but through its ISP), you will get better results.

--
Alan Erskine

wrote in message
ups.com...
Path:
news-server.bigpond.net.au!lon-transit.news.telstra.net!ken-in.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!cw-insnet-peer-00!colt.net!feeder.news-service.com!news.astraweb.com!newsrouter-eu.astraweb.com!proxad.net!216.239.36.134.MISMATCH !postnews.google.com!b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com! not-for-mail
From:
Newsgroups:
aus.politics,aus.bicycle,aus.legal,aus.aviation,au s.services.defence
Subject: Famous for shaggin Paris Hilton: "Wrestling with 9/11", by Glenn
Treloar, an earthman.
Date: 3 Oct 2006 02:47:28 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 635
Message-ID: . com
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.243.138.39


Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1159868854 17886 127.0.0.1 (3 Oct 2006 09:47:34
GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=124.243.138.39;
posting-account=UzU02A0AAADv_91OHSUnY5Gv4lI0sGvA
Xref: news-server.bigpond.net.au aus.politics:483130 aus.bicycle:98449
aus.legal:93462 aus.aviation:48333 aus.services.defence:27593

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"TonyJB" wrote in message
...

Tony; don't respond to the troll (aka Jake McCrann), just report it (the
troll, aka Jake McCrann) to and

It (the troll - aka Jake McCrann) is seeking attention and if you don't
respond directly (but through its ISP), you will get better results.

One of these days I would like to introduce this asshole Alan Erskine to a
real troll, one who would make his life a misery. But he is blessed in his
ignorance of what a real troll is capable of. Yea, ignorance is bliss.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Knobdoodle wrote:
Fark.... if EVERYONE who shagged Paris Hilton was famous........
--
Clem

Q: Does anything say "I'm a ******" louder than whinging about top-posting?

Sorry knobdoodle, the heading was not thus for you. It was directed at
pricking up the ears of the freely enslaved sheeple who are obsessed so
much with deferance to Hollywood's whores that they have not the time
to realise this utter hell our western democracies are sliding into.

Alan Erskine wrote:
"TonyJB" wrote in message
...

Tony; don't respond to the troll (aka Jake McCrann), just report it (the
troll, aka Jake McCrann) to and

It (the troll - aka Jake McCrann) is seeking attention and if you don't
respond directly (but through its ISP), you will get better results.

--
Alan Erskine


report it to giyus.org

lets get all the murderous zionist jews of the diaspora in here so I
can debate them about the illegitimacy of the terrorist state of Israel.

Sunny wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Path:
news-server.bigpond.net.au!lon-transit.news.telstra.net!ken-in.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!cw-insnet-peer-00!colt.net!feeder.news-service.com!news.astraweb.com!newsrouter-eu.astraweb.com!proxad.net!216.239.36.134.MISMATCH !postnews.google.com!b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com! not-for-mail
From:
Newsgroups:
aus.politics,aus.bicycle,aus.legal,aus.aviation,au s.services.defence
Subject: Famous for shaggin Paris Hilton: "Wrestling with 9/11", by Glenn
Treloar, an earthman.
Date: 3 Oct 2006 02:47:28 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 635
Message-ID: . com
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.243.138.39


Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1159868854 17886 127.0.0.1 (3 Oct 2006 09:47:34
GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=124.243.138.39;
posting-account=UzU02A0AAADv_91OHSUnY5Gv4lI0sGvA
Xref: news-server.bigpond.net.au aus.politics:483130 aus.bicycle:98449
aus.legal:93462 aus.aviation:48333 aus.services.defence:27593

Sunny Google are just bookmarking complaints against their context to
generate an AI algorithm that will automatically filter out genuine
spam and trolling.
My posts are neither.
If you successfully weighted on the algorithms performance, even your
own posts would cease to get through.

Alan Erskine wrote:
"TonyJB" wrote in message
...

Tony; don't respond to the troll (aka Jake McCrann), just report it (the
troll, aka Jake McCrann) to and

It (the troll - aka Jake McCrann) is seeking attention and if you don't
respond directly (but through its ISP), you will get better results.

--
Alan Erskine


FYI spam is by definition netted with an algorithm. Its not a
subjective assessment but a technical one.

Sorry that nobody wanted to come to you mediated aus.AlanForeskin
newsgroup.