9.09.2008

a 9/11 discussion, part two

See this post for the introduction and part one of this discussion. Many thanks to Allan for helping me pull this together.

* * * *

RS: I realized something else about the US government's willingness to kill its own people. The air quality in lower Manhattan was unbelievably toxic after the attacks - yet the Bush administration altered EPA reports and (thru Rice and Christine Todd Whitman and others) declared that everything was fine. No masks needed for anyone.

I have seen estimates that the number of people who will die because of their exposure will eventually be much higher than the 2,900 or so who died on 9/11. The government was willing to subject thousands of American citizens to deadly chemicals in order to make sure Wall Street opened ASAP ($$) and make it look like the macho US wouldn't be slowed down by the "evil doers".

EMF: And this one was actually reported in the mainstream media, yet no outrage. I think Americans were just so numb and duped to notice. Very sad.

RS: Or like so much of this stuff, it gets reported one day and then rarely referred to again.

EMF: I am going to find time this week to read some of the stuff on wmtc and linked from there.

LG: Wow, thanks, that's great. The stuff on wmtc is a tiny sliver, but I think it will be more accessible than the whole iceberg. Which, truth be told, I never go to myself. There is simply Too Much Information, it overwhelms me and I run away.

Re the air quality in lower Manhattan, I have a very clear memory, immediately after 9/11, when I was still glued to the TV and crying all the time, of looking at the workers in the rubble and saying, What are those men breathing? Why aren't they wearing masks? I have labour roots, I know about white lung disease - that was the first thing I thought of when I saw the men down there. And we were down there on 9/12, so I got a smell of that air. My friends who lived below 14th Street all said they couldn't breathe whenever they stepped outside. Then Christie Whitman came around and said, No problem, it's all fine.

Just my personal memory. Worrying about the men not wearing masks is one of those strange, indelible 9/11 memories for me.

Whitman later had guilt pangs and confessed to falsifying data. Is that right?

RS:
Whitman later had guilt pangs and confessed to falsifying data. Is that right?

Slight pangs, maybe. But by the time the information came out, the damage had already been done, so big deal.

At some of the 9/11 conference/meetings I went to in NYC, there were a few people who were investigating the air quality issues. Just absolutely mind-blowing stuff was allowed to go unchecked. [Note: Environmental Impact of 9/11 Attacks timeline]

EMF: I also remember thinking about air quality - as I watched people running from the towers and as I watched the workers in the pit. I found it unlikely that breathing in the particles of a steel and concrete tower and all the particles of paper, machinery, etc., that were in the air could be anything but dangerous. We are doing construction at work this year, and my office is located above where the work is being done, and I have been coming home with a sore throat for months. If breathing in a small amount of construction dust has done that to me, how could breathing in that heavily polluted air down at Ground Zero not have had dire effects on the health of the people there?

As with Agent Orange, we won't know the full implications of this for the health of these people and their children and grandchildren for some time to come.

* * * *

[Note: There was a lull in the conversation during which EMF read Allan's wmtc post from September 2006, 9/11: the political. Allan noted that the 9/11 Commission glossed over the many specific warnings of an attack from nearly a dozen foreign governments during the summer of 2001, that the Commission Chairmen admitted that Pentagon, NORAD and FAA officials lied in their testimony, and that the Commission invented a brand-new chronology of the military non-response to the hijacked planes that contradicted every single previous news report (as well as the military's six other explanations).

The Commission also neglected to report that two of the hijackers had a close relationship with an FBI informant who had worked on terrorism cases for years. The hijackers (at the time known as participants in the USS Cole bombing) lived with this informant - and were listed in the San Diego phone book under their real names - for nearly a year. The FBI refused to allow the informant to testify and in the Commission's final report, he is referred to only once - as an anonymous "homeowner".

Allan also linked to George Washington's amazing blog, which includes these four essential posts:
November 17, 2005: There's Never Been a Real 9/11 Investigation

November 28, 2005: Introduction to 9/11 for Those Who Still Believe the Official Story

April 19, 2007: Government Heard 9/11 Plans from Hijackers' Own Mouths

April 10, 2008: If We Don't Learn Our History, We're Doomed to Repeat It]

* * * *

EMF: I have spent a little time reading back through the wmtc posts on 9/11 and many of the links embedded there, in particular those to the George Washington blog and the 9/11 truth page. All quite interesting and quite helpful. Actually, there wasn't a lot there that shocked me, either because some of it I had read of before (like the government had warnings of an attack and even of planes being used to make that attack) or because it just made sense and wasn't shocking to me (like the government's opposition to the 9/11 commission or the destruction of much of the evidence).

