Interesting analysis, but it misses...
1) Context: the ubiquity of arranged war-trigger events and the horrific
history of Pentagon false-flag terrorism against Western civilians (see
attached Griffin piece)...which, with testimony by O'Neill and others that the
Iraq war was set in stone in January 2001, and evidence that an October Afghan
invasion plan was likewise committed to in July, 2001, forces Occam's razor to
strongly suggest that 9/11 was an inside-job pretext, not a lucky accident.
These wars could not possibly have even been considered without a massive psy-op
trigger on the scale of 9/11. When Bush said "show me a way to get it (Iraq)
done" (O'Neill) in January, 2001, Cheney went to the Pentagon, and they showed
him the only possible way: a massive war-trigger psy-op.
2) Coverup: The grotesque lies and omissions of the Zelikow report, including
the complete omission of any mention of WTC-7 and Silverstein's demolition
confession; the lie that the cores of the Towers were "hollow elevator
shafts"...the baldfaced, absurd lie about Cheney's whereabouts (multiple
witnesses have him in command in the bunker at 9:15; Mineta's sworn testimony
has him ordering a stand-down at 9:30 to allow the Pentagon to be hit; yet the
Commission has him arriving at the bunker after 10:00!)...the omission of any
mention of the multiple war/terror exercises including a live-fly
hijacked-plane-into-building exercise that mimicked the actual attack...and
many dozens more, prove that the Zelikow report was a deliberate attempt to
cover up official complicity. No other reasonable explanation is possible.
3) Smoking guns. You did catch some of the biggest ones, but missed several
dozen at least. The governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still
have a lot of splainin' to do
is irrelevant. If explanation were possible, it would have been produced long
ago. The Zelikow report, like Silverstein's "pull it" remark, is a confession
(in neocon doublespeak) and we need to interpret it correctly and act bravely.
I urge you to broaden your reading to at least the two Griffin books, Ahmed's
The War on Truth, Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon, Hopsicker's Welcome to
Terrorland, Hicks' The Big Wedding, and maybe Tarpley's 911 Synthetic Terror,
and then join us in using this issue to radically improve the future of
humanity.
See http://911truth.org/ChicagoConference.htm
Kevin
Kevin Barrett (5/2)
Coordinator,
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
Member,
Scholars for 9/11
Member,
SPINE
Hello Mr. Partridge:
My political views are liberal. Without question, Bush is the worst
"President" (I don't think he he won both elections) ever. That is far more
important than any single special interest. We lose sight of the big picture
when we excessively focus on any one of his illegal or incompetent acts. We
lose credibility when we discard logic and prudence to take some extreme
position. For example, many dislike Bush because he is anti-choice. They want
him out of there now, so they urge his impeachment.
The problem with
impeachment is that it draws the stability of our government and whole social
structure into question. Just like a banana republic, opposite ends of our
political spectrum would have instigated attempts to to overturn two
"elections" in a row. In the long run, stability protects our rights,
prosperity and security because instability threatens them per se, or leads to
expedient attempts to curtail them and restore stability. It is far better to
argue that our existing governmental processes should do the political
equivalent of cutting off Bush's nuts to stem his testosterone flow, rendering
this dangerous man impotent and harmless for the balance of his term. This
also requires us to preserve an least a veneer of regularity and stability by
pretending for the time being that the two "elections" were legitimate.
I
think (and hope) that the electorate just appears to be apathetic and
indifferent to Bush's outrages, is instinctively following my "stability"
line, realizing that its turn in the regular political process comes in
November 2006 and 2008. If that is the case, we look ridiculous if we demand
too much too soon. We should wait until his crew leaves office (assuming they
do so voluntarily) to urge the more punitive measures that some of our liberal
friends want now. "Politics! - The art of the possible." (Evita).
On point in your essay particularly haunts me. Why did Bush stay at the
Florida school? The whole world knew in advance that he would be there. He and
his whole entourage saw the first two planes hit the World Trade Center. Bush
says that he thought "we're were at war" when the second plane hit. It was
evident that a group of people were acting in concert. At the time, just
minutes away, there were probably 50 potentially dangerous airliners over
Florida alone.
While Bush was sitting there, Cheney says that he was picked up body in chair
by the Secret Service and hauled to the White House Bunker (does it look like
the Dr. Strangelove set?). Then, he says that he determined how many
unaccounted planes are in the air and where they were, ordering all planes to
land, and, as I see him envisioning himself as he tells his story, manfully
and decisively taking other "executive action". Shortly thereafter, the third
plane crashes into the Pentagon two miles to the west, and the fourth plane is
hijacked with the intent to crash into either the Capitol two miles to the
east, or perhaps into the White House itself.
Bush left his fixed location at the Florida school after Cheney took steps to
identify the location and scope of the threat, not before.
First, viewed alone, Bush's experience suggests that he knew that his location
was safe. Next, viewed alone, Cheney's experience suggests that he knew that
he was in a dangerous location. Finally, when you compare the two men's
experiences, it is apparent that in response to the same allegedly incomplete
information, the two men were treated differently, but now, complete
information shows that their treatment was consistent with the actual danger
at their two different locations. Three dogs are not barking here instead of
just one.
I think that Bush's eyes, facial expressions and body movements at the school
show some kind of foreknowledge. He acted as if he thought that a small
terrorist act might or will happen, but was surprised when it turns out to be
monstrous. I also see a man adjusting from the safety of being able to retreat
from a planned wrongful act, to the constant danger that comes with having
cast the die. The change from not yet being a criminal, to actually being a
criminal, is stressful and shows on his face. Then, he briefly lapses into
deep thought about whether his cover, designed for a small act, would hold up
in the face of this big one. He then remembers that he is on the spot, so he
decides to resume reading. That's all he can do at the time to be like a man
who sees the police while he is up to something, and puts his hands in his
pockets, saunters, and whistles a happy tune. This might seem a bit
speculative, but I have been around for 49 years and think that I am pretty
good at reading people.
Mark Clement - Pittsburgh PA (5/2)
You only missed one point, otherwise I'm with you...
In keeping with the certified sneer which always accompanies talk of
'conspiracy theorists', it is perfectly in keeping with the talking points
propagandists to covertly fuel these specious, obviously false and
unbelievable scenarios to heap scorn on the legitimacy of their actual
collusion, which, while maintaining 'plausible deniability' enables them to
avoid accountability for their inaction and possibly worse, some prearranged
third-party (Saudi) origin for these events. Given the bush clan's smarmy
relations to the Saudis, it is entirely plausible (i.e. the Levant affair)
that this event was an inside job.
Christopher Wentworth (5/2)
Dear Mr. Partridge,
I find very little to differ with re. your Common Dreams article.
Just, since before 9/11 using high jacked airliners as flying bombs to crash
into buildings was a known Al Qaeda plan, I wouldn't be surprised if the power
grabbers knew that part of the scheme as well.
As for the rest of it, objectively I would say it's irrelevant. Just to accept
as much of a conspiracy as you posit makes the conspirators bad enough. The
problem with the truly ridiculous conjecture is that it distracts and detracts
from the more believable conspiracy. It's almost as if this is a second
conspiracy to make those who argue in behalf of a more reasonable conspiracy
suffer guilt by association.
