Writings on 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

The 9/11 Chronicles – Writings on 9/11 and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Fax sent to all members of Congress - January 5, 2003

The single greatest threat to the security of the United States, and the security of the entire world, is President George W. Bush and the Bush Administration. His war on Iraq must be stopped.

I call on all Senators and members of Congress to oppose the reckless and dangerous polices of the Bush Administration. Talk of war must stop and talk of peace begin. We are a nation of immigrants, and any war that is not in self-defense is a war that murders the future citizens of this country. A war that not only kills our own children, but also the brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents of our own more recently arrived citizens.

Therefore, I call on all elected representatives to oppose the war mongering of the Bush Administration and the environmentally disastrous policies that endanger the health, safety and security of the American people. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were elected by less than one quarter of the eligible voters of this country. It is your duty as our elected representatives to tell the world that the American people want peace and justice, and that we believe in the equality of all people and their right to live free of the scourge of war.

The war on Iraq will not protect us from Al Queda. There is no known connection between Iraq and 9/11, and the Bush Administration is unable to establish any connection between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein despite all attempts to do so. With war imminent, the stupid, dangerous and self-serving policies of Bush and Cheney must be shown for what they are: the main threat to the security and liberty of America that we face today. George W. Bush does not represent the American people. He does not speak for us because the American people want peace and prosperity, not war and the hatred that unjust war brings.

When the fire chiefs of America came to Bush for the $7 billion that they needed to provide for the security of America’s cities they were turned down. When the police chiefs asked for the money they needed there was nothing for them. When we need to have trained and responsible people in airport security the first contingent of federal security personnel at San Francisco International had a total of 15 minutes training in explosive detection, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. We have $100 billion for war on Iraq but there is not enough to give the fire chiefs what they need for the security and safety of America’s cities.

Vice–President Cheney is a corrupt and self-serving Texas oilman and President Bush is the puppet of his father, lacking even the initiative to pick his own Cabinet. The key figures of the Bush Cabinet are all recycled cold war dinosaurs from his father’s Administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Powell represent the failed policies that allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power and the Taliban to take control of Afghanistan. Their policies are morally bankrupt. Their plans for the military supremacy of the United States over the entire world are, without question, the single greatest threat to the security of all Americans. These arrogant policies will only serve to turn people against America.

If dependence on foreign oil is a security issue for the United States, why aren’t our leaders asking us to use less gas? Why aren’t they calling on the automakers to build smaller cars? Why aren’t they promoting the fuel efficiency standards that would make us less dependent on foreign oil? Would you pay more at the pump to save the life of an American soldier? Would you buy a smaller, more gas efficient car to save the lives and health of perhaps thousands of American GI’s? The hypocrisy of the Bush Administration could not be better shown than through the words of White House spokesperson Claire Buchanan when she spoke of the recent, tragic suicide bombings in Israel. “Innocent people have a right to live in safety,” she said. Does this not apply to the thousands of Iraqis, already persecuted by a vicious dictator and weakened by years of sanctions, and now to be bombed and invaded?

It is the duty of every American to speak out against this unjust war for oil. A war that may truly unleash the weapons of mass destruction that threaten us all. If you value this great land and care for its people you will stand up, like the courageous Barbara Lee stood up, and say no to the misguided policies that now carry us to the brink of disaster.

...........

Subject: Interview with Wolfowitz

Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:20 PM

Dear All Things Considered,

Melissa Block's interview with Paul Wolfowitz entirely missed the real context of the Deputy Secretary of State's remarks.

Ms. Block failed to point out to him that his policies (and those of his cronies Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice from the Administration of Bush Sr.) helped to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, trained and armed Osama Bin Laden and also encouraged and abetted Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran.

In this context, the war with Iraq is another incompetent and misguided attempt to control the Middle East. Wolfowitz wants us to be aghast at the evil dictator "who gases his own people" as he calmly plots the killing of 100,000 Iraqi's to liberate them. “Why, they (the Iraqis) might well be asking us, what took us (the U.S.) so long,” Wolfowitz ponders. So, I guess they're just dying for the bombs and missiles to start raining down in Baghdad.

Shock and Awe is the name the Pentagon has given to a plan to drop more bombs and missles in 24 hours than were dropped in the whole of Desert Storm. The Nazis had another name for it: Blitzkrieg, the deliberate massacre of civilian populations to terrorize a country into submission.

