isis

THE HANDSTAND

APRIL 2007

911

9/11 and the Evidence

By Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7262
March 26, 2007

“The self-cleaning ovens in our home kitchens reach temperatures higher than this, and the ovens do not melt or deform...” “Contradictions in the official conspiracy theory leap off the pages and hit the reader in the face...”

Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story.

Griffin’s book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes. Without question, the book is the most thorough presentation and examination of all known facts about the 9/11 attacks. Griffin is a person who is sensitive to evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. There is no counterpart on the official side of the story who is as fully informed on all aspects of the attacks as Griffin.

At the outset, Griffin points out that the reader’s choice is between two conspiracy theories: One is that Muslim fanatics, who were not qualified to fly airplanes, defeated the security apparatus of the US and succeeded in three out of four attacks using passenger jets as weapons. The other is that security failed across the board, not merely partially but totally, because of complicity of some part of the US government.

Griffin points out that there has been no independent investigation of 9/11. What we have are a report by a political commission headed by Bush administration factotum Philip Zelikow, a NIST report produced by the Bush administration’s Department of Commerce, and a journalistic account produced by Popular Mechanics. Various scientists who work for the federal government or are dependent on government grants have issued speculative statements in behalf of the official conspiracy theory, but have not produced meaningful evidence in its behalf.

The relevant skeptics of the official story are approximately 100 independent researchers consisting of experts and professors whose careers have required them to deal with evidence and its analysis. Their individual contributions to 9/11 analysis can be found online.

Griffin has undertaken to absorb the arguments and evidence for the official account and the arguments and evidence against it. In his latest book, which has just been released, he presents the case for the official account and its evidential failure.

Polls show that 36% of Americans do not believe the official story. Setting aside the 25% of the public that is so uninformed or uninvolved as to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack, leaves 39% of the public who believe the official story. However, this 39% is essentially relying on the mainstream media’s endorsement of the official story. Griffin believes, perhaps naively, that truth can prevail, and it is his commitment to truth that has motivated him to shoulder the enormous task.

Everyone who believes in the integrity of the US government or the Bush administration will find Griffin’s book to be disturbing. Readers will have to confront such issues as why US authorities seized the forensic evidence resulting from the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, the attack on the Pentagon and the crashed airliner in Pennsylvania and prevented any forensic examination of any part of the 9/11 attacks.

Despite widespread belief that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack, the evidence we have is a suspect video declared to be "bogus" by Bruce Lawrence, perhaps the leading American expert on bin Laden. The US government has never produced the promised report on bin Laden’s responsibility. When the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on presentation of evidence, the US government had no evidence to deliver; thus the invasion of Afghanistan.

The fragility of the NIST report is astonishing. The report succeeded because people accepted its assurances without examination.

Griffin shows that the Popular Mechanics report consists of special pleading, circular reasoning, appeals to the authority of the NIST report, straw men, and internal contradictions in the report itself.

There is not space in a review to present the evidence Griffin has mustered. A few highlights should suffice to alert readers to the possibility that the Bush administration has lied about more than Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

The two WTC towers did not collapse. They blew up and disintegrated, as did WTC 7. There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives. Gravitational energy is insufficient to explain the pulverization of the buildings and contents and the severing of the 47 massive center core steel columns in each of the towers into convenient lengths to be picked up and loaded onto trucks; much less can gravitational energy account for the pulverization of the top floors of the towers and ejection of steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally just prior to the disintegration of the floors below.

Damage caused by airliners and short-lived limited fires cannot explain the disintegration of the buildings. The massive steel skeletons of the towers comprised a gigantic heat sink that wicked away whatever heat the limited fires produced.

NIST’s final report stated that of the steel available to it for examination, "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees Celsius" (482 degrees Fahrenheit). The self-cleaning ovens in our home kitchens reach temperatures higher than this, and the ovens do not melt or deform.