It's interesting that Doug Thompson over at Capitol
Hill Blue believes in the
JFK conspiracy and says that he had the Tex Gov visiting him & the latter said
that he knew there was a conspiracy but let it go for the good of the country,
i.e., what today they call "closure". But Thompson does not believe in a 9/11
conspiracy. What's interesting is that one of his debunking arguments is that
too many people would have to know about it. Well, what do you know, Doug,
that was one of the main debunking arguments against JFK!
(My personal favorite: "Bullets do funny things"[!]. Smug bastards. But they
got away with it.)
Most likely, this one will be gotten away with too. Maybe that's also for the
best, in that the kind of monsters dressed as humans capable of such a thing,
well, martial law (& who knows how much worse) would be child's play.
If they did get busted, would there be civil war?
Come to think of it, what they have done already, to achieve their objectives
(pulling off such an obvious semantic con as "the war on terror", allowing
Bush to be a "wartime president" forever), with the resultant death &
destruction, well, I don't think people willing to do such things are just
going to walk away w/o sealing the deal.
For instance, how about the Army giving FEMA x million $s to build detention
centers? I could go on and on, but you probably know all this even better than
I.
Putting it all together, I think we're eventually headed for the firing squad
(or worse).
If there was a way I could get out of this country (why I can't is too long a
story for here) I would.
On the other hand, if neocons plan world conquest (if just at least de facto),
or apocalyptic Christians in the administration have their way, where would be
safe?
Regards,
Ronald Maxson (5/2)
Dr Partridge,
Not to beat a dead horse, but...in good faith, I
offer more grist for the mill:
an FYI in case you haven't seen this ...
"Q: This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by
the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a
war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?
Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we
get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a
week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort
through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law
enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of
thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an
investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police
force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the
responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.
They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded,
deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work.
It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any
technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every
place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic
knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the
missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World
Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle
to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them. "
Why did Rumsfeld say "the missile" in connection with the strike at the
Pentagon on 9/11/01? Are commercial Boeing aircraft ever called "missiles"? Or
does this mean that terrorists (or someone else) fired at least one "missile"
(a cruise missile?) that hit the Pentagon?
Was it perhaps a "Freudian slip"? (And did the "inaudible" occur as he
realized what he had just said?)
Respectfully,
Rich Walker
(5/2)
I agree there is little or no evidence of controlled demolition in the twin
towers fall. And as unlikely as it appears, I think Bldg. 7 fell from the
causes attributed by the official version, fire from underground weakening the
foundations. I suspect the underground fire was pushed along by air compressed
by the collapsing twin towers, creating conditions similar to those in a
blacksmith's forge.
A blacksmith's forge will produce temperatures high enough to melt steel, and
does so by blowing air into a charcoal fire. So it's not just fire, but fire
accelerated in a wind tunnel.
I also agree with you that Flight 77 is the only explanation for the Pentagon
attack that fits the available evidence; the thousands of witnesses, the
debris, the missing Boeing 757 ...
Where I disagree with you is that the government expected the attack on the
Pentagon, but was surprised by the WTC attack. That does not, in my opinion,
fit the available evidence. I think it's just the opposite, they expected the
attack on NY City, but not the Pentagon attack.
If you look at the critical timelines on that morning, it's obvious that the
Pentagon attack came as a surprise.
It's now clear the first WTC attack occurred while Bush was on the way to that
school in Florida, and the Secret Service KNEW about the attack BEFORE he
reached the school. Yet Bush continued with his school visit. The only way
this makes sense is if someone knew the attacks in NYC posed no threat to Bush
during his Florida visit, and over-rode the Secret Service.
When Andy Card came in and whispered the news of the second attack, Bush
simply did not react. There was no surprise, no consternation. It was not
news. Still, the Secret Service, knowing by this time that 4 planes had been
hijacked did nothing to remove Bush from his announced location. Again, this
only makes sense if someone knows the 4 hijacked planes pose no threat to Bush
in Florida..
There is so little concern for any threat to Bush that he comes out to make a
scheduled photo-op, although the topic is no longer education, it's terrorist
attacks. At this photo-op, Bush announces he's on the way to Washington to
deal with the crisis. He departs for Air Force One and takes off.
But instead of returning to Washington, he flies first to Louisiana and then
to Omaha Nebraska. What happened to change his itinerary? What changed the
situation so they now feared Bush was a target of the attacks?
Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon.
I think it's clear the administration knew bin Ladin's people were intent on
hijacking airliners and flying them into the WTC buildings. I agree they
calculated the damage would be on the scale of the Cole or the bombings in
Kenya and Tanzania. The collapse of the twin towers surprised the
administration as much as it surprised everyone else, with the possible
exception of bin Ladin.
He is a Civil Engineer by training, and was familiar with the damage from the
1993 bombing. That bombing came closer to toppling the tower than most people
realize. I think the survival of the tower in 1993 may have lulled the
administration into thinking the expected attack would be on that scale,
killing a handful and injuring scores of others.
I can accept a conspiracy at the highest level to do nothing while the U.S.
was attacked in order to have another "Pearl Harbor". Cheney, Rumsfield and
the neo-con architects of the Iraq invasion were looking for just such casus
belli to justify intervention in the middle east even before the 2000
election.
I could even believe they would take an active role in clearing the way for
the hijackers, or at least in restraining the agencies that might have
thwarted the plot. Clearly the administration did not want to hear anything
about terrorism or bin Ladin after taking office in January 2001.
Was that driven by other policy considerations such as tax cuts; the impulse
to treat any left-over Clinton priorities as anathema; or a more sinister
intent to clear the way for former CIA asset Usama bin Ladin and his assassins
to "attack".
Was this a real terrorist attack or a phony provocation like the Polish
"attack" on German radio stations that began WWII? To me, the most compelling
evidence of collusion at the highest level is the Saudi evacuation flights
taking place even while the rest of air traffic in the U.S. is under lock
down.
Either way, the attack on the Pentagon came as a surprise. Again, I think the
time-line of events shows this. Supposedly a NORAD exercise in the northeast
U.S. was occurring on the morning of Sept 11, and this exercise supposedly
included mock hijackings for kamikaze attacks in the U.S. These exercises had
been going on for several days.
This is an area where there is room for speculation about collusion, indeed
treason, at the highest levels. Were the NORAD exercises planned to provide
cover of bin Ladin's operation?
Or are they an example of an abysmal security? Did word leak out and reach bin
Ladin that this would be an especially propitious moment to make his attack
because NORAD would be distracted by imaginary hijackings?
The reason given for the slow response by the FAA and the USAF is confusion
about whether the hijackings were real or part of the exercise. Even after the
two airplanes hit the twin towers there was confusion in U.S. air defense.
But once Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, the confusion abruptly ends. The
"terrorist attack" is no longer following the script and there are F-15s over
NYC & Washington DC almost immediately ... and even, within moments of Flight
93s crash, over the Pennsylvania crash site.
Indeed, it's still questionable just what exactly did cause Flight 93's crash.
Was it hijackers determined to suicide even as the passengers fought back to
retake the plane? Or did the passengers succeed in their fight, only to have
the flight "terminated" by our own Air Force because a panicky ad hoc
emergency response group in the White House sub basement didn't know where it
was targeted?
John Sessoms (5/2)
Dear Dr Partridge,
Thank you for your cogent analysis on the 9-11 debate. I have until reading it
felt a healthy mixture of foreboding and skepticism about official and the
more radical CT versions. I intuitively mistrusted much of went for critical
analysis, the OV, including the 911 Commission Report which seemed so
sanitized as to be useless and infuriating. By the same token, many of those
who were questioning it, at least those who were being quoted by regular
citizens. were sounding uncomfortably obsessed and not just a little bit
paranoid. It would anger me because I, like you, felt that much did not add
up, and still, it seemed much more useful to go about gathering evidence more
methodically.
