Sunday, October 15

Recent Docu-vid Just Up at Google Cites New Evidence 9/11 an "Inside Job"

Editorial Note: Watch below a documentary from 9/ expertly challenging a two-year National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) study released in June 2005 claiming that burning jet fuel was sufficient to weaken and collapse the trade center on 9/11.--Moose

The White House's Official 9/11 Story, peddled like cheap hillbilly moonshine to Americans by its ten handpicked 9/11 "independent" commissioners, evaporates under the heat of detailed scrutiny.

That's why, ten months after release of the commission's July 2004 "Final Report," author and professor emeritus of theology David Ray Griffin could identify 115 critical omissions and distortions, yawning gaps in the Official Story prompting him to label the document "a 571-page lie."

That's why, according to an October 5-8 New York Times/CBS News poll, now only one in six (16%) American adults believe the ten commissioners' version of 9/11. That figure is but a third ( 48%, pdf or Word file formats) of Americans who told a Zogby poll in May they believed the 9/11 Commission Report.

Now three weeks before November's midterm elections, how much more evidence is needed before someone mercifully pulls the threadbare curtain on the US government's biggest theatrical production for fooling its citizens into fascism?

When will congressional leaders stop their obstruction of justice, remove their White House dog leashes, uphold their oath to defend the Constitution and finally investigate America's defining 21st-century event used to erect a police state at home and wage imperial war abroad?

When will White House murderers and war criminals responsible for 9/11 appear, shackled and handcuffed, before a quickly convened grand jury to respond to the evidence against them?
Inquiring minds want to know.

As director of the 9/11 documentary Improbable Collapse that premiered last April in New York City, 9/11 media coordinator Michael Berger cites new data to help answer those questions--and expedite the process to bring the criminals to justice.

Focusing on the engineering prowess that went into constructing World Trade Center Buildings #1 and #2, Berger claims IC is "the first film to thoroughly review the evidence for WTC demolitions from a scientific perspective." (1)

For example, he scored a cinematic coup by convincing Kevin Ryan (right) to appear on camera. A former executive for product-compliance and testing giant Underwriters Laboratories that certified the steel used in the construction of the WTC, Ryan's appearance was his first interview since he was fired November 2004 for suggesting the government was covering up evidence inimical to its official version of 9/11 events.

Ryan was terminated after sending a letter to Dr. Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who supervised a two-year investigation into "how the trade center was built and why it fell" commissioned after family members of 9/11 victims pressured congress.

Disturbed by Gayle's preliminary findings that fire weakened the steel and collapsed the WTC, Ryan asked Gayle "to 'do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuels to soften or melt structural steel."

Ryan's letter to Gayle in part reads

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.


1. Conservative Republican Reviews Evidence and Converts: Angered by a video he watched last summer by a "conspiracy theorist" claiming the WTC collapsed from preset explosives, "Brad," a self-described conservative Republican and "demolition hobbyist," undertook an intense review of available 9/11 evidence to refute that allegation. His conclusion? The Official Story is "unprovable, unsubstantiated, absolutely wrong." To rectify what he now sees as a five-year media blackout on 9/11 facts that all Americans "should already know," he compiled a 90-minute video titled 9/11 Mysteries.

Early into his video Brad offers compelling evidence the NIST "myth" claiming burning jet fuel compromised the trade center's structural integrity is calculated disinformation born on the streets of New York City immediately after the towers' collapsed. Around the 3:15 mark, a very articulate t-shirted cap-wearing man tells an on-the-scene Fox News crew that both buildings collapsed "mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."

Watch Brad's video here. Posted at Goggle on 15 September, it has had 477,000 "views" in a month. Interestingly, Berger's employer 9/11 suggested a week after Brad's video went up at Google that it is more scientifically-convincing than Improbable Collapse, which has garnered a mere 20,000 views in a month of posting to Goggle.

Postscript: See a list of congressional candidates now calling for a new 9/11 probe here. To have your faith restored in American higher education and college students, watch this vid clip of neo-con William Kristol, founder of the Project for the New American Century, heckled and called a traitor at the University of Texas for his group's September 2000 white paper saying Americans would never embrace preemptive war without an precipitating Pearl Harbor-like event.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?