Steel begins to melt at 1,500 degrees C or 2,800 degrees F. Temperatures of 250 degrees C would have no effect on the strength of steel. The explanation that the buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel is speculative. Open air fires do not produce temperatures sufficient to deprive steel of its structural integrity. Steel framed buildings have burned 22 hours in raging infernos, and the steel skeletons remained standing. The WTC fires in the towers lasted about one hour and were limited to a few floors. Moreover, it is impossible for fire to account for the sudden, total and symmetrical disintegration of powerfully constructed buildings, much less at free fall speeds that are obtainable only with controlled demolition.

Griffin provides quotes from firefighters, police, and tenants, who heard and experienced a series of explosions prior to the disintegration of the towers. Such witness testimony is generally ignored by defenders of the official conspiracy theory.

Molten steel was found in underground levels of the WTC buildings weeks after the buildings’ destruction. As everyone agrees that the fires did not approach the melting point of steel, a possible explanation is high explosives used in demolitions that produce 5,000 degree temperatures. The possibility that explosives were used remains unexamined except by independent researchers.

Contradictions in the official conspiracy theory leap off the pages and hit the reader in the face. For example, the evidence that Flight 77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon is the government’s claim to have obtained from the wreckage enough bodies and body parts to match the DNA for each person on the passenger list and flight crew. Simultaneously, the absence of passenger luggage, fuselage, wing and tail sections--indeed the absence of a 200,000 pound airliner--is attributed to the vaporization of the airplane due to the high speed crash and intense fire. The incompatibility of vaporized metal but recovered flesh and blood stood unnoticed until Griffin pointed it out.

Another striking inconsistency in the official conspiracy theory is the difference in the impact of airliners on the Pentagon and the WTC towers. In the case of the Pentagon, the emphasis is on why the airliner caused so little damage to the building. In the case of the WTC towers, the emphasis is why the airliners caused so much damage.

Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine’s editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of Bush administration factotum Michael Chertoff. It was Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff who produced the Popular Mechanics report that Griffin has eviscerated.

In his conclusion Griffin reminds us that the 9/11 attack has been used to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to plan an attack on Iran, to curtail constitutional protections and civil liberties in the US, to radically expand US military budgets and the power of the executive, and to enrich entrenched vested interests. Griffin is definitely correct about this regardless of whether a believable case can ever be made for the government’s version of the 9/11 conspiracy.

The point about all those exercises, drills, wargames on the morning of 9/11 was to deceive the employees on the day.

Francisco Goya “They do not know the way”

The igNORAD issue on 9/11 is a great talking point for those uninitiated in The Hoax. Why didn't the USAF stop those wayward planes before they could do any damage?

But when one peels away more & more layers, and realizes there were No Big Boeings at any of the 4 sites, then igNORAD ceases to matter.

That was NORAD's first point: they did nothing until the pentagon was 'hit'. Then they changed their story twice: the fighters went up in time but got nowhere fast; then the FAA forgot to let them know. Now I think there's a line that the airlines were to blame, somehow. NORAD is simply going along with The Hoax.

The point about all those exercises, drills, wargames on the morning of 9/11 was to deceive the employees on the day. The FAA had handouts for the press soon after which read like parts of the hi-jacking drill for that day. The airlines were obviously caught short, having loaned their planes for the hijacking drill. Suddenly those planes were 'crashed' and they didn't have passenger manifests! So the pentagon made some up for them.

The other point about drills, was to put convincing looking props into place where they looked especially good. The Arlington Fire Brigade was hanging around near the pentagon helipad in anticipation of a 'drill' when lo & behold! a fire breaks out and they can all photogenically hose down the walls of the pentagon, while other dudes drop bit of 'aircraft' to make the scene look real.

Also, once the outer shell of The Hoax is revealed, the fallback reinforces the illusion of Four Big Boeings. There were NORAD wargames! There were FAA drills! There were Plane Crash MasCal exercises at the pentagon and at the NRO! Oh look, Operation Northwoods was going to use planes! And the big daddy of Pearl Harbor, which had been the movie that summer, that was Planes Bomb US Ships!