My question to you is, " Who, then do you trust?" I have never felt more
frightened by what feels like the face of real evil in this group of thugs
running our country, perhaps even our world at this time, and so it is not
that much of a stretch to suspect crimes of the worse kind being perpetrated.
Look at what is happening. So, again, who can we trust for thoughtful and
truthful research? Thanks for your contribution. I frankly think that this
cabal has committed so many more provable crimes since 911 that it is amazing
that they haven't been yet held accountable.
Char Stellamaris,
Clear Lake,WI
(5/2)
Hi, Mr. Partridge,
My name is Adam Hurter; I've been involved with the 9/11 truth movement since
the very beginning. I started some of the central email listservs for 9/11
researchers and activists, and I've worked for the organization 911truth.org,
but I'm currently unaffiliated.
Your essay, which I received over the Unanswered Questions wire, struck me,
largely because I agree with most of it. After a fair amount of analysis
(probably similar to yours), I believe that the plane certainly did hit the
Pentagon. And, also after a lot of time analyzing and considering, I am very
skeptical of the idea of WTC building demolitions, though I consider it a
possibility.
Nonetheless, though, I believe that 9/11 was an inside job; in fact, I think
it's very clear that it was. I think from an honest read of history one can
only conclude that only one entity has the power to execute such a massive
operation as 9/11, and that's the U.S. military-intelligence
establishment, or "secret government."
I believe, and have always believed, that the reason that the "building
demolition" and "no plane" theories are so popular is precisely because
they're red herrings. There is a ton [of] legitimate evidence, though I
don't think that any one source has compiled it in as accessible a way as
should be. [This website], though, has a lot of the evidence, especially around the issue
of the military non-response to the hijackings, the "standdown" of the air
defense system:
I've not found a truly credible response defending the official story of the
standdown and also Bush's inactions in the classroom that morning, also a
violation of standard procedure.
Best regards,
Adam Hurter
(5/2)
Doctor Partridge:
Thank for for your recent essay, "The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View"....
I'm just about 100% with you in your analysis, and I value your effort in
research, your maintaining an open and yet skeptical analytical attitude (a
rarity, in my experience), and bravery in expressing your view -- it is
refreshing (for a perennial skeptic such as myself).
The only CT presentation that I have
paid any attention to is a video called
"Loose Change, Second Edition" -- it was disturbing, but not absolutely
convincing.
As you say, we (the ordinary person looking at "this stuff", in our homes)
have very little way of telling what the truth of the matter is in relation to
the happenings around 9/11.
What we are essentially left with is our "general world views" and our
specific "intuitions".
Our general world views usually fall into two polar aspects: "pro-conspiracy"
(pro-conspiracy as a general explanation for the way the world operates -- a
smaller group of people), and "anti-conspiracy" (the larger group of people).
The pro-conspiracy camp sees conspiracies in every event. The anti-conspiracy
group denies the possibility that conspiracies ever take place.
As a general-world-view, I'm reluctant to consider conspiracies as taking
place. For one thing, I sense that people who are usually attracted to such
theories are also attracted to just about any theory which is on the fringe --
there is an attitude to start with, about what and who to believe, that cuts
across the board (though we all have this, necessarily, to some extent). I
sense a "willingness to believe", in part, because this "explanatory mode" is
personally "exciting" (a motivation which I can empathize with, but which also
gives rise to caution). Further, the general attitude is something of a
"powerless victim" in the face of on-going power-struggles "among the gods"
(if you will). The pro-conspiracists typically (in my sense of things) do not
believe in just selective conspiracies, but in all conspiracies, and often go
so far as to tie them all together (which was just confirmed to me by recently
coming across an article tying in Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination,
among other things). (My intuition is that the pro-conspiracists are akin in a
belief-system and attitude as people who believe in UFO's -- not that either
are proven incorrect, however.)
On the other hand, the anti-conspiracists seem to take a simple and possibly a
naive view of the world, in which all people are nearly alike (that is,
similar to the holder of the view), and that collusions never take place. This
may make the world seem egalitarian and comfortably simple, but it is probably
a poor understanding of reality. Anti-conspiricists have an attitude wherein
they are incapable of even looking at the possibility of any conspiracy, since
such an examination might challenge their world-view.
But let's face it, the acceptance of any semblance of a conspiracy in regards
to 9/11, in the magnitude that would be required to pull such a thing off,
would be deeply disturbing to our sense of how the world operates. But then
again, knowing how reluctant we are to consider a conspiracy (as it would
challenge our world-view) should give us pause in our skepticism, yes?
Personally, I am in flux on 9/11, and reserved about any conclusions. I don't
want to consider the implications of a conspiracy [think about it -- the
merest possibility tears asunder how we think about our country], and I know
that the coordination and secrecy among a huge group of people that would be
required is "fantastic" ... and yet there are "questions" (partly based on
intuition).
When I've talked to people about the subject of 9/11, I bring up what little
that I think that I know, which is enough to greatly question the "OV" (as you
wrote). There are items, that on the face of them, in and of themselves, give
rise to serious doubt about the OV.
1. I seem to recall reading that for a long time (and maybe even yet) on the
Project for a New American Century website, there was a statement that said
that their goals would take a very long time to bring about, barring another
"Pearl Harbor-like" event. Huh? They had it in writing that such an event
would be very helpful to their cause?
2. George W. Bush joked about "hitting the trifecta", in bringing about his
goals. (Though I can't recall what exactly made up this trifecta.) (A joke
isn't necessarily a joke)
3. The Bushies were greatly reluctant to allow any investigation into the
matter. It took a long time to bring about, the commission was time and
issue-delimited (I believe), and there was relatively little funding
(compared, say, to the space-shuttle Columbia explosion-investigation), and
the membership controlled by the Bushies, and not diverse nor authoritative.
4. George and Dick had to appear before the commission together, not under
oath, and for a very limited amount of time.
The Bushies acted suspicious. But maybe they are merely inherently suspicious
and secretive, fearful, and maybe feeling guilty.
So, I don't know what to believe, but I have my strong, general inclinations.
I strongly feel that they wanted to invade Iraq, before they even came to
office -- they were looking for an excuse. (I haven't settled on a single
"reason" for their wanting to invade Iraq, though -- I've even concocted a
list of reasons that extends to a couple dozen possibilities.)
I strongly feel that "our Regime" had the repressive, long, and complicated
Patriot Act already in the "in box", and ready to go -- looking for the
opportunity to snoop and control and increase their power.
I strongly feel Cheney and Rumsfeld are the heart of a fascist cabal that
recruited Bush to be their front man. Over time, they have evolved a working
"troika of power", wherein Bush actually has some power, but is not inclined
to act against the other two.
I strongly feel that the Bushies are a socio-pathological aberration in the
U.S. government, which is a danger not only to the short and long-range
interests of the U.S. population, but to the very world. (However, I've come
to see that they are merely an extreme end of this country's long-standing
elitist, imperialist, and militarist tendencies.)
I strongly feel that the main-stream-media is acting under a peculiar dynamic,
wherein they in-effect are acting in collusion with the Bushies (and therefore
the media's output should be totally disregarded).