.........

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: Physics for Future Presidents

Dear Science Friday,

Prof. Richard Muller makes some amazing statements (interview with Ira Flatow, Dec. 5, 2008.) when asked what physics can teach President-elect Obama about terrorism.

Let me quote part of Prof. Muller’s response, “… we’re putting a lot of money into making sure that no terrorist ever attacks us with nukes.  Nukes are really very, very hard for terrorists but jet fuel, gasoline, a huge amount of energy in it; 15 times the energy of TNT per pound and the fact that the terrorist attack on NYC, in each building released more than twice the energy of the North Korean nuke.”

Is Prof. Muller saying we should stop worrying so much about nuclear and biological attacks and worry more about terrorists attacking us with jet fuel bombs?  Or perhaps Prof. Muller is hinting at, while not actually saying, that we should increase airport security to prevent airplane hijacking? Brilliant! Or perhaps the professor thinks that jet fuel and gasoline storage facilities are going to be the target of choice for terrorists?

Both the 9/11 Commission and Prof. Muller agree that the WTC buildings were not destroyed by the force of the explosion, but by the weakening of the steel support columns by the fire, thus leading to the collapse of the buildings. And, as anyone can see from the videos, the WTC buildings were both still standing and quite intact after the initial impact and explosions; for an hour and forty-two minutes, in the case of the North Tower.

Is Prof. Muller telling us the North Korean nukes are so puny that even an explosion with twice the energy can’t destroy one WTC building? And therefore, we shouldn’t worry about North Korean nukes? Well, I guess that’s going to be news to the North Koreans. Perhaps we shouldn’t broadcast this information and let them continue on their misguided way. Too bad they don’t know the physics that Prof. Muller knows. Imagine them thinking they’re going to be able to blow something up with their nukes. Tell me again why the United States should be concerned about North Korean nukes?

There is some very weird science going on here.

….........

December 18, 2008

Conspiracy Theorist Should Leave Stanford Job

Journalism Professor Joel Brinkley, after a “cursory look” at the literature is able to dismiss all the concerns of the skeptics regarding Bush Administration complicity in what happened on 9/11 “Well, even if we could accept this theory of unadulterated evil intent, it’s patently clear that the government is not competent to pull off something this complex,” states Prof. Brinkley (Conspiracy Theorist Should Leave U.N. Job, Insight, Dec. 14, 2008) And I guess that should settle all questions right there; no need for further discussion.

No need to bring up any actual points of evidence. That an under-funded, ragtag group of 19 young Arabs, and their ad-hoc organization, could have pulled it off, well, that goes without saying. 19 so-called Muslim fundamentalists who spent a lot of their time in the US playing video games, gambling, drinking and frequenting prostitutes. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial (quoted in The 9/11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions, by David Ray Griffin.)

In Florida, several of the hijackers – including reputed ringleader Mohamed Atta – spent $200 to $300 each on lap dances in the Pink Pony strip club….[I]n Las Vegas, at least six of the hijackers spent time living it up on the Strip on various occasions between May and August.

Even the combined resources of the Department of Defense, the Presidency, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI and the myriad other government agencies would clearly not be capable of the “complex” feats these diabolically clever, not very fundamentalist, Muslims can accomplish.

Prof. Brinkley starts his article with the provocative statement that “Millions of Americans believe the Sept. 11 attacks were not the work of Muslim fundamentalists.” He then proceeds to bring up the case for the skeptics of the official story only to dismiss the whole thing out of hand and tell us that what he really wants to talk about is a Prof. Falk (that nobody has ever heard of) and call for his dismissal from his post because he dares suggest that the events of 9/11 warrant further investigation. If you think this is confusing just try reading Prof. Brinkley’s article.

Looking further into said article, we find another gem of true journalistic objectivity immediately following Prof. Brinkley’s quote, above, that “the government is not competent to pull off something this complex.” “In any case,” continues Prof. Brinkley, “last month an organization called UN Watch published an angry press release attacking Falk for publishing an article in a Scottish newspaper, entitled, “9/11 More than Meets the Eye” Well, that clearly seals the deal. If an organization called UN Watch is upset then what need to say more? And, as if that wasn’t enough, one Hillel Neuer, the Director of UN Watch gives the finishing blow, “People who question whether 9/11 happened are not serious people.” And we all know that Hillel Neurer is the ultimate authority on this matter.