There are a few things I am confused about. What is the significance of the collapse of WTC 7? Is there some belief that the government knew there were bombs in there? Why is it important whether the buildings collapsed as a result of the planes or something else? I assume that the truth movement doesn't think the government placed the bombs. Why would the government hide the fact that some of the destruction was caused by bombs, if in fact that were the case? I guess I just don't see what would have motivated them to hide this.

On the issue of Giuliani and others knowing the buildings were likely to collapse: I assume this means he knew this after the planes had hit, and not that he had advance knowledge of the attack ... if Giuliani knew the buildings would collapse, why would he not have told the NYPD/NYFD? What reason would there be to keep this a secret?

Finally (for now), there are several mentions of the various official stories of 9/11 and the inconsistencies. Is there some place to read these and compare them? I couldn't find that easily. I did look at the 9/11 Timeline but I was quickly overwhelmed. Is there some shorter version?

Anyway, I have started to dip into this. I thank you both for encouraging me to do so and for pointing me towards some sources to begin my exploration of this matter.

RS: Thanks for asking questions. Here we go!

There are a few things I am confused about. What is the significance of the collapse of WTC 7?

WTC 7 collapsed straight down at about 5:30 PM on 9/11, even though it was not struck by a plane, or much debris, and had only a few fires in it. There are plenty of videos on the web. It certainly looks suspicious. Some people think that Larry Silverstein, who owned the lease on the WTC, slipped up in a PBS interview and admitted that he had the building demolished (he used the term "pull it", which apparently means ka-boom). The 9/11 Commission did not mention one word about WTC 7. The various government reports on WTC 7 all pretty much have no idea why the building collapsed.

Is there some belief that the government knew there were bombs in there?

There is some belief that the government put the bombs there.

Why is it important whether the buildings collapsed as a result of the planes or something else?

Having teams of terrorists pre-plant bombs in *three* buildings in lower Manhattan would be very hard for the US government to explain.

I assume that the truth movement doesn't think the government placed the bombs.

They can't imagine any other possibility. And if there were bombs, neither can I.

Why would the government hide the fact that some of the destruction was caused by bombs, if in fact that were the case? I guess I just don't see what would have motivated them to hide this.

Again, how do they explain the presence of the bombs, the wiring of three entire buildings?

On the issue of Giuliani and others knowing the buildings were likely to collapse: I assume this means he knew this after the planes had hit, and not that he had advance knowledge of the attack.

That's what I would say. I don't think much of this bit of information.

Anyway, if Giuliani knew the buildings would collapse, why would he not have told the NYPD/NYFD?

Part of his failure re 9/11 was the poor radios the firemen and cops used. After the 1993 bombing, the city was supposed to get state of the art communication devices. Rudy farmed the contract out to a crony and got back shitty radios. Then he never did anything about it. There was no effective way to contact many of the rescue personnel that were in the towers. (I don't remember *much* about the radios, but I think this is the gist.) [See here and here]

Plus I think there were likely lots of people at that time saying no way the building will fall, yes it might fall, who knows, etc. etc. So to focus in on one aspect of it, like Rudy got inside dope about the demolition, seems like a waste of time. (Though I'm not ruling anything out.)

Finally (for now), there are several mentions of the various official stories of 9/11 and the inconsistencies. Is there some place to read these and compare them? I couldn't find that easily. I did look at the 9/11 Timeline but I was quickly overwhelmed. Is there some shorter version?

Part of the timeline has been published by Harper Collins -- as The Terror Timeline, compiled by Paul Thompson - and is grouped by topics. It is amazing stuff. And it's from a mainstream publisher who must have believed it would be okay for the general public to "get" without having to have a ton of previous knowledge about the subject.

David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" is good - and not only because he devotes a chapter to the article I wrote ("An Interesting Day")! His book on the Commission's Report ("Omissions and Distortions") is also very good (especially on the lack of military response and the six or seven official stories about that aspect).