I strongly feel that the Bushies were highly inclined to "look the other way",
leading up to 9/11 -- it was not mere incompetence nor distraction.
Might there not be a middle ground, between the attitudinally pro and anti
conspiracists?
Might we not consider that sometimes, under extraordinary circumstances, given
extraordinary people, there are actual conspiracies?
How extraordinary is the Bush Regime, and the people who make it up (in more
ways than one)?
Certainly a more thorough-going, long-lasting, well-funded, and authoritative
(diverse make-up, for one thing) commission needs to look into the events on
and around September 11, 2001.
Let's pray and act for positive change in the world, soon.
Thanks
Kerry Johnson
Bellingham Washington (5/2)
Well done. Most of the 9/11 theories are garbage. That said, I also am of the
opinion that key government officials got wind of an attack, were deliberately
slow to react, but did not expect the enormity of what transpired. I have
absolutely no evidence for this, it must be said, but that remains my
suspicion nonetheless.
For more debunking,
see here.
"s-info"
United Kingdom (5/2)
Ernest Partridge Replies:
My suspicion as well, also with no solid evidence. However, the behavior of
the Busheviks provides hints.
Hi Dr. Partridge,
I applaud your article on 9-11 posted at Common Dreams. It is a noble attempt
to deal with the unsettling and unsettled nature of the events of that day. I
think what you have done may open the possibility for others to ponder the
issue for the first time.
I agree that WTC 7 was ‘most probably’ a controlled demolition. That alone
throws the whole event of 9-11 into great suspicion. The more I have studied
the details of that day, the more inclined I have become to consider it a
classic false flag operation. I’m open to any idea and have seen my own
opinion change dramatically over time.
Some of the details you did not consider include the fact that the buildings
came down at near free fall speed. Nor did you consider that virtually ALL of
the concrete was turned to a fine powder! These details cannot be ignored.
Gravity does not turn concrete into dust. The amount of explosives used were
undoubtedly an enormous force—how much explosive force was used—that is a
matter that I have continued to ponder but my views have changed on this
matter substantially since I first began to look into the details. Jim Hoffman
has done a lot of research on this question. Don Paul has found interesting
information about this matter from Controlled Demolition Inc.’s own
descriptive accounts of how much effort and explosive force is required to
take down a building like WTC7.
Who profited from that day? We know some of the characters. Why did Rumsfeld
cut himself into the FAA chain of command?
I hope you will continue to investigate this matter and publish on this
subject. As you say, scholarship doesn’t mean certainty, but rather, the
spirit to doubt, the spirit of investigation...
Best wishes,
Perry Phillips
(5/2)
Dear Dr. Partridge,
Very interesting piece on Common Dreams yesterday. You make some good points
but also seem to miss some very important points (like why weren't the steel
beams from the core of the WTC towers left standing?).
I have used 9/11 and questions about it in Logic and Critical Thinking
Classes, and curiously my students all seem to come to a much stronger
conclusion than you do. For example, they have been convinced that a 757 did
not hit the Pentagon. How you can believe that one did is mysterious to me
given the dearth of photographic evidence that shows the damage was far too
slight to be caused by an object that large -- in particular the fuel tanks in
the wings should have exploded against the facade but strangely there is no
evidence of that in the photographs taken before the facade collapsed.
Anyway, it is good to see people talking about the issue. It has been
monumentally difficult to get any media outlet to admit that there are any
problems with the official conspiracy theory -- that part also you seem to
miss, the official theory is a conspiracy theory, just an utterly absurd one.
You might want to look into the work of Nafez Ahmed as well, he has been
researching the financial aspect of global terrorism, where money comes from
and such (he shows in one of his books that 9/11 was funded by money that came
from the Pakistani ISI, but no one believes they planned the operation).
In the end I also think you miss Griffin's most basic point. If the 9/11
Commission Report is obviously a lie, a travesty as you call it, then we must
demand a real investigation. You agree with him but do not seem to recognize
this fact. You might want to read his critique of the Report as well as his
discussion of the numerous reports of explosions going off in the buildings,
as reported by dozens of fire-fighters on the scene.
See the web page Scholars for 9-11 Truth www.st911.org for details.
Yours,
Richard Curtis, PhD
Seattle (5/2)
Your skeptic’s view - a few comments from abroad :
1) For the WTC buildings -
You say: The temperature sufficient to weaken steel by fifty-percent (1170°F)
was well within the range of the burning jet fuel and office supplies. (..)
Below the points of impact, the towers remain in place as the disintegration
proceeds from the top down.
If it had been for the jet fuel only, it seems to me common sense that the
tops of the buildings should have leaned sideways (towards the points of
crash) and collapsed that way. Another point of common sense : the burning
fuel did not flow down to the foot of the buildings (or not enough). Even if
the tops collapsed vertically, their weight was not changed and the weight of
the aircraft was not sufficient to cause a full collapse of the towers below.
The impact-precautions had been calculated by the builders for a Boeing 707.
You mention “a flood of put options”, but just briefly. This profit was
estimated at 15 billion dollars by a German minister, and recently a professor
of economy in Zurich, Switzerland, made a research and verified the figure. 15
billions : within the reach of a few peasants out there ? Why was it not
investigated further ?
When news of the attack reached the Florida school where… He was filmed and
millions of people saw the episode in a film. Now look at it again thinking
“he knew in advance, he was glad the attack had succeeded, he was just puzzled
thinking how he should be looking thereafter”. You will see, it fits
perfectly.
2) Attack on the Pentagon -
I know flight 77 has to be accounted for and probably ended there all right.
But I saw the initial pictures taken of the building’s façade : only a very
small hole at the ground floor level, and no aircraft debris. The lawn could
not have swallowed a Boeing… It could be that someone took a double precaution
with explosives, a fighter or a missile, no ?
3) In your own words -
"The critics of the official version should, as much as possible, get their
facts straight." This should start at the beginning. How come nobody among the
critics thought of looking for the key man of the story where he probably is
now - peacefully retired in his country or a neighbouring one in sunshine,
under a new identity provided by his State and his former employers, after
having played the part of a sort of guru to recruit the necessary initial
victims. He was staying in those far away mountains with several wives and a
swarm of children. Don’t tell me they all disappeared…
Best regards,
André Chollet
Geneva, Switzerland (5/2)
Dear Ernest,
I read your essay regarding the OV and the CTs out there regarding what really
happened on 9/11. It was very interesting. I am of the opinion that our
government at least knew the attacks were going to happen. But, like almost
all Americans, don't want to believe that our government somehow played a role
in these attacks.
Regarding the Pentagon attack, a few things you did not discuss:
1. Video tapes that would show what actually DID hit the Pentagon, from the
Citgo gas station as well as the Sheraton hotel, were confiscated minutes
after the Pentagon attack by the FBI. These tapes would provide documented
evidence that a 757 did actually hit the building. Where are these tapes and
why does the government not show them to dispel any CT that a missile hit the
building. The only video that was provided was from the Pentagon showing only
5 frames of the attack which does not show a 757 hitting the building.
2. Hani Hanjour was supposedly the pilot that flew the 757 into the Pentagon.
Hanjour could not even fly a Cessna, let alone maneuvering a 757 at 400 + MPH
into the Pentagon building without leaving a scratch on the Pentagon lawn. The
Loose Change video discusses this. I am sure you have already seen the video,
but if not...
here is
the link .