Now hang on a minute here; is Prof. Falk questioning that 9/11 happened? I think even Prof. Falk will concede that “9/11 happened.” I believe the issue is just how 9/11 happened, not if.

It’s not often that a writer completely refutes, in the body of his text, his own contention in the title of that very same text, but this dubious distinction belongs to Prof. Brinkley. According to Brinkley, “Falk does not say flatly that the theories (of the skeptics) are correct – just that they warrant further investigation.” So, it turns out, Falk is not even a “conspiracy theorist.” His sin is just that he has the unmitigated gall to ask some questions about the official story. Can we allow this in a democracy?

And as for conspiracy theories, would Prof. Brinkley concede that the 9/11 hijackers were in a conspiracy? The professor must be a conspiracy theorist also; he just has a different conspiracy. Like many of his fellow conspiracy theorists, Prof. Brinkley imagines his conspiracy theory is not a theory. but the conspiracy reality.

The substance of Brinkley’s complaint against Prof. Falk appears to be that he dares to raise questions about the government’s version of events, and that anyone who asks questions is at best incompetent and at worst deranged. That Brinkley, a journalist, would make this case is truly dangerous to the future of a free press in our country.

Prof. Brinkley, don’t you know that it’s the job of every citizen to hold the government accountable and to ask questions? And journalists, especially, have a duty to ask hard questions of the government - particularly when that government has repeatedly lied, as is the case with the Bush Administration. The events of 9/11 were used as a pretext for war with Iraq, and the lies told in the rush to war have been exposed. How can we not question a 9/11 Commission that provides few credible answers? Shame on you Prof. Brinkley!

….......

The Soda Straw Mechanism

Put a soda straw between your two hands and push. The straw will “collapse catastrophically” just as the World Trade center did on 9/11. So states Prof. Richard Muller, popular Physics Professor at UC Berkeley, in an interview with Rose Aguilar on Your Call (KALW Radio 11/6/08.) This is the physics behind the collapse of the Twin Towers, according to Prof. Muller.

Not to keep you in suspense, I performed this simple experiment only to find that, with even mild pressure, the straw bent in the middle before my hands had a chance to move more than half an inch, let alone come “crashing together.” Even if you don’t have a straw handy, you can do a simple thought experiment. Imagine placing a straw between your two hands and exerting pressure. Can you see the straw “collapsing catastrophically” onto it’s own footprint with only a fraction of it still standing as your hands “smash together?” Collapsing straws aside, do you really believe that the physics of a plane hitting the WTC is the same as a straw between your two hands?

The entire interview is available on the Your Call web site and I have transcribed below just the portion dealing with Prof. Muller’s amazing explanation of the collapse of WTC buildings.

The day after 9/11 (says Prof. Muller) I went into class and explained in class what happened. There are two effects that occur: one is the weakening of material by heat. The jet fuel - they had 60 tons of jet fuel in each building – that’s the equivalent of 900 kilotons of TNT and it’s worse, you know, if you burn rather than explode. The explosions are very inefficient at destroying things. So this was over a kiloton equivalent in each building. Now what happens when the columns collapse: put your hands and compress a straw and it’s very strong, surprisingly so considering its only paper, but if you push hard enough it collapses catastrophically, your hands come smashing together.

Once that happened in one floor of the World Trade Center then the upper floor comes down like a hammer, like a sledge hammer, like a pile driver. There’s something called the hammer amplification effect. If it falls 20 feet, and then … and then stops within half a foot, you get a factor of 40 multiplication of the force. That makes the columns (think of soda straws) below collapse catastrophically. The whole building will come down basically at free fall at that point. This was obvious, I think, to any physicist who was looking at it. I explained to my class on 9/12 …and…and, and later, two years later, a report came out verifying this, but I think it was fairly obvious once you understand the enormous energy in jet fuel, 15 times more than an equal weight of TNT, twice as much energy as in the North Korean nuke.

Now, when the remaining jet fuel spilled out on the ground, it continued to burn for a long time, uh, that weakens the columns at the bottom floor of the, um, …of the …and upper floors too of Building 7 so eventually that collapsed by the same soda straw mechanism. You know, I think you have to distort the physics, you have to ignore the fact that you don’t need melting for these things, you just need a little bit of weakening that, that, there is this hammer effect that greatly multiplies things, that when you have the hammer effect the whole building will collapse at essentially the free fall rate. The little bit of mass on each floor is not enough to overcome the huge amount of mass that’s falling above it. The physics really verifies the standard explanation. Try and come up with another explanation. It’s not easy because you’re not going to find anything that you can use that has more energy than gasoline; TNT is 15 times worse. You can load those buildings with TNT and you wouldn’t get nearly the effect that you get from gasoline.

