Deadly Dust: A Special Report by Visibility 9-11

In December of 2006, and after watching the effects of the 9-11 dust on first responders and even rescue dogs for more than a couple of years, I decided it was imperative to do and expose` on the issue of the aftermath of the pulverization of the Twin Towers. The mainstream media was ignoring the issue and the government cronies were doing little more than paying lip service to the increasingly sick and dying hero’s of 9-11: The first responders. Together with many other activists on this issue, we were successful in bringing the plight of the first responders into the mainstream for much needed publicity and help. However, much work is still needed to draw more attention and accountability for the lies of the Bush Regime and the EPA, and to get much needed help for the real hero’s of September 11th. Rudy Guiliani, you are not one of them.

-Michael

Anger builds over EPA’s 9/11 report

Charges of a cover-up hit nerve with New Yorkers
By Francesca Lyman
msnbc.com contributor

Sept. 11, 2003 — Two years after the World Trade Center attacks, New Yorkers say they’re outraged by reports that the White House influenced the Environmental Protection Agency to downplay hazards posed by the toxic dust that fell in an avalanche over the city. The EPA’s acting chief defends the agency’s actions after the attacks, saying it hopes to be better prepared for “the next time.”

“I pray to God that, as a country, in the event of another terrorist attack, God forbid, we as an agency would be equipped to get the data analyzed and posted to the public,” EPA Acting Administrator Marianne Horinko told MSNBC in an exclusive interview. “All that was a huge challenge to us on 9/11 — coordinating communication among agencies, following incident command. God forbid there is a dirty bomb. I hope everyone knows their battle stations.”

In the early days and weeks of the World Trade Center disaster, says Horinko, there was such chaos that mistakes were inevitably made.

“Did we rush out (too soon) with data? On balance, I think we used our best professional judgment in an atmosphere where people were clamoring for answers.” But the agency wasn’t trying to deceive the public, she claims.

However, a report by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General released on Aug. 21 states, among other criticisms, that the White House reviewed and even changed EPA statements about public health risks to make them sound less alarming. The report charges that the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced “the information EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.” The report cites “reopening Wall Street” and “national security” as reasons for the spin.

‘We were all lied to’
The EPA presented “an overriding message that there was no significant threat to human health” even though there was cause for caution, it concluded.

“When EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was ‘safe’ to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement,” said the OIG, adding that the agency was missing data on other pollutants, such as particulates and chemicals like PCBs. In addition, 25 percent of dust samples contained asbestos, a potent carcinogen.

Yes, Horinko admits, the EPA did find asbestos in the dust samples. “But the vast majority of the samples we took did not contain it,” she says.

Asked about why people are still suffering ill effects, Horinko said she can understand that rescue workers would still be affected but finds residents’ continued complaints to be “mystifying.”

Even though the the building collapses caused the highest particulate count in the city’s history, the tragic event violated no pollution standards. That’s because the air quality regulations were set up to measure particulate matter loadings over 24-hour periods rather than intense, short-term bursts.

That is cold comfort to many New Yorkers, particularly those still suffering health effects from exposure to the dust.

Kim Todd, an acting coach who lives in lower Manhattan just two blocks from the former World Trade Center, says she’s angry. “I might not have stayed down here — with dust on me for days — had I known of the dangers,” she says. “We were all lied to, and I’m afraid everybody is going to be seriously sick.”

Some fear that “WTC cough,” sinus problems, headaches and other ailments that Todd and others continue to experience, were worsened by government officials more willing to return the city to normalcy and open the Stock Market than protect public health. Doctors, too, worry the event could spur a rash of asbestosis, cancer and other long-term diseases in the future.

Many workers still sick
“For me, it’s very scary. We lost another firefighter, and that makes one in New York and two volunteers who have died of pneumonia. My lungs are totally shot, and I’m afraid that’s what many of us are going to die of,” says Vincent Forras, a volunteer firefighter who answered the call for help, driving down from South Salem, N.Y., to Ground Zero that clear, blue-skied morning on Sept. 11.

Forras and thousands of other rescue workers on “the pile,” who were largely unprotected in those first hours and days, are still sick. Workers got little more than paper masks, if that, and there weren’t enough respirators to go round, recalls Forras, who still suffers severe headaches and ailments stemming from sinus surgery. “It took at least two weeks to get properly equipped. By then we were pretty well cooked.”