3. Cell phone calls were supposedly made from Flight 77. In 2001, the
technology to make cellphone calls from an airplane flying at 30,000 ft. and
flying at 400 + MPH was simply not available.
Regarding the WTC 7 collapse:
It is inexplicable how a building with limited fires collapsed in its own
footprint as if pulled down by controlled demolition. However, there is
documented evidence that the building was "pulled" based on an interview Larry
Silverstein gave weeks after 9/11 where he specifically said the decision was
made to "pull it". I really believe that the collapse of the WTC 7 building is
the smoking gun that 9/11 was premeditated by our government.
I would be interested in knowing if you have taken the time to read both of
David Ray Griffin's books, "The New Pearl Harbor..." and the "9/11 Commission
Report: Omissions and Distortions". I agree with you that a TOTALLY
INDEPENDENT commission needs to be created to take a second look at the gaping
holes in the OV. There are just too many unanswered questions with the
Commission Report.
Again, thanks for your skepticism regarding the OV and the CTs that are out
there.
Regards,
Kurt Watson (5/2)
I am a long-time fan of your blog, and I appreciate your taking the time to
investigate this issue and debunking some myths. However, I disagree with your
conclusion that controlled demolition can be ruled out because the WTC
collapse seemed to start at the point of impact. The explosives could have
been radio-controlled and fired in any sequence desired. The intent certainly
would have been to make it look as though the planes caused the collapse. Also
it's hard to understand why large sections of the central structure weren't
left intact after the collapse if it was caused by structural damage at one
point.
I agree with you that Flight 77 did in fact reach the Pentagon, but what is
remarkable to me is that it was allowed to do so, well after the first two
planes hit the WTC towers. I read reports that numerous military training
exercises, simulating such an attack, were being conducted that day. Is that
true? And Flight 93 seems to me to have exploded in mid-air, either by a bomb
or shot down, due to the large area over which debris were found.
I certainly also agree that another investigation is called for, one which is
scientifically and forensicly based, and divorced from politics. This should
be a matter for Eliot Spitzer. Maybe he would take action if he weren't so
busy running for governor.
I look forward to further articles on this and other topics from you. Maybe
now would be a good time to contribute to your blog.
Respectfully,
Herbert Swan
Anchorage (5/2)
Thanks for your story on the inconsistencies of the 9-11 information, [both]
the official and the conspiracy side. I personally don't accept the idea that
the Towers dropped due to controlled demolition but it's clear something is
terribly wrong with the Official Version of the story. However, I'd like to
take a moment to discuss the pilots of these planes.
I've read about the hijackers of 9-11 and about how little training they had
in flying large aircraft. Almost none, according to the flight instructors,
and by all reports they were bad at it. It therefore seems beyond
comprehension that they were able to take control of four separate commercial
aircraft and fly them with "military precision", as some have claimed, right
to their targets. (All except flight 93, that is, which disappeared without
trace into a hole in the Earth.)
Imagine, if you will, if you were in that very complicated cockpit, surrounded
by dozens of unfamiliar controls, with a cabin full of angry people behind
you, and the further stress of knowing you were on a suicide mission and that
your life would soon come to an end. Unless the planes were being remotely
piloted (hmmm) the hijackers performed like Supermen under those extreme
circumstances.
It doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense. It stinks.
Thanks for your story.
Mike Stanfill (5/2)
Hi Ernest,
Just a few comments on your attempt at skeptical inquiry regarding the
puzzling evidence surrounding 911. Your implied assertion that the buildings
probably pancaked as claimed can be effectively bolstered by showing some
examples of other modern steel frame buildings which in a remarkably short
time collapsed from fire. Not only collapsed but collapsed at nearly freefall
speed, mostly onto to their own footprint. Do you have any examples? On the
Pentagon- not one single picture of that giant airplane flying in to that most
fortified of buildings? Not one? Thats all we need. Did their cameras all fail
on that day?. Leaving bldg. 7 out of the commission report seems just a little
suspect. I mean its a 47 story building that was obviously "pulled", destroyed
through controlled demolition which means the charges were set and ready to
go-days, weeks, months, prior ? How many other buildings maintain such a
status? Framing the many dedicated people researching this important topic as
searching for a miracle does'nt seem to me a trait of honest skeptical
inquiry.
Thanks,
Sam Eliasen (5/2)
Dr. Ernest Partridge pointed out:
'Charges had to be set beforehand at the points of impact, the 94th to the
98th floors of the north tower, and the 78th to the 84th floors of the south
tower. Both aircraft, in stunning feats of piloting skill, succeeded in
striking precisely at those pre-arranged locations.'
What Dr. Partridge did not take into account is the nature of remote
detonation. Remote detonation offers the flexibility of after-the-fact
adjustment. As long as every floor had been pre-set with explosives, the
demolitionist had the luxury of waiting and finding out which floors were
impacted and, only after that, selecting those impacted floors as the 1st
batch to be detonated via remote control(s) -- to make it appear that the
collapse originated from the impacted zone.
___________________________
Your explanation seems most plausible to me. I don't think this administration
is anywhere near competent enough to pull something like 9/11 off. In fact, it
fits their MO to do what they did: nothing. I firmly believe they had no idea
of the extent of damage it would cause, but they decided to let Bin Laden take
the 'first swing', giving the administration carte-blanche to counterpunch as
they saw fit; the "Pearl Harbor Moment" that PNAC longed for and, gee, what a
coininkadink, got, just nine months after taking office. Imagine the luck!
Thus, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Google Dabhol, India if you haven't already. I think that's what started the
pipeline negotiations which failed rather miserably and I believe, led the
Taliban and Mohamhed Omar to tell Bin Laden, "We're not going to be able to
give you safe haven come October, so whatever you've been cooking up, let her
rip." Which was 9/11. My speculation is it must have been in the works for
awhile but the 'go' order came after failed pipleline negotiations with the
Taliban in July 2001.
Dabhol, Enron/GE/Bechtel 3.5 Billion Power Plant Boondoggle>Ken Lay>Cheney's
Secret Energy Meetings>Failed Pipeline Negotiations>Ultimatem to Taliban>9-11.
Or something like that.
Thanks for blowing up some of the conspiracy theories. The wild ones do a
great dis-service to finding answers to legitimate questions and
inconsistencies of the OV. It's akin to framing a guilty man.
Thanks,
Jason Dixon (5/2)
Mr. Partridge -
I admit that I am a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist. So, while my initial emotional
reaction from your article was being upset, I do concede and agree with many
of your points. You are absolutely correct in that there are many holes in the
Conspiracy Theory. You are also absolutely correct in that there are just as
many holes in the Official Version. You are right when you say that we cannot
take things on faith and we cannot cherry-pick evidence like the White House
does.
The biggest hole in the Conspiracy Theory, which you point out in your essay,
in my opinion, is what happened to the planes, the crew, and the passengers. I
also feel as strongly about Flight 93 as I do Flight 77, because there is no
photographic or video evidence of Flight 93 whatsoever. But the question begs,
just like it does with Flight 77, if the official story of Flight 93 is false,
then what happened to Flight 93?
At the end of the day, as you state in your article, we just don't know what
actually happened on 9/11. I do have a few disagreements/questions however
with your essay that I would like to ask:
1) What photographic evidence or articles are there that there were engines,
landing gear, and large pieces of Flight 77 at the Pentagon? I have only seen
very minimal pieces of the plane in all of the photographs that I have ever
seen. I will believe you if you can send me some links or photos of engines,
wings, or large pieces of Flight 77 in the Pentagon wreckage.