So, Prof. Muller explains everything without having to visit the site, examine a single piece of physical evidence, interview a single person, or do any research at all. The day after 9/11 he has all the answers and is publicly expounding them. And, to top it off, he states that to disagree with his conclusions would be to go against physics itself. How foolish anyone would be to challenge the great Prof. Muller, guardian and keeper of the sacred flame of physics. Prof. Muller would just laugh at you… “Ha! Ha! Ha! The physics doesn’t support you, you are distorting the physics.” In actual fact, serious physicists have challenged the 9/11 Commission findings and have called for further investigation, among them Steven E. Jones of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University (see Physicists for 911 Truth.) I know this because, unlike Prof. Muller, I did some research.

The WTC is just like a soda straw and some jet fuel spilled on the ground caused the collapse of Building 7? Explosions are very inefficient at destroying things? That anyone (let alone someone who claims to be a scientist) could say, on air, the above quoted nonsense seems incredible. Or would seem incredible if we hadn’t already had 8 years of bad science sanctioned by the Bush Administration. But when you find out that Prof. Muller “…is a member of the “JASON Defense Advisory Group which brings together top scientists as consultants for the United States Department of Defense,” (Wikipedia) things start to make more sense.

Until Richard Muller demonstrates in public “the soda straw mechanism,” and explains how the WTC is like a soda straw, I’m going to start a campaign to Send a Straw to Prof. Muller.

…........

Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 | Posted by Gordon Duff

“Last Man Out” Makes Shocking 9/11 Disclosure

William Rodiriguez, 9/11 Hero and the last man out of the Towers, with Pres. George W. Bush at the White House award ceremony; with Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and ? at a private 9/11 presentation.

“There was a huge explosion in the basement—several seconds BEFORE the plane hit the tower!”

Richard Roepke

William “Willy” Rodriguez is the 9/11 hero who helped save hundreds of lives, and the last person to escape alive from the World Trade Center (WTC) Towers. Although the thrust of this narrative is meant to be about the selflessness and nobleness of heroism, be forewarned. In its effort to reveal the essential goodness that resides in the hearts of most human beings, it also inexorably exposes the vilest evil that festers in the minds of a few. Once past the heroism, this story begins to slice through the slimy underbelly of a vile, pathological beast that controls our lives, and gives us glimpses of the innards of this creature that grins gleefully at our gullibility and simple innocence while trampling on our most basic human rights. This story is a wake-up call to all citizens of planet Earth.

…........

Everyone is celebrating the death of OBL but OBL did not bring down the WTC buildings.

The twin towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition and the evidence is on the Internet for all to see who care to look. The Pentagon was not hit by a plane; show me one photo showing any part of a plane at the crash site. You can’t. What happened in Pennsylvania? Show me one photo of pieces of a plane at the crash site. You can’t. Think back to what was visible on the ground after Lockerbie then look at photos of the field where Flight 93 supposedly crashed. The first has large pieces of a plane; the second not even a sign of any plane wreckage.

….......

If our hard-earned US tax dollars spent on Afghanistan had gone instead to provide jobs for the Afghan people, and to build infrastructure, hospitals and schools, there would be no terrorist threat. Instead all those billions went mainly to the Pentagon, the CIA, defense contractors (who we later find out are funneling money to the Taliban)and the notoriously corrupt government of Karzai. And we are no closer to a stable, peaceful Afghanistan.

Many of us, both here and in Afghanistan, lack jobs, educational opportunities and affordable healthcare. That money could have been spent helping people and dealing with the root causes that recruit the Afghan poor into taking up arms against a corrupt government.

At least in the US we're not subject to drone attacks and nighttime raids on our homes. It is shameful that the US uses these terrorist tactics on a civilian population. This must stop. You can't win hearts and minds when you are randomly killing more civilians that combatants.

The longest war in American history needs to come to an end. We need to get our priorities straight and deal with our problems here at home and correct the legacy of lies left by the Bush administration.

…..........