“There was a lot of finger-pointing about who was in charge,” says Joel Shufro, director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. “But in the confusion between EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the city Health Department, laws weren’t enforced.”

Workers have to bear some of the blame, says Horinko. “Many did not wear professional gear despite our best efforts.”

But, Forras says, even Mayor Rudolph Guiliani appeared to believe the EPA’s statement and went so far as to stand next to then-EPA administrator Christie Whitman and announce that the air was safe.

“When you have someone of the caliber of Mayor Guiliani saying it, they took that as gospel,” says Forras.

Not all New Yorkers believed that the smells wafting up from the smoldering remains of the two 110-story office towers were as benign as official pronouncements.

“How could something as huge as the World Trade Centers with all their contents — computers, fluorescent lights, plastic chairs, everything — just disappear?” says Todd. “They had to go somewhere.”

Workers at Ground Zero got much higher doses of dust and fumes than residents, says Dr. Robin Herbert, a physician and researcher at Mt. Sinai Hospital who worked on a program that screened and treated rescue workers and volunteers at the site. A year after the attacks, half of the program’s patients — some 7,000 firefighters, police officers and other volunteers — were still sick. While the final count is not in, says Herbert, “a substantial percent continue to have persistent upper and lower respiratory symptomatology — coughs and sinus problems.”

Toxins may linger
Two years after Sept. 11, some downtown New Yorkers are still concerned about the potential toxicity of lingering dust in indoor areas, says Jenna Orkin, of 9/11 Environmental Action, a group formed to address issues many felt literally slipped through the cracks after the disaster when the EPA turned indoor air issues over to the city Department of Health.

After Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) held hearings on the health hazards triggered by the terror attacks, the EPA and city launched a program to clean up people’s apartments, ultimately cleaning more than 4,000 apartments in lower Manhattan. But that program left out the cleanup of schools, offices, workplaces, shops and businesses — and that’s only the beginning of how “wholly inadequate” the program was, Nadler told MSNBC.

“The program was limited to an area south of Canal Street, as though there were a Star Trek force field blocking out the rest of Manhattan and other places, like Brooklyn, where we know the toxic plume traveled,” says Nadler.

The EPA tested and cleaned individual apartments only when people asked, and generally left out central air systems and common areas. “How can you clean one apartment, and not the one next to it?” Nadler asks.

Apartments were tested for only one pollutant: asbestos. The testing method used excluded active testing, which uses a fan to kick up the pollutants lurking in carpets, drapes and corners, unless applicants opted for the most aggressive cleanup, which prohibited the resident from being present (and, some say, discouraged many people from signing up).

Jo Polett, who lives 6 blocks from the trade center site, however, insisted on supervising her job, and made the contractor turn on the “active” test fan when he didn’t even know to. With effort, she learned that her apartment was contaminated with heavy metals, such as antimony and lead (with the lead reading five times the EPA’s standard). Had she opted for “testing only” — which tested only asbestos — she might never have found that out.

Polett, who speaks softly with her new whispery voice, blames her respiratory problems on the toxic dust trapped in her building’s ventilation system. Yet, because there was no visible dust in her apartment, she never suspected a problem until several months after the disaster. Too late, her home was judged “uninhabitable” by FEMA, she said. “I’m frightened by what other people might also be living with,” says Polett.

In a press conference, Nadler also release a memo by EPA scientist Cate Jenkins, a veteran of the Hazardous Waste division, saying that even the most rigorous EPA-led efforts have failed to clean up downtown buildings to federal levels for asbestos and silica, another carcinogen that, she says, could be implicated in “WTC cough.”

Jenkins’ memo states that a building at 114 Liberty Street still has visible dust. She has said that the EPA tested its own offices downtown with more stringent methods. The city Department of Environmental Protection did not return calls regarding its joint cleanups with the EPA, but Jordan Bailowitz in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office said, “The city is not responsible for oversight of what EPA had done to clean up apartments.”