2) I guess I don't understand how, if the structural damage from the planes'
impact caused the collapse, since the impact only occurred on a few floors
towards the very top of the building, how did that cause enough structural
damage throughout the other 85+ floors of the building below it so that the
whole thing collapsed? I guess my gut tells me that if the buildings actually
did collapse from the impact of the planes, then the part of the building
ABOVE the impact would have just toppled over but the rest of the building
would have stayed intact. I am not a scientist so I could be way off on this
and I will be the first to admit that.
3) There were plenty of eyewitness accounts that did not describe a Boeing 757
flying into the Pentagon, but described something else - from a smaller plane
to a missile. I'm sure you've watched the film "Loose Change" already but if
you have not they have plenty of recorded and sourced/referenced statements
from people like this.
4) How did the tip of a Boeing 757, made out of lightweight carbon, cause a
hole that went through three layers of concrete walls even though the plane
supposedly vaporized on impact? That has never made sense to me at all, along
with the lack of any damage whatsoever to the lawn in front of the Pentagon.
Not one blade of grass was damaged even though the plane flew literally a few
feet off the ground.
5) I do not think that the video of the FIRST plane that hit the Towers is
conclusively and without doubt an American Airlines/Boeing 757. There is only
the one video shot by the camcorder and there is no other video of that first
plane. That has always been suspect to me as well.
Thank you very much for your essay Mr. Partridge as the biggest message in it
is that we MUST get a national discussion going about 9/11 and what happened
on that day. In my opinion, this is the MOST IMPORTANT issue in our country
today, and it might even be more urgent of an issue than the Iraq War.
Thank you for your essay Mr. Partridge.
Sincerely,
Matt Cornell
Dallas, TX (5/2)
Dear sir.....
Conspiracy theories on 9\11.
Some things you fail to mention.
What about the "black boxes" from the aircraft that hit WTC?
My understanding is that that the official version is, they were never found (
But passports belonging to the terrorists were!)
Yet I've read online reports of NYC firemen who state that two or three days
after the strike.... while the fires were still burning in the rubble.....,
were told that the black boxes had been located... and that they were to
retrieve them... and hand them over to unidentified agents ( Which they
assumed were Secret Service).
The fireman claim to have done this.
Also.... why was every military aircraft normally dedicated to defending the
NE American continent sent out of the area? Some to Alaska? Because the
"Government was running a "Special exercise" that day?
One supposedly to test and reinforce America's air defenses around NY and
Washington?.....
And is it true that Cheney was personally responsible for , and in minute to
minute charge of ,running this operation that entire day... while one aircarft
after another pumelled you guys..?
Why are there reports that Air traffic Controllers saw up to Twenty "ghost"
aircraft on their screens during the crisis..... and assumed it was part of
the governments "Exercise" and were therefore incapable of any coherent
response?
Are these facts, rumors or what?
Dave Goodrich
(5/2)
Dear Mr. Partridge –
Thanks for a well written, well thought out article on the 9/11 attacks. If
only the Bush Administration had responded with such level headedness,
probably tens of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, Americans and others would now
be alive and in one piece.
No doubt there should be a full investigation, conducted with the highest
intellectual and moral standards, of the catastrophe. Then, presumable, every
conceivable question will be answered to the everyone’s satisfaction, for all
time. As you know, though, such a satisfactory account of almost any human
action has rarely, if ever, occurred. That is why debates continue over the
exact cause of Napoleon’s death, the reason for the success of the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbour, the divinity of Christ, and the assassination of
President Kennedy. All of these would doubtless benefit from the kind of
investigation you call for over 9/11.
Given the rarity, not to say nonexistence of Perfect Accountings of the Doings
of Humans, your call for such an accounting in this case is something of a cop
out. In the real world, we are forced by the shortness of our lives and the
insufficiency of our intelligence and probity to draw conclusions in the
presence of incomplete evidence.
Rather than devote public funds and energy to another, still imperfect,
investigation, is it not better to come to a provisional (everything in life
is provisional) conclusion and act on it?
I think it is a waste of time for the American people to worry about the
absolute truth about 9/11. In fact, most Americans don’t. They know that there
was an attack,that the balance of the evidence points to its being carried out
by Muslim fanatics who died in the attack, and that the fanatics were
influenced by their religious beliefs, their social frustrations, and their
desire to inflict a defeat on the United States.
The conclusions that have been drawn from this evidence are what I believe
Americans should be concerning themselves with, for they have had dire
consequences.
Americans should ask themselves, and the rest of their fellow humans, whether
their response to 9/11 was the right one. For example, many people ask whether
the US reacted in a spirit of revenge, lashing out in violence at people who,
in fact, had little to do with the incident. If so, how can Americans learn
from the disastrous effects of their reaction and prepare themselves to act
more rationally if such a thing occurs again?
It seems to me that no amount of calculation about metal fatigue in huge
buildings, or the effect of huge quantities of debris collapsing on what
remains of a building after an airplane is flown directly into it, will help
much to guide Americans, or anyone else, in responding to unexpected attacks,
from whatever source.
So instead of picking, picking, picking at the 9/11 scab, perhaps Americans
might do better to look to the future and devise policies and practices that
will minimize the problems they have with so many other humans, and adopt the
wisdom of that great American, Will Rogers, who said “The best way to get rid
of an enemy is to make him your friend.”
Lee Zaslofsky (5/2)
Hello Ernest Partridge,
I think you make some good points in your refutation of the CT's about 9/l1.
However I would like to point out:
1) You say, "Charges had to be set beforehand at the points of impact," but
this is clearly not true. Remote controlled charges could've been set
throughout the building, and the appropriate charges detonated after it was
determined where the planes hit.
2) I have seen no explanation as to why the WTC site continued to burn hotter
than the initial fires, and smolder for over 3 months.
3) Although the debris was shipped to Staten Island, the most telling evidence
would have come from the steel columns and beams themselves. It is documented
several places that these beams were, in fact, quickly removed and shipped out
from the rest of the debris. [See
this]
4) As for the Pentagon, you say "hundreds of eyewitnesses," yet you link to a
page with only 19 such accounts. Plus, among those quotes are several mentions
of only "a plane". Are there really hundreds documented who actually saw a
747? Also, don't get me started on that site you linked [www.awitness.org].
The individual that runs it is clearly, for lack of better words, a 'colorful'
individual. [I have replaced it with another site. EP]
Just perusing some of the other topics there only served to undermine the
credibility of your original point.
5) I find it interesting that you did not at all address the Flight 93 issues.
One thing specifically I would like to see is a refutation of Somerset County
Coroner Wally Miller's statements - "I stopped being coroner after about 20
minutes, because there were no bodies there,” and for the Pittsburg Review, "I
have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.”
I'm no extremist or conspiracy nut, but I do think there are too many
unanswered questions from that day. I just think you can't absolutely rule
anything out until irrefutable proof is given in favor of one theory over
another.
The jury is still out on this one...
Thanks for your comments, though.
Regards,
Chad Corley
Ex-pat in Sydney Australia (5/2)
Dear Mr. Partridge.
Thank you Thank you Thank you. I am going to hear John Nichols tonight and
will take along your paper. I have an undergraduate degree in Architecture and
for the first time in a long time I feel that someone in the Progressive
community has finally read the material and at least said AH!!! I am on my way
to NYC for the demonstration Saturday so will write more on Tuesday when I get
back.
