Friday, November 20, 2009

9/11 Take Two: Harry Potter and the Mysterious Building 7

Friends, you knew it was only a matter of time. And seeing as how right now I have no speaking voice, I thought I would turn to my writing voice to give more insight into our favorite tragedy: 9/11.
As you may or may not know, I have recently been hired by Borders. It is an easy job. I like being around books and I like making money. As I was shelving some new comers the other day, I stumbled across my old pal David Ray Griffin. Next to Contradictions was a new book entitled The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false). Whew! What a mouthful! And to make the book even more interesting, the subject is not WTC 7 itself. The entire book debunks the reports made about WTC 7. What a backwards and complex place this world is.

When I left off my last David Ray Griffin book, I was convinced that the government knew about the terrorist attacks and chose to do nothing about it, which to some is basically carrying out those attacks. I think they were wrong in doing so, but I found it hard to accuse them. However, Griffin is much more aggressive in this book and makes a compelling case for the "inside job" theory.

The first thing Griffin does is layout basic steps for a scientific investigation. Methods to which every scientist must adhere in order to create hypotheses, theories and conclusions. Failure to comply with these basic scientific rules results in scientific fraud. Some of these rules include never ignoring evidence, never have a predetermined outcome, always start with the most likely hypothesis, and so on. The reason he points this out is so that the reader can see just how far the investigators went to commit scientific fraud on the WTC 7 reports.

Don't forget those rules. I'll come back to them in a minute.

Now. If you remember from my earlier 9/11 posts, WTC 7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Not once. Could it have been perhaps because the Commission was headed by Phillip Zelikow? Perhaps. But who is this bozo? Besides being the head of the "independent" committee looking into 9/11, he was also a close friend of Condoleezza Rice. He co-authored a book with her. He helped transition the National Security Agency into the Bush administration, and later acquired a job within said administration. Pretty independent, huh?
Well even if Zelikow was a nincompoop, at least the committee would get some independent experts in there to really investigate the WTC rubble. Almost. FEMA headed these investigations. FEMA stands for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Oh, weird. Another Bush administration-led committee. Federal means government, you dumbos! Okay, okay. Well at least FEMA brought in the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Yet, we find out that the ASCE was extremely limited in what it could do because of the strict guidelines imposed by FEMA and therein the Bush administration.

Okay. So let's say that nobody suspects Bush and Cheaney for the attacks on 9/11. Wouldn't it still be ridiculous to have that much of a biased sway on the investigation? NIST filed the final report on Building 7. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is a respected scientific community. . .but it is also a branch of the US Department of Commerce. Everywhere you turn, you run into a Bush-Cheany committee or organization running the investigations. Pretty clever, huh?

Back to science. Let's take a deeper look into what happened to WTC 7. Two planes hit two towers and both collapsed and some debris from the north tower may have caused some damage on building 7. Also, the official report says that there were small, manageable fires throughout the building, but the firefighters were told to not bother with it. And yet, WTC 7 collapses in a free-fall, just as the two towers did. We have to look at some facts here.

1. No high rise structure has ever fallen like that because of a fire or damage from an aircraft. EVER.
2. WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane like the towers. The official explanation for the towers' collapse was extremely hot jet fuel. No jet fuel in 7! What caused it to collapse?
3. Even the fires in the towers, fed by the jet fuel, could never have burned long enough or hot enough to reach 1500 degrees C (I don't know how to make the degrees sign).

So how can multiple small, manageable fires create enough heat and energy to take down a steel structure at free-fall speeds? The fires would have to be blazing incredibly hot for the same length of time at the specific points within the structure so that the beams could all give way at once. Highly unlikely.

Unless explosives are used.

