Friday, March 30, 2007
Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700 Degrees to 900 Degrees Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230 Degrees Celsius, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750 Degrees Celsius.
All steels lose strength with increasing temperature. By 600 Degrees Celsius, most structural steels have lost more than half their strength. At intermediate temperatures the strength is independent of time, but above 500 Degrees Celsius, creep, or time-dependent deformation, further reduces the load-carrying capability. To combat this loss of load-carrying capability, structural steel in buildings is insulated to keep it cool in fire.
NIST is very clear:
"the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
"Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because:
(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and
(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower."
"NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
* the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
* the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."
"At 9:46, the Chief of Department called an additional fifth alarm, and at 9:54
an additional 20 engine and 6 ladder companies were sent to the WTC. As a
result, more than one-third of all FDNY companies now had been dispatched
to the WTC. At about 9:57, an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of
Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked
that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse."
- p302 The 9/11 Commission Report
(The South Tower collapsed at 9:59)
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
"The President's decision to ignore intelligence community assessments
prior to the Iraq war and to make repeated public statements that gave
the misleading impression that Saddam Hussein's regime was
connected to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 cost him any
credibility he may have had on this issue.
President Bush said Saddam and al-Qaida were allies--his words. And
that: "You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam when you
talk about the war on terror."
The bipartisan report released today directly contradicts that
linkage which the President has consistently made in his effort to
build public support for his Iraq policy.
The bipartisan committee report finds that the prewar intelligence
assessments were right when the intelligence community said Saddam and
al-Qaida were independent actors who were far from being natural
partners. The report finds that prewar intelligence assessments were
right when they expressed consistent doubts that a meeting occurred
between 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence
official in Prague prior to September 11. Our report finds that prewar
intelligence assessments were right when they said there was no
credible reporting on al-Qaida operatives being trained in Iraq. Those
were the two principal arguments which were used prior to the war to
support the alleged linkage between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
The accurate prewar intelligence assessments didn't stop the
administration from making many false and misleading statements trying
to link Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida." - INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE PHASE II REPORT
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948, 2nd ed.
"She was one of the most courageous and honorable defenders of human rights whom I have ever been privileged to meet. As all honest people should, she focused her attention and energy on the actions of her own state and society, for which she shared responsibility – including the responsibility, which she never shirked, to expose crimes of state and to defend the victims of repression, violence, and conquest. Her numerous articles and books drew away the veil that concealed criminal and outrageous actions, and shone a searing light on the reality that was obscured, all of immense value to those who sought to understand and to react in a decent way. Her activism was not limited to words, important as these were. She was on the front line of direct resistance to intolerable actions, an organizer and a participant, a stance that one cannot respect too highly. She will be remembered not only as a resolute and honorable defender of the rights of Palestinians, but also as one of those who have struggled to defend the moral integrity of her own Israeli society, and its hope for decent survival." -
Sunday, March 18, 2007
"When President Bush and U.S. officials announced that 'America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world,' the mainstream media in the U.S. mostly echoed the refrains. ... Glaringly missing from the U.S. media's coverage was a full and realistic account of U.S. foreign policy and its effects around the world."
- Understanding Power, pxiii
Friday, March 16, 2007
Very few news outlets in America quoted the words I highlighted
in Khalid Shaikh Mohammed recent statement (One quoted the sentence, and two small TV station's websites that refered to "in our land"): "I don't like to kill people.
I feel very sorry they been killed kids in 9/11," he said, according to
an unclassified transcript the Pentagon released. "What I will do? This
is the language. Sometime I want to make great awakening between American
to stop foreign policy in our land. I know American people are torturing
us from seventies."
Both Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden wanted to attack the US mainly
for the US government's support of Israel.
With Osama bin Laden making public staments about the same greivances that Khalid
Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Ahmed Yousef had, it only makes sense for Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed to approach bin Laden for funding the operation. Bin Laden praised
what Ramzi Ahmed Yousef did, he had said he didn't know Yousef but he approved
of what Yousef did.
The 1993 attack was led by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nephew, Ramzi Ahmed
Yousef. We already knew that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sent Yousef some money for
the 1993 attack.
So why wouldn't Khalid Shaikh Mohammed want to work with bin Laden?
"Bin Laden approved funding for Mohammed's plot in late 1998 or early
We already knew that a few years after that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed got funding
from bin Laden for the 2001 attack.
"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt
guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden
by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef
said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence
could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed
his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S.
policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight
and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve
Coll, Ghost Wars p273
The 1993 terrorists sent a letter to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing
attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on
the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American
political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism
and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
plotter of 9/11
"After he was captured in Pakistan in early 2003, he told his interrogators
that although he had developed no special complaint about America in his years
here, he [ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ] felt strongly that U.S. support of Israel
was wrong and could be corrected by attacking the United States,""
reports Los Angeles Times writer Terry McDermott.*
"... in an early version of the Sept. 11 plot, he [ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
] proposed flying one of the hijacked planes himself, landing it in the United
States and, after killing all the men aboard, making a speech urging America
to change its Middle East policies."
The 9/11 Commission reported on the motive of the "mastermind of the Sept.
11 attacks." On page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it says "By
his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States
stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from
his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel. ""
Bin Laden has said, "We swore that America wouldn't live in security
until we live it truly in Palestine . This showed the reality of America, which
puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't
get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until
it stops its support of Israel."
That fits with what Khalid Shaikh Mohammed just said: "Usama bin Laden,
he did his best press conference in American media. Mr. John Miller he been
there when he made declaration against Jihad, against America. And he said it
is not no need for me now to make explanation of what he said but mostly
he said about American military presence in Arabian peninsula and aiding Israel
and many things.
"I don't like to kill people. I feel very sorry they been killed kids
in 9/11," he said, according to an unclassified transcript the Pentagon
released. "What I will do? This is the language. Sometime I want to
make great awakening between American to stop foreign policy in our land.
I know American people are torturing us from seventies."
From the Bin Laden-Miller interview which Khalid Shaikh Mohammed refered to:
"the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general
and Muslims in particular. ... The Americans started it and retaliation and
punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially
when women and children are involved. Through history, American has not been
known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men
and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the
weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans.
Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children?
America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples.
Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful.
America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world
today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except
perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military
or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what
the fatwah says. ... The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes
all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims."
(*CNN omited what I put in bold, see: CNN
games) and link
Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy."
"Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.
Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy."
"The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.
"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.
"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.
Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran." - Dems won't attempt to limit Bush's authority to attack Iran
Write your representatives and tell them you don't want an illegal war with Iran for Israel:
and tell them that Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
Contact Your Representative
Contact Your Senator
Contact the Whitehouse
Contact the Media
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Army chiefs feared Iraq war illegal just days before start
Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal Blair's defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
"Frank," said the early-morning wake-up call, "are you trying to fuck me?" [Frank Stanton was then the president of CBS.]
"Who is this?" said the still sleepy Stanton.
"Frank, this is your President, and yesterday your boys shat on the American flag," Lyndon Johnson said, and then administered a tongue lashing: how could CBS employ a Communist like Safer, how could they be so unpatriotic as to put on enemy film like this? Johnson was furious. ... (Johnson was insisting that Safer was a Communist, and when aides said no [after also getting to check him out in depth], he was simply a Canadian, the President said, "Well, I knew he wasn’t an American.") - David Halberstam, The Powers That Be, 490
As if it needs to be pointed out, it is totally inappropriate for the President of the United States to call people up like this and chew them out. It is threatening to have the President curse you out for exercising your rights as an American citizen.
I found this quote on this page:
Media, Propaganda and Vietnam