Not to mention the 'Lone Gunman' episode of 4 March 2001, which was slyly planted so that everyone could afterwards wonder at the prescience of artists & sriptwriters who got the story so right!

Wargames, exercise & drills mean that no-one especially has to depart from job specification in order to play their part in The Hoax. Few actual lawbreaking conspirators are involved, which gets around the often-raised difficulty that too many people would be in the conspiracy - and remain quiet afterwards - for it to work.
righteo | 03.15.07 - 10:10 am | from comment http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

Well, the point about explosions & freefall at the WTC & pentagon is that there were 2,500 murders + tangible property crimes + fraudulent news reporting + impersonations intending to deceive, followed by further crimes of evidence removal, reckless health hazards, insurance fraud, financial fraud, falsified reports + hindrance of justice, false imprisonments, a nation terrorised, and two wars waged on utterly false pretences.

Once these huge crimes and their methods are enumerated, the likely suspects can be arrested, investigated, tried & if found guilty, punished. Or so goes the theory.........................
righteo | 03.15.07 - 2:16 pm
Comment from http://xymphora.blogspot.com

Yet more archive news footage unearthed from broadcasts on 9/11 offers further evidence...

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, March 12, 2007

Yet more archive news footage unearthed from broadcasts on 9/11 offers further evidence that the media were being fed a script in which a cover story was quickly groomed to offset questions about the highly suspicious collapse of the twin towers.

Two weeks ago we highlighted BBC World footage from September 11 in which a correspondent reports the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. New footage unearthed from Britain's Channel 5 news coverage provokes more questions about 9/11 scripting in a similar vein.

"Sections of the other tower are also crumbling - now the reason this is happening, according to the website for the World Trade Center, they're actually telling us that the structure, the outside cladding of this building is integral to the safety and security of it," states the news anchor following the collapse of the south tower.

"Once you penetrate that apparently the very structure of the building is under threat and that's why one tower has already collapsed."

The suspicious rapidity of the instant press release aside, why did the World Trade Center's website carry such a blatantly fallacious explanation for the collapse of the first tower? Even the layman knows that any modern building is anchored by core columns, not "outside cladding," and the twin towers were no different. To rest a building's integrity on its "outside cladding" is a reversal of all commonly accepted architectural knowledge. Why was the World Trade Center website peddling this nonsense in contradiction with the words of the twin tower's own designers?

Included in over a dozen examples compiled here, Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said that the towers could sustain "multiple impacts of jetliners" without collapsing.

In addition, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, stated that, “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”

The twin towers were desgined to absorb airliner impacts by means of their 47 huge core columns. The twin towers could not be compromised simply by damaging their "outside cladding," such a claim is patently absurd and why it was immediately peddled as an explanation for their collapse is highly suspect.

Later in the clip, the anchor comments, "It is completely enveloped in smoke, it is on fire, and we understand that this other tower is also in a situation of near collapse."

Based on the testimony of the experts who designed and built the twin towers, how on earth could officials and the media be so sure that the towers were going to collapse unless they were being fed a script by individuals who knew they were about to be imploded and were carefully preparing the cover story?

Another video that was shot before the first tower had even collapsed shows people on the street telling others to get back from the towers because they are about to "explode." Since no modern steel building had collapsed from fire damage alone and the fires were almost out, as described in the firefighter tapes, to forecast that the towers were about to crumble, a fortuitous act of clairvoyance that was also enjoyed by Rudy Giuliani, was an impossible prediction to make unless a pre-planned script was already circulating.

There are also videos of "experts" in news studios and even eyewitnesses on the ground intricately detailing why the towers collapsed within minutes and hours of them falling.

As the video below makes clear, if a crime were committed and immediately afterwards "experts" appeared on the scene claiming knowledge that no one could possibly have about the crime, would this be in the least bit suspicious?