Your paper and Common Dreams willingness to publish it is very significant!! I
am sure that Dr Jones would meet with you and go over in much greater detail
the questions he has concerning the towers and the evidence he sees for the
implosion. As he says for the OV to be true the laws of physics will have to
be rewritten.
I agree totally with you and have suggested a number of times, to various
groups interested in the attack on the Pentagon, that it is critical to take
all of the witness statement and begin to put them into a computerized model
of the Pentagon and the area around the Pentagon, so that a we can be placed
where a witness says he or she was and then see if what they describe can be
true. This will sort out the truth from the lies in short order and then we
can proceed from there with the rest of the analysis. I have read over the
witness statements and three planes were observed at the Pentagon according to
the witness statements I read.
Again Thank you for as you said And so I felt obliged to take a closer look at
the theories and evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon.
Peace
Tom Spellman
Lake Geneva WI
(5/2)
Dear Dr. Partridge,
Rather than wasting your time refuting a bunch of half-baked 911 conspiracy
theories, why don't you review a VHS or DVD copy of "911 IN PLANE SIGHT." This
documentary was put out by the Power Hour in, I believe, North Carolina. This
hour long documentary uses mainstream network video and photos from the major
network broadcasts on 9/11 and in the succeeding days. By placing these images
side by side, you will have a very clear and factual presentation of the
events on that day. It is very compelling, and will leave you unable to refute
the domestic causes of 911.
If you prefer the easy job of debunking simplistic conspiracy theories, then
do not view this documentary. You will be hard pressed to refute it.
Sincerely,
Jan Archer
(5/2)
Your interesting dissertation ignores eye-witness testimony from firefighters
and people who heard the explosion in the basement of WTC just before being
struck by the plane. It omits the original photo of the Pentagon that was
displayed on the Marine Corps site, showing an approximately sixteen foot hole
in the Pentagon, unbroken and uncharred windows on either side of the hole,
large cable spools and construction equipment immediately in front of the
hole, and no wreckage. It's difficult to understand how a 124 foot wide, 46
foot high plane with two six-ton Pratt and Whitney engines disappeared into
that tiny hole. If the government wanted to prove the people wrong, all they
have to do is produce the tapes from the gas station across the street and
from the hotel, that were confiscated within minutes.
About two weeks after I saw these pictures, I revisited the site and found
that the photos had been removed. Official reports explained the lack of
wreckage, saying that the plane had vaporized in the intense heat. However,
closeups of the hole after the roof had collapsed show books, computers and
wooden furniture untouched and unscorched. The small portions of wreckage
appeared in later photos. Also interesting was the fact that the intense heat
that supposedly "vaporized" an aluminum and titanium plane with a rounded
graphite nose did not prevent identification of victims in a matter of days by
their DNA and fingerprints! Holy moly -- what kind of DNA survived such an
inferno? And fingerprints on what? And how did a plane with a fragile graphite
nose (containing communications equipment) punch a small hole through three
concentric nine-foot reinforced concrete rings in the Pentagon?
And why did American Airlines spend huge amounts of money in research and
development to announce that in 2004 they had finally perfected a method of
making cell phone called from commercial airplanes at cruising speed and
altitude. (check with your geek friends on this, I had many friends and
relatives conduct an experiment and try to call me from cell phones on planes
on domestic flights -- not one succeeded in getting a call out). So explain
the supposed cell phone calls from flight 93! I suppose we are now going to be
told that they were air phone calls. Must have been a long cord on that air
phone, to stretch into the restrooms where two of the calls were supposed to
have been made!
And have you never heard of Operation Northwoods? I suggest you do some
research. The duplicate flight scenario that they proposed is enlightening.
This would explain the sighting of Flight 93 at Baltimore.
As to what happened to the planes and the people. Or who really was
responsible. No-one knows. We may never know what really happened. But the
government conspiracy theory obviously does not make sense. However, the
coincidental 9 NORAD exercises that were taking place before and at the time
of 9/11 involving hijacked planes crashing into buildings were obviously
designed to distract and confuse the FAA and any air force pilots who were not
involved, and to remove most if not all air defense planes from the area. Who
was it who said "there are no coincidences."
Angela Bradshaw
(5/2)
Hi!
I read your article on the official version versus the conspiracy theories.
Last week i spent four 16 hour days reading both various conspiracy theories
and the official version. Like you i concluded that the pentagon was hit by
flight 77 (although i don't believe that it could possibly have been flown by
the pilot the OV claims flew the plane. Talk with any commercial jet pilot -
no one without significant flying experience could have succeeded with the
maneuver that plane made). However, unlike you i concluded that both the Twin
Towers and building 7 were brought down with controlled demolitions - the Twin
towers in top down demolitions (non-traditional demolition) and building 7 in
a bottom up demolition (the traditional method).
It appears you forgot two very critical points in your examination of the
collapse of the WTCs
- the pulverization of the cement as the buildings collapsed
- the fact that both buildings fell at near free fall speed
The cement in the twin towers was completely pulverized - right from the
moment it started falling. Even if the top floors collapsed onto the floors
below it would only break up the concrete, not pulverize it. However, if
thermite with sulfur was systematically used throughout the building to cut
through the steal support system holding the building up, the temperature of
5000 degrees F would have heated the steal reinforcement within the concrete
slabs in such a rapid manner that the water molecules trapped within the
cement would have been heated into steam - this expansion (steam is a greatly
expanded form of water) would have literally caused the cement to explode.
Note that not all the water evaporates out before the cement hardens, thus a
small percent of cement is actually water. As with any solid if you heat it to
it's boiling point (and certainly 5000 degrees F is way beyond water's boiling
point) it turns to it's greatly expanded gaseous form - in this case steam.
The twin towers came down in 14 and 16 seconds. Free fall speed would have
been around 9 seconds. Even if the buildings had collapsed upon themselves
(unlikely as falling objects tend to follow the path of least resistance
rather than most resistance) their would be resistance as each floor was hit
by the objects falling upon it from above. This resistance would have caused
the buildings to fall at rates significantly slower than free fall speed.
However, if the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition which
started at the top of the buildings and worked down towards the bottom (which
if you watch the videos carefully is the pattern you see), then you could
achieve close to free fall speed assuming you take out each floor just a
fraction of a second before it creates resistance for the objects which would
otherwise fall onto it.
Like you, I want to see hard evidence about what brought on 911. You mentioned
911research.wtc7.net which has a large collection of information. Better (imho)
is Scholars for 9-11 truth http://www.st911.org/ which focuses on various
scientific explanations of what could have happened. You might also want to
check out http://www.911truth.org and http://www.911review.com which seem to
take a more "serious" approach to considering the many many unresolved issues
surrounding what happened on 911 and afterwards.
Peace,
Kevin Begley
(5/2)
Dear Dr Partridge,
I would like to respond briefly to your article on 9/11 conspiracy theories
that has been reproduced on the Common Dreams website. You are with respect
correct to be skeptical of some of the more outlandish arguments that are put
forward by some elements of the 9/11 skeptics community (although there is a
school of thought that says such theories are really disinformation moves by
those who wish to discredit the 9/11 "truth movement").
There are a number of contentious points and assumptions in your article. A
brief email is not the place to debate them at length so I will refer to only
a few of what I suggest are the more glaring errors.