New cleaning efforts urged
Siding with Nadler on this issue, the OIG has urged the EPA to re-launch a new systematic program to make sure the agency’s apartment cleaning does reduce residents’ exposure to indoor pollutants. The OIG notes that in this case, as in future terrorist events, the EPA is tasked under a 1998 Presidential Decision Directive “with the leadership role in cleaning up buildings and other sites contaminated by chemical or biological agents as a result of terrorism.”

But the EPA’s Horinko doesn’t think that’s necessary. “We stand by the job we managed in testing and cleaning up people’s apartments,” she says.

It’s too soon to say if the World Trade Center attack will have long-term health effects on New York residents, says the OIG report, although there are troubling signs. Pregnant women exposed to air pollution from the World Trade Center attacks, according to a preliminary study released in August 2003, face double the risk of delivering babies up to a half-pound smaller than babies born to women not exposed.

Doctors are still treating patients with post 9-11 respiratory problems, says Neal Schachter, a pulmonologist at Mt. Sinai. During the first year, he saw perhaps 15 percent more such patients, but that’s tapering off to between 5 percent to 10 percent more now.

“But I still get a steady stream of patients, including new ones,” he says.

Schachter also worries about the long-term consequences of the pollution that we have yet to see. “With asbestos, as well as other carcinogens, we’re dealing with silent culprits, that have yet to wind up scarring lungs or causing cancer,” he adds.

For some, the OIG report shook their confidence in government. “Accurate and timely information from government is a cornerstone of good public health,” says Mt. Sinai’s Herbert. “By deleting good information to the public — people in their apartments, people on the pile — we lost opportunities for disease prevention.”

Francesca Lyman is an environmental and travel journalist and author of “Inside the Dzanga-Sangha Rain Forest” (Workman, 1998). She recently finished a report on the health effects of the Sept. 11 attacks titled “Messages in the Dust,” which will be available online at www.neha.org.

Original article here.

Rick Veitch on 9/11 and "The Big Lie"

source: 9/11 Truth News

by Cosmos

Rick Veitch has been pushing the boundaries of comic book storytelling as a writer and artist for over three decades. Best known for his mind-bending work on DC’s Swamp Thing, Veitch has worked on everything from mainstream superhero comics such as Justice League of America to the graphic navigation of the outer reaches of his own dreams in the independently published Rare Bit Fiends.

Veitch’s most recent ongoing series was Army@Love, a black-humored, absurdist mash-up of romance and war genre comics, inspired in no small part by the hype and horror of the War on Terror. In 2006, Veitch released the epic book-length poem Can’t Get No, exploring one man’s soul-searching odyssey in the wake of 9/11. Publishers Weekly called it one of the “Best Books of 2006?.

Now Rick Veitch returns to 9/11 – this time exploring some of the many inconsistencies and contradictions of the official account – in a new book from Image Comics called The Big Lie. 9/11 Truth News spoke to Rick Veitch to find out more about the inspiration behind his new work.

9/11 Truth News: Even 10 years down the road, it takes a lot of courage to speak up about 9/11, that much more so to release a major work calling it into question. You’re putting out a book called The Big Lie on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, so I imagine you must have very strong feelings about it. Why is 9/11 important to you?

Rick Veitch: It’s important to all of us. We all lost something on that morning when that attack happened. It took me a couple years to begin to really wonder about what actually happened in contrast to what we were told happened. Tom Yeates, who is the editor of this book and the guy who did the cover – he and I are old buddies, we went to the Kubert school together and shared a hippie art crash pad together decades ago. He and I would get on the phone and we’d start talking about this stuff and agreed the whole thing just stunk to high heaven. Tom turned me on to some good 9/11 research. And I was a big fan of Adam Curtis’ BBC documentaries, especially THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES. I can’t say that I’m what some folks refer to as a “truther”, but I try to stay informed about events and I’m naturally skeptical of “official” stories. This one never quite convinced me. There are just too many holes in it.

[Read more…]

9/11 First Responders Will Be Screened For Terrorism

source: Huffington Post

by Michael McAlilff

WASHINGTON — A provision in the new 9/11 health bill may be adding insult to injury for people who fell sick after their service in the aftermath of the 2001 Al Qaeda attacks, The Huffington Post has learned.

The tens of thousands of cops, firefighters, construction workers and others who survived the worst terrorist assault in U