Shortly after the collapse of the towers, a "random" eyewitness on the street interviewed by Fox News states with perfect clarity, "I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second - mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense." The individual sounds like he is reading a prepared statement. There is no "I think" or speculation in the statement, it's boldly proclaimed as an undoubted fact, despite the many reports of additional explosions relayed by firefighters, first responders and journalists that preceded the towers' collapse.

How did this "average Joe" manage to get ahead of NIST and FEMA in clearly annunciating what would later become the official cover story - especially considering that by the time the towers collapsed most of the "intense" fires had been replaced by oxygen starved black smoke?

In addition, more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hours of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.

The news anchors in the Channel 5 clip also make mention of a car bomb at the State Department and the bombing of a shopping mall in Washington DC. These were not rumors generated as a result of "confusion" as is often the defense - the anchor cites a "senior U.S. law enforcement official" as the source. Why did officials inform the news agencies of these events when in hindsight we know they never happened?

The State Department bomb report was also picked up by Forbes, who attributed it to "State Department sources." Reports of suspicious packages would be expected in a time of such hysteria but can "confusion" account for reports of actual bombings attributed to senior officials?

It is commonly accepted that the breadth of the 9/11 attack was planned to be larger in scope because Flight 93 did not reach its target. Were the State Department and Washington Mall "bombings" intended to go ahead but for whatever reason failed or were called off? Was the media fed the script too early as in the case of Building 7?

By the evening of September 11, following a "perimeter walk around our building," the State Department publicly stated that no such bombing had taken place.

Why were senior State Department officials telling the media that there had been a bombing without even conducting a basic appraisal of the building's perimeter? Can this all be put down to "confusion" or were some elements of the 9/11 script changed according to how events were unfolding on the day?

COMMENT EXTRACTS:
1.Remember this: You cannot, I repeat, you cannot retrieve DNA from an aircraft that has "Vapourized"! Get it. Underderstand it, repeat it to yourselves as many times as necessary. No aircraft, no DNA. Its quite simple and the answer to the real crime.
When your own government proposes that the aircraft at the pentagon "Vapourized" ,wouldn't even the dumbest person have a problem believing you can retrieve DNA from an aircraft that has vanished?Therein lies the fact that 911 was an inside job and this feeble explanation that the "Aircraft Vapourized" is bogus because you cannot in fact retrieve anything from something that has vanished.

2.Once again it seems that all we are doing is preaching to the converted... What we need to do is wake up the 'sheeple' so that we have the masses on our side.....Having the evidence is one thing... making use of that evidence to bring the guilty parties to justice is another thing entirely...

3.The outer walls of the WTC buildings were more than just "cladding." Traditional skscrapers like the Empire State do have an internal skeletal framework that supports the load, and their outer walls are part of the load but do not bear a load. That is cladding, e.g. granite slabs.

WTC's were not built to NYC code, as they were on land owned by the Port
Commission and so not subject to the city codes. Their design lacks the extensive interior columns and beams; the central core and the skin share the load about equally.Impact did not bring the towers down, heat did, mostly (in my opinion) by causing the trusses to expand, which pushed the skin panels outward. At some small angle those panels could no longer bear the load and the connections between truss and panel were pulled apart. The enormous weight, part of which thus acted laterally, pushed stuff outward with large force.

When steel is heated it expands, as do all materials except rubber. The rate at which it does so is known as the 'coefficient of thermal expansion.' For steel its value as given as .000012 or .000013, depending on the alloy.To compute the amount of expansion, multiply the length of the tress by the rise in temperature and the coefficient. To get the lateral force, multiply the change in length by Young's modulus.

I saw a video on the Web which shows firemen looking at one of the towers through a surveyor's transit. They could see the deformation occurring, and ordered everybody out shortly before it fell.
The booms heard were made by compressed air blowing out the windows as each floor was impacted. The falling mass acted like a piston in a cylinder. People uncritically called the noise "explosion," which suggest explosives and helped further the myth.