I don't agree with 100% of Griffin's stuff or his focus at times (no plane at the Pentagon, controlled demolition), but he's methodical and easy to understand. "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism" by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is a great discussion of terrorism around the world.

From the Amazon link:
Deconstructing the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Joint Congressional Inquiry, he exposes disturbing liaisons between American, British and European intelligence services and al-Qaeda operatives in the Balkans, Caucasus, North Africa, Middle East, Central Asia and Asia-Pacific - liaisons linked not only to 9/11, but also to prior terrorist attacks including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1998 US embassy bombings.

Against this background, Ahmed accomplishes the most detailed and wide-ranging study to date of the powerful vested interests and intrigues responsible for the collapse of US national security in the years and months leading to 9/11. Government documents, whistleblower testimony, and the findings of official inquiries are scrutinized to trace the innermost workings of the intelligence community, revealing precisely which government policies and operations facilitated the 9/11 intelligence failure, and pinpointing the specific agencies, individuals and decisions that emasculated the US air defense system.

Finally, Ahmed unlocks the underlying geostrategy of the War on Terror - the culmination of a decades-long plan to secure and expand an increasingly unstable system. For anyone who remains uneasy about government policies on, and after, 9/11, The War on Truth is an invaluable resource that will radically alter perceptions of international terrorism, national security, and the clandestine machinery of Western power.

I was going to snip it, but it's all good.

Ahmed also published in early 2002 the first book questioning (in depth) the official story ("The War on Freedom"), though some of it is outdated by now. ... There is also The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11.

* * * *

EMF: I am willing to entertain the horrible idea that the government knew 9/11 was being planned and did nothing to stop it. That seems somewhat believable to me, given American history and the precedent of Pearl Harbor. It seems that you are suggesting more than that - that the government itself actually blew up those buildings with bombs. I think it will take a lot of hard evidence for me to believe that. I think the planes brought down the buildings and that the "bombs" people claim to have heard where explosions caused by the fires and the impact as the building's structure began to give way and as materials in the buildings began to burn and explode.

As for WTC7, I have always assumed that it fell as a result of instability from the impact of the destruction of the towers. Why would the government explode an empty building 8 hours after the other two came down? Maybe Larry Silverstein took it down for insurance reasons or security reasons. I know that I must sound naive to you, but this part just doesn't make sense to me. At least not yet. Maybe as I continue to read it will.

As for Giuliani and the bad phones, that sounds like bad governing but not evil intent to help the government with its plot. It sounds like that's all you are suggesting as well.

Anyway, I appreciate your responses and your links to the other sources. I have looked a bit at the coincidences blog and will look more closely at the links there as well. Much as I remain skeptical of much of this, I also feel compelled to find out what is being said and what evidence there is to support these accusations.

* * * *

LG: Just a note to say ... There will likely never be a smoking gun. If that is the only evidence that will be believed, then I think it's probably safe to say no current 9/11 Truth investigator will ever rise to that level of proof. A mass of "coincidences" and circumstantial evidence does not mean something happened. But "I don't believe they would do that" does not mean it didn't. I know you know that in theory. But the reality, I think, is different. I think it's worth noting that any and all evidence presented is up against a mighty belief, or need to believe, that may never be pierced, for a variety of reasons.

[end part two]

a 9/11 discussion, part three

10 comments:

Jere said...

"The air quality in lower Manhattan was unbelievably toxic after the attacks"

I lived 50 miles north at the time, and all of us around there noticed that everyone was sick for a good part of the next few months. And I went to ground zero on November 3rd-ish, 2001, and they had a guy there saying, "no children, the air quality is bad, take a look and then go." It was the worst smell, and hard to breathe, and that was almost two months later.

What are you and Allan's thoughts on the WTC 7 "final report" that came out a week(?) ago? I saw it in the Daily News. Maybe your conversation happened before that came out, I don't know.

L-girl said...

It was the worst smell, and hard to breathe, and that was almost two months later.

We noticed it where we lived, in Upper Manhattan, and my mother noticed it from her balcony in Fort Lee, across the Hudson.

A friend of mine who lived near Union Square said her dog wouldn't walk downtown. He would stop and refuse to walk further unless she turned around and went uptown.

