Reply To This Post Return to Posts Index VegSource Home
|From: ||Bart (126.96.36.199)
|Subject: ||Arizona Senator Karen Johnson Op Ed On 911 |
Date: || May 24, 2008 at 9:24 am PST|
Arizona Senator Karen Johnson Op Ed On 911
by Karen S. Johnson
East Valley Tribune
The Arizona Republic
May 4, 2008
A recent letter to the editor asked for evidence of my claims regarding
the tragedy of 9/11. Below I present some points that are presently
known. I won’t be able to convince anyone who doesn’t want to be
convinced, but for those who are willing to deal with factual evidence,
consider the following:
• 37 different people reported explosions in the basement of the World
Trade Center Towers before the first plane hit, and seismic equipment
recorded both the explosions and the impacts. In addition, people were
injured by the explosions in the basement, providing well-documented
evidence. Yet this evidence is ignored.
•The media and government have promoted the “pancake theory” as the
cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers — that is, fire weakened the
steel support beams, causing the upper floors to collapse. Then the
weight of the collapsing floors above caused the floors below to
collapse. This theory is not consistent with scientific principles or
the facts. Frank Legge, who has a doctorate in chemistry, and Tony
Szamboti, a mechanical engineer, reported in December in the Journal of
9/11 Studies: “It appears therefore that the official concept of a
free-fall collapse of the upper portion through the initiation story,
due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature did
become high enough for collapse to occur” — and everyone agrees that it
did not — “it could not have happened in the observed manner. In
particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have
produced the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon
which the official story depends for the second stage of collapse.”
• The theory that the buildings collapsed due to controlled-demolition
explosives, however, is consistent with scientific principles and the
facts. The “demolition” theory, in fact, is the only one which
scientists have been able to corroborate. That is, “… all observations
are in accord with the use of explosives in a time sequence.” (Legge and
Szamboti, December, Journal of 9/11 Studies.)
• Peer-reviewed reports indicate that the masses of dust particles
created by the disaster contained tiny pieces of metal that had been
exposed to both extreme temperatures (higher than could have been
produced by a burning office or burning airplane fuel) and extreme
pressure (such as an explosion) that would fragment material into minute
particles. Official reports ignore this.
• In December, physicist Steven Jones announced the discovery of
thermite chips in World Trade Center dust samples. The chemical
composition of these chips are an exact match to known thermite samples
used in controlled demolitions — further corroboration that explosive
devices were involved.
• Steel support beams recovered from the site of the World Trade Center
exhibit cut edges that are characteristic of thermite used to slice
steel support beams in building demolitions but are not characteristic
of steel beams that have been burned in a fire.
When the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released, it was woefully
inadequate. It never even addressed the collapse of Building 7, for
example. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has stated that there are
inaccuracies in the report and unanswered questions. Even the two
chairmen of the 9/11 Commission — Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton — have
accused the CIA of “obstructing” the commission, and one commissioner,
U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, resigned, stating that the commission was
Private individuals with specialized knowledge — scientists, engineers,
architects, demolitions experts, and the firefighters and police
officers who were on the scene on Sept. 11, 2001, have tested theories,
constructed models, provided testimony, and dug for the truth about what
really happened on 9/11. They have been ignored by media and the government.
The mainstream media parrot the less-than-credible conclusions of the
9/11 Commission without giving any thought to the many omissions and
inconsistencies. In a truly free country, the press would ask hard
questions and do real investigating, but this is not happening. Only the
alternative media, such as Internet news sites, have done any solid
The events of 9/11 led immediately to the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security and passage of the Patriot Act (what double-speak),
both of which deprive us of Constitutional rights and have brought us to
the brink of becoming a police state. Homeland Security is currently
trying to force a national ID card down our throats, although some
governors have politely (or not so politely) told Secretary Michael
Chertoff where he can go.
If we’re going to sacrifice our freedom, there ought to be a very good
reason, and we have a right to know what that is. It isn’t enough for
government to say, “Trust me.” It’s way past time for Congress to
authorize an independent investigation of 9/11 that will consider the
mass of new evidence that has been gathered in the past seven years. The
longer they stall, the more suspicions grow.
May. 3, 2008 12:00 AM
Regarding "Drinking the 9/11 Kool-Aid" (Editorial, April 24):
After three government investigations and more than six years, we still
don’t have answers on 9/11.
Why, for example, did Building 7 collapse? It wasn’t hit by a plane, as
the towers were. The 9/11 Commission Report completely ignores Building
7. The Federal Emergency Management Agency report discounts fire as a
cause and concludes that the reasons for the collapse of Building 7 are
unknown and require further research. But when FEMA issued this report,
it already cleared the site and disposed of the dust and steel (evidence
from a crime scene), thus possibly committing a felony and complicating
any "further research."
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal agency,
which evaluated the collapse of the towers, has yet to issue its report
on Building 7. "We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building 7," said
the acting director of their Building and Fire Research Lab.
Yet a number of private-sector engineers, architects, and demolition
experts have not had that problem. They think Building 7 came down by
controlled demolition. The building collapsed suddenly, straight down,
at nearly free-fall speed. People heard the explosions, and saw the
squibs and the characteristic billowing clouds of pulverized concrete so
unique to demolitions. There is no reason to think that Building 7 came
down for any other reason than explosive demolition.
And speaking of pulverized concrete, fire does not pulverize concrete.
Even the collapse of one floor upon another wouldn’t pulverize concrete
the way the Twin Towers disintegrated.
Think back to that day: Those towers didn’t just fall down. If they had,
we would have had huge chunks of concrete breaking apart and falling
into a massive pile of rubble. The buildings likely would have toppled
erratically sideways and left a much larger pile of debris.
But that’s not what we witnessed. The towers didn’t collapse - they
We watched them explode into dust, not knowing exactly what we were
seeing. Very little intact concrete was found in the rubble. The sheer
energy required to pulverize that much concrete into dust can only come
from an explosive process.
Reputable scientists, engineers, architects and firemen with no
political angle dispute the 9/11 Commission report and say that the
evidence indicates the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down due to
controlled-demolition explosions. Tests corroborate the presence of
thermite, an explosive used in building demolitions, at the site of the
Twin Towers and Building 7.
Thermite also explains the pools of molten steel in the basement, which
no one has been able to otherwise explain and which the National
Institute of Standards and Technology simply denies. Why is the
government refusing to even consider demolition as a possibility? What
are they afraid of?
Time magazine reported in September 2006 that 36 percent of Americans
believe the government was complicit in 9/11. A Zogby poll reported that
51 percent of Americans want Congress to investigate 9/11 further.
Even the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission are upset with the
commission report. They have accused the CIA and the military of
"obstructing" the investigation. Former Commissioner Max Cleland
resigned, stating that the Commission was "compromised." Former FBI
Director Louis Freeh has criticized the report for its inaccuracies and
The events of 9/11 have never been properly investigated. It’s about
time they were.
Reply To This Post Return to Posts Index VegSource Home