Most people are poor observers and worse physicists.
Fred I. White | 03.12.07 - 7:39 pm

4.I'm not sure this "pre-knowledge" angle is terribly significant. Yes, obviously the media for "foreknowledge" but isn't it common knowledge that the media simply mindlessly repeats whatever it is told by whomever appears to be "in charge?" So, really it's just a question of who was telling them what was going on, and why. Sure...it's possible they were deliberately fed disinformation to be reported as fact...but I've seen plenty of footage of fire and support personel saying they were "pulling back" because they anticipated a collapse. So it seems reasonable they the media simply asked them what was going on, were given the answer, and repeated it, perhaps with some confusion over what was "anticipated" and what had "already happened." Also, unfortuantely, after this many years it's probably not realistic to expect the reporters to remember who was telling them what to say. Could have been FEMA, could have been fire department, could have been anybody. Surely some good questions to be asked, but I don't know how realistic it is to expect them to be answered.
Bucket Man | 03.12.07 - 7:14 pm

5.Admit it Joe average American. The idea of running the world gives you a rush.
Your military's are stationed all over the world and the only places that your re-vived Roman empire has no majore influence over are the places on your death lists. Namely Iran, Syria and those who's nukes may give you some troubles, American's are in total denial and are waiting for it all to just work itself out. Then you can carry on like nothing even happened ,like your always doing anyway, so you can jerk-off and party and live with a lighter conscience, is all.
America sucks | 03.12.07 - 5:08 pm

6.As you well know, in the initial impact, all the jet fuel was burned up in the explosion. Carbon fires do not collapse steel structures, as they are great conductors that redistribute heat. Hence, my car engine never disintegrated before my eyes as we witnessed the 47 steel box columns do on 9/11. In a pancake collapse, of which no one has actually seen to date, the 47 box columns would have been visible. Yet, strangely enough, they were not. Even the fire in Madrid Spain, http:// www.whatreallyhappened.co..._fire_2005.html , which burned for 17 hours, at 1,472º f, did not collapse. Also, steel was flung some 400ft up and and outwards... I would go back to my high school beginners physics class for that particular explanation. Thousands of body parts, 200 from one particular gentleman, were found strewn the same 400 to 500 feet away... Some on the tops of other buildings. Pancakes collapses and fires don't do this. My cat was never exploded from walking by my wood stove, which to this day is still standing. Pretty amazing stuff if what you say is correct.But what do I know? The NIST report actually says it all.
xdream | 03.12.07 - 1:26 pm

7.In Toronto Ont. all diesel fuel must be stored under ground or below ground level. No fuel tanks can be stored on upper floors.
Question : How is it that massive diesel tanks were placed on the WTC 7 ninth floors ? Any sites on this matter ?jojo

8.I vividly remember watching Peter Jennings say that they had just gotten word that the North Tower was "leaning", about a half an hour before it came down. Since there is absolutely no indication in any of the video or photographic records that the building was "leaning", who gave ABC news this information right before its collapse, and why? I have been scouring the net in search of this clip to no avail. If anyone could find it, it would be one more piece of evidence proving that the cover story was being put out on the news wires as the events were unfolding.gookie | 03.12.07 - 12:29 pm

9.Has anyone asked the question: Didn't these modern buidings have any fire suppresion systems installed in them? This is important to know because if these were installed, why didn't they put out the fires in Building 7? I find it hard to believe with the number of federal offices and banks located in Building 7 there would be no sprinklers systems installed in case of a fire.
rustycat1 | 03.12.07 - 12:27 pm

10.Paul and Alex may be missing the most incriminating evidence of media being tipped off to the fact and reason why WTC2 is going to collapse before the fact. The following from a thread on DU:

"...now what we see are that sections of the other tower are also crumbling...now the reason this is happening ACCORDING TO THE WEBSITE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER...they're telling us that the structure...the outside cladding of this building is integral to the safety and security of it...once you penetrate it apparently the very structure of the building is under threat and that's why one tower has already collapse."