What are you and Allan's thoughts on the WTC 7 "final report" that came out a week(?) ago? I saw it in the Daily News. Maybe your conversation happened before that came out, I don't know.

The conversation I posted is several months old - it took place over last winter. EMF asked us the same question about the WTC7 report.

I don't have any thoughts really, because I'm not up on the WTC7 info. Allan?

Jere, thanks for reading. :)

redsock said...

What are you and Allan's thoughts on the WTC 7 "final report" that came out a week(?) ago?

I did not pay a lot of attention to it. It's not an area that I have researched very much. But these links might help:

Debunking NIST's Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel

and

NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7"Collapse" when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” of Knocking Down Tower

...

Also: Government Itself Won't Swear To Official Theory of 9/11

redsock said...

EMF emailed us today:
"It was interesting re-reading our exchange of emails today on wmtc. ... I hope that the posts generate some interesting discussion."

Laura replied:
"I don't know how much discussion there'll be. I think people may be a bit afraid of the topic - of scrapping with me and Allan. But at the very least, it may be educational for anyone who reads it."

****

I hope that no one refrains from commenting for fear of getting into a "scrap". I have no desire to get into an argument with anyone.

The discussion Laura is posting -- there will be five parts -- is open-minded and intelligent. And just as we tried to answer EMF's questions, we'll do the same, in the same manner, here.

L-girl said...

I don't know how much discussion there'll be. I think people may be a bit afraid of the topic - of scrapping with me and Allan. But at the very least, it may be educational for anyone who reads it.

I was thinking of people who are dismissive of the concept of 9/11 Truth, and who dump all this stuff in the Wacko Conspiracy Theories bin.

Mara Clarke said...

I have a few comments.

One: I left the US for a 6 month contract in Sweden on 21 November. The day before I left, I remember the smell - with its companion burning sensation in the throat and dry and irritated eyes, as high up as 96th street. It is my recollection that the fires were still burning at this time.

Two: There have been several references to complacent Americans. I felt some years ago that Americans have become the frog in the water who gets acclimated to the new temperatures as it is boiled to death. A connection between 9/11 and Iraq? WMD in Iraq? The Patriot Act? Illegal wiretapping? Sarah Palin? Etc etc etc. I am not sure if this complacency is from people who follow the "if I read it/hear it it must be true" motto or those who feel that if all this has come to pass, nothing will make any difference.

Three: It is with deep sadness that I feel that no matter what the truth is (and there are some very compelling arguments here), those truly responsible will never be held accountable.

L-girl said...

Thanks, Mara. :)

those who feel that if all this has come to pass, nothing will make any difference.

I can well understand feeling this way.

I was always so optimistic and hopeful about the prospect of change. When I stopped feeling that way, it hit me so hard that I couldn't bear to part of the country any longer.

Three: It is with deep sadness that I feel that no matter what the truth is (and there are some very compelling arguments here), those truly responsible will never be held accountable.

It's profoundly sad. And enraging.

Parts 3, 4 and 5 coming soon!

redsock said...

I think there will be a day or two delay before part 3, so I wanted to link to this piece about the supposed incompetence of the US government/military re 9/11.

This is not exactly how I would present the information, but it's a decent primer.

However, I do believe this 100%:

"... the administration was highly competent and enormously successful that day -- they just had different criteria for success than would sane people. And they've been highly competent ever since. You just have to adjust your standards for evaluating success ..."

Jere said...

You know how people say "if there was a draft, people would care"? Well now I'm starting to think the way people would act would be: "exactly the same (while hoping their family members don't get drafted.)"

I would also say that people are too busy to care. And that makes me furious. Especially realizing that the stuff they're busy with is total bullshit. And Americans are becoming more and more selfish with each generation. So as long as they have what they need, they won't give a crap about anything other than themselves.

There are a lot of great people who do care, but come on, it's like 2 percent.

Looking forward to part three.

redsock said...

I would also say that people are too busy to care. And that makes me furious.

I was saying this in late 2001. Someday, maybe years, maybe decades, enough of the truth will come out to show that the Cheney regime was culpable and by that time, despite all their rage in 2001 and 2002, no one will give a shit.

Look at how Kenendy's death is thought of. 45 years later -- and the scattered nuts are the ones who DON'T believe elements of the the government murdered a president. But does anyone care? No.