Now if you watch a video of WTC 7 collapsing, it looks an awful lot like controlled demolition. That is, when explosives are placed on the structural beams of a building and it implodes in upon itself. In fact, there are many similarities between what happened to building 7 and a controlled demolition. Griffin lists them.
1. The collapse started from the bottom.
2. The onset of the collapse was sudden.
3. The collapse was total.
4. The building came straight down.
5. Its acceleration approximated that of a free-falling object.
6. Most of the concrete was pulverized into tiny particles, resulting in a huge dust cloud.
7. The building ended up in a relatively small pile of debris.

Scientifically speaking, when these similarities are present, that should be your jumping off point. Which is more likely: an unprecedented collapse of a building due to fire and damage on one section OR extremely similar characteristics between the building's collapse and a controlled demolition. Yet from the beginning, the NIST claimed that no explosives were used.

On what grounds? On what evidence? They began with a pre-determined theory, were influenced by their superiors since they were a branch of the Department of Commerce, and they completely ignored the fact that it was scientifically impossible for their theory to have actually occurred.

Either 9/11 is the biggest organizational disaster in the history of the world OR it is one of the most brilliant cover ups we have ever seen.

Oh! And how's this for some icing on the cake! How could someone get access to plant such explosives in the WTC towers and building 7?

How about Marvin Bush, George W. Bush's brother, who was the principal of Securacom, a company that provided security for the World Trade Center. Or maybe his cousin, Wirt Walker III, the company's CEO.

Inside job. All signs point toward yes. I'm anxious to see where Griffin will take me next.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Poetic Edda

Hello fellow history lovers. It has been a wild couple of months for me, and I have to admit that I have been slacking in my reading. I'm slowly making my way through Egil's Saga, which is very good but kind of slow. In between I have been reading the Poetic Edda, the sister and companion to the Prose Edda, as well as a birthday gift from my sister and brother-in-law.

I was excited to read the Poetic Edda because of how much I enjoyed the Prose Edda. In Snorri's Prose, they reference different prophecies and poems and such. But once I started to get into the first piece of the Poetic Edda, The Prophecy of the Seeress, I realized that the Prose Edda is really a sort of sparknotes for the Poetic Edda. The Prophecy is so hard to understand, especially with the countless kennings you find. A kenning is a characteristic and essential part of Icelandic poetry. It is a simple metaphor. An example is instead of saying Odin's name, one might say the son of Suttung. That's it. But because I don't have the cultural context or a list of all the things that is familiarized with different things, it's hard to follow.

There is good news, though. Following the Prophecy is The Sayings of Har, which resemble more of a Book of Proverbs than anything else. Except it is a little more loose and kind of goofy, not to mention totally pagan. In the introduction, the editor talks about how he tried to translate as best as they could. Even in English, I think this poem is written beautifully. I am going to write out a few lines so you can experience this wonder. During this part of the poem, Har is advising us who and what we should not trust. Incidentally, women keep showing up. Wonder why!?! But I am going to throw you in the middle here at my favorite part.

Fell wood in the wind, in fair weather row out to sea,
dally with girls in the dark-- the day's eyes are many--
choose a shield for shelter, a ship for speed,
a sword for keenness, a girl for kissing. . .

. . .A brittle bow, a burning fire,
a gaping wolf, a grunting sow,
a croaking crow, a kettle boiling,
a rising sea, a rootless trea,

A flying dart, a foaming billow,
ice one night old, a coild-up adder,
a woman's bed talk, a broken blade,
the play of cubs, a king's scion,

A sickly calf, a self-willed thrall,
the smooth words of a witch, warriors fresh-slain,

Thy brother's banesman, though it be on the road,
a half-burned house, a speedy horse--
worthless the steed if one foot he breaks--
so trusting be no one to trust in these!

-The Sayings of Har, Stanzas 82, 85-88

It's funny to think about these. When you read the Book of Proverbs, it all seems like common sense and words of wisdom that we all know but yea, it's helpful to be reminded. These may have been very similar in a totally isolated culture. Well, I guess not isolated because eventually the people spread across the globe. But far from the Roman reaches and before the Christian conversion. Women must have caused a lot of trouble back then because they area continually warning against their tricks.

Stupid women.