"You can see now live pictures of the billowing smoke from the collapsing second tower...it is completely enveloped in smoke...it is on fire and we understand this other, this other tower is also in a situation of near collapse."

"We are told the collapses are continuing, that the damage that was made by the two planes hitting the twin towers...first one of the twin towers we understand has collapsed entirely...we understand the second twin tower there are also collapses there...we are looking at the live picture of the twin towers in New York..."

All this, albeit however shortly, before the actual collapse of the tower. Has anyone ever heard of this webvsite before? Where was it being updated from that morning? It couldn't have been the towers? I am hopeful someone can parse this better than me, but as the male announcer (Charlie) is parroting Blair's words from a speech (it is the duty of democracies to defeat these fanatics), a breakaway shot of falling debris from what appears to be the first tower is shown in the second inset screen as the female announcer interjects "Ah...here we are...you can see..." but then defers to the male announcer who natters on a bit before the picture cuts away for a witness interview concerning the plane attacks. It as at this point that the transcripted reporting above regarding the "crumbling" second tower commences. Now what is slightly odd about this sequence is that the female announcer has apparently been waiting on the production staff to put this bit on the air, she's been expecting it. Then after the witness interview the female announcer states that "...what we can see is that sections of the other tower are also crumbling...", but what seems to be a distant live shot reveals no such thing. If we are seeing what she is seeing, where does she get this? And in any event, the video evidence she adduces for "crumbling" "cladding", I think, is most certainly from the first wave of debris streaking groundward during the collapse of the first tower, not incidental pieces falling off the damaged facade of the other structure. These mysterious updates from the WTC website introduce the meme of the crumbling cladding in connection with perimeter damage and total building failure. Instead of letting the live shot tell the story, somebody on the news staff took the decision to air misleading footage in support of this new meme concerning a collapse mechanism. I am deeply suspicious of any attempts to gild the narrative lily on such a day. Is this mistaken or dishonest reporting?
Grampus | 03.12.07 - 12:09 pm

11.I can clearly remember SKY News having a contributor on the phone to the studio whilst the whole thing was unfolding live. This was before either tower had collapsed, and the gentleman in question was from a UK architectural organisation - quite possibly RIBA, i can't remember - but this will be on tape....
Here's the interesting bit: He too was saying that "he wouldn't be at all surprised if the towers collapsed" . Who was this man and why was he saying this?
Where can someone get hold of a tape of SKY's output for the day? Perhaps this warrants closer scrutiny too.....John | 03.12.07 - 11:54 am

12.Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering at the University of Sydney Australia. Presented the first suggestion the buildings collapsed because of truss failure. Alleging he wrote it on September 11, 2001. The entire theory can be read here: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

He later qualified his theory with the following statement."This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice."

Below the article he further qualified:"When this article was first written on 9/11, the only evidence Was photographs and television footage. Whether failure was initiated at the perimeter columns or the core is unknown. The extent to which the internal parts were damaged during the collision may be evident in the rubble if any forensic investigation is conducted. Since the mass of the combined towers is close to 1000000 tons, finding evidence will be an enormous task."But that fact didn't prevent Wilkinson from committing his original suggestion to writing, dating it the previous day and submitting it presumably to the Sydney Morning Herald who provided graphics. When did it first appear in the Herald? How is it that his suggestion so closely matches the story that magically appeared on TV? Did he send it to the media in New York? Or, was he previously commissioned to create and supply the "suggestion"?