You say for example that a temperature of 1170F was sufficient to "weaken" the
steel in the WTC towers and this lead to their collapse. The main problem with
this argument is that not even FEMA or NIST suggest that such temperatures
were reached, and in fact only temperatures of about half that level were
achieved and then only briefly. The oral records of the firefighters for
example talk about a few small fires well under control.
Your argument also fails to explain how such temperatures could cause the
collapse of the buildings in the way that they did in fact go down. There are
some basic laws of physics that need to be overcome if the official version is
to be believed, such as the law of the conservation of momentum, and your
argument does not even begin to approach this issue. David Griffin to whom you
refer has noted twelve characteristics of the collapse of the buildings that
the official explanation does not explain, but all of which are consistent
with some form of controlled demolition.
There are multiple problems with the official version in respect of the
collapses. Apart from the conservation of momentum aspect already referred to,
there is the pulverisation of the concrete that requires a vastly greater
expenditure of energy that the energy levels created by collapses. Similarly
with the expulsion of steel beams several hundred feet from the original site.
There are many other aspects of the events of that day that you do not discuss
(and I appreciate you have space limitations also) but which were surely worth
some mention. The most important of these in the light of your apparent
preference for the "let it happen on purpose" line of arguments is the
non-operation of the US Air Force for a crucial two hour period (see Ruppert's
'Crossing the Rubicon' for an exhaustive analysis) and the likely confluence
of the "hijackings" with the multiple war games being staged that day. Another
aspect is that evidence of prior knowledge was not confined to the (heavily
redacted) August 6 PDB. For details see Nafeez Ahmed's The War on Truth.
The final comment I would make is that the arguments about the planes hitting
the WTC towers and the Pentagon are not just an issue of planes/no planes,
although there are some legitimate queries about that aspect (see Jeffrey
King's website - aka 'plague puppy') but whether what hit those buildings were
the three flights attributed to them, whether they contained the passengers
claimed, the real identities of the alleged hijackers, and where did flight 93
really crash and under what circumstances to name just a few of the many
legitimate questions that were not answered by what you rightly suggest is a
worthless 9/11 commission report.
Notwithstanding these criticisms I commend your website for even broaching the
subject (which is more than can be said for the so-called mainstream media)
and I hope that this is the first of many such discussions. You might also
like to visit the scholars for 9/11 truth website and avail yourself of more
of Professor Jones' and David Griffin's work. You may not like the path that
such explorations take you on, but the truth is too important to be left to
what you aptly call the Bush crime family to put their world threatening spin
upon.
Kind regards,
James O'Neill (5/2)
Dear Dr. Partridge,
I would like to make one comment and one suggestion. First, I don't think the
question "what hit the Pentagon" is a fruitful point of departure in
clarifying the events of that day. For in my view, there is too little
information available for establishing that.
Second, I would like to suggest you take a look at my article
"The ASCE's
Pentagon Building Performance Report: Arrogant Deception -- Or an Attempt to
Expose a Cover-up?" In
writing the article my aim was to test the official 9/11 story re Pentagon by
examining the said report, which I found deeply flawed at an elementary level.
Kind regards
Sami Yli-Karjanmaa
Jyväskylä, Finland (5/2)
Good Morning Dr. Partridge,
I have a few questions for you concerning the Pentagon attack.
As a 757 was
alleged to have flown into the building, there should have been
wreckage all over, especially two 9' tall and 12' long steel and titanium
Rolls Royce or Pratt Whitney engines weighing 6 tons each. Titanium requires
1600 degrees to melt...no pools of it found at the Pentagon?
I have read that each part of an airliner is stamped with a identification
code but have failed in my humble investigations to find any information
reporting conclusive identification of Flight 77 parts. Why not?
How is it that the impact impression on the Pentagon does not resemble a 757
?, but resembles a Global Hawk drone aircraft propelled by jet fuel (no one
would have had to dump jet fuel) would explain the engine that we've all seen
in photographs. How is it possible that the multiple cameras lining that side
of the Pentagon, supposedly one of the most well fortified, protected
buildings in the world, offer no visuals of a commercial airliner and that the
only visual record released by the government from a parking lot camera also
show no airliner? Let's just let the tapes from the gas station and hotel,
confiscated by the FBI, go by the by.....
Could you refer me to the hundreds of eye witness testimonies which confirm a
commercial jetliner? I'd sure like to know about them. I've watched newscasts
of quite conflicting testimony, and am skeptical about motorists being able to
correctly identify - in seconds - any object traveling @ 500 mph in a totally
out of context surprise situation. In fact, I've not heard a single testimony
to the incredibly forceful noise that would have deafened everyone in the
flight path??
In my research, there were no body parts found at the Pentagon, as there was
no luggage or even credible wreckage. Identifications were allegedly made by
DNA workups in a government lab. I just can't understand how the official
version at the Pentagon explained away the lack of wreckage with
"vaporization" and yet allowed for frail human flesh and bone to have been
recovered and analyzed?
As far as the press, unfortunately they have a history of going along with
whatever they are fed sans investigative inquiry. They don't need to be
coerced, they do fine on their own.
This is a genuine inquiry. I appreciate your work and yet find the Pentagon
exactly the opposite of your conclusion. I find here nothing clear,
unequivocal, or overwhelming and would surely appreciate, if your time
permits, your answers to my questions above.
yours truly,
Daniel Turbeville
(5/2)
Ernest Partridge Replies:
If the "facts" as you stated above are all true, then I am properly and
decisively refuted. However, I simply cannot accept these assertions as
true. I have encountered these and similar assertions in various sites, but
rarely independently confirmed. There appears to be too much evidence to the
contrary. Rather than reiterate this evidence, I refer you back to the
essay. Some of the links, by the way, have been replaced with more
substantial sources.
In general:
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html ,
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
For a start, about eyewitnesses:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
About damage to the Pentagon:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
About plane and body parts:
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
Hi Ernest,
I’m from New York and was there on 9/11, and it had a big impact on me. I felt
like my city was being destroyed. It took me 3 years to look past the bin
Laden story, and after months of wading through the evidence I came to the
conclusion that it was clear that it was an “inside job”. I wasn’t even
certain about the collapse of the towers, but everything that happened around
the events of that day painted a very complete picture of involvement by
Rumsfeld and Cheney and the conclusion that the official story was a
fabrication.
But about the collapse. I have since concluded that it is demolition. What
Steven Jones and others are trying to get across is that even if there had
been a collapse at the point of impact and the fires, there could not have
been the complete free fall collapse and steel frame destruction that ensued.
The “pancaking” theory which to the naive seems reasonable (hey, I bought it)
is in fact not realistic: there would have been substantial resistance from
the steel core and walls that would have slowed and stuttered the collapse, if
even such a collapse was possible. And one would not have seen the explosive
force outward that occurred as the building plummeted downward.
On looking at the videos, it’s pretty clear that explosives are planted every
few floors and exploded sequentially downward from the point of the crash. I
think this was done this way for two reasons. One was that the explosive
nature of this collapse was dramatic, and intended to be that way. The other
was that it could then be superficially explained by the pancaking hypothesis.
I’m glad you’re at least looking into this. So few on the left are. But, if
you can get past the idiosyncrasies (craziness?) of some of the stuff out
there, you’ll find that the complete picture painted by the evidence is quite
overwhelming.
Jon Korein (5/2)