It needs to be noted, when the experts finally came together to determine what brought the towers down, there was virtually NO forensic evidence, and had been very little forensic investigation, beyond trying to find evidence to prove the preconceived theory. When they created a computer model using those theories, they were able to re-create the collapse with one vital exception. They could not bring the core down. REPEAT: THEY COULD NOT BRING THE CORE DOWN. A fact that was never mentioned, but was clear to see for those who watched the graphic demonstration...................One other thought. One of the pictures Wilkinson uses to justify his theory is the one showing the top of the South Tower tipping. And goes on to explain, "It is evident that the building is falling over to the left. The North Tower collapsed directly downwards, on top of itself. The same mechanism of failure, the combination of impact and subsequent fire damage, is the likely cause of failure of both towers. However, it is possible that a story on only one side of the South Tower initially collapsed, resulting in the "skewed" failure of the entire tower." What he fails to note is the fraction of a second that photo shows does not show the tipping top pull back and straighten out as it collapsed. Something frequently seen in controlled implosion.

Could Tim Wilkinson be the mysterious Fox News "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place?
Could that explain the date? Could that explain the haste? Or, was the man in the street placed there to deliver Wilkinson's prepared script? What's the Logo on his shirt? What does his hat say? The picture isn't to great ... too much shadow, and the screen scroll blocks a lot.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/ peo...wilkinson.shtml Louise | 03.12.07 - 11:25 am

The Independent
March 3, 2003

A Breakthrough in the War on Terror? I'll Believe It When We See Some Evidence

by Robert Fisk

. . . the last post known to be held by the former Kuwaiti with a Pakistani passport was media adviser to the marriage of Osama bin Laden's son in Kandahar in January of 2001.

. . . True, Mr Mohammed is the uncle of the 1993 World Trade Centre conspirator Ramzi Yousef and a brother of an al-Qa'ida operative. True, another brother was killed in a bomb explosion in Pakistan--he was allegedly making the bomb at the time. But claims that he was the 11 September "mastermind"--"It's hard to overstate how significant this is," the ever loquacious Mr Fleischer told the world yesterday--are still unprovable. Hitherto, the nearest to a "mastermind" anyone got was Mounir al-Motassadeq, who was jailed in Germany last month as an accessory to mass murder. . . .

[A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush released a list of the world's most-wanted terrorists. There were 22 names on it. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was No. 22.

And the list wasn't alphabetical.

But, sometime between then and early Saturday morning, when Mohammed was captured in Pakistan, the U.S. government identified Mohammed as the mastermind behind the al-Qaida plot.--Debra Pickett, "'Terror Boss' Moves Up Ladder As U.S. Sees Fit," Chicago Sun-Times, March 4, 2003]

[Mrs Mahlaqa Khanum is the mother of Ahmed Qadoos, the 42-year-old Pakistani accused of sheltering the mastermind of the September 11 attacks. . . . His mother produced a medical report describing him as a "low IQ person" . . .

"They took my diaries and address book, a box of family photographs, tapes of the Koran that I like listening to and a computer we bought last month for the children." . . . Qadoos's daughter Aisha said: "It was our computer. We didn't even have the internet. It just had some games--Aladdin and The Lion King." . . .

The Qadoos family point to the photo of Khalid released by Pakistani authorities, purportedly showing him under arrest in the house, looking fat and dazed in a baggy vest as he stands against a wall of peeling paint. A thorough search of the house shows there is no such wall.--Christina Lamb, "Was Khalid Arrested Where the FBI Said He Was?," Sunday Times, March 9, 2003]

[A grainy video purporting to show the arrest of two al-Qaida leaders has done little to deflect accusations that Pakistan may have staged this month's raid to give it leeway to abstain in a UN vote on an Iraq war.--"Did Pak Stage Khalid Arrest?," Reuters, March 11, 2003]

[Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, confessed at a Guantanamo Bay military hearing that he planned and funded that al-Qaeda operation and said he was involved in more than two dozen other terrorist acts around the world, according to documents released by the Pentagon yesterday.--Josh White, "Alleged Architect Of 9/11 Confesses To Many Attacks," Washington Post, March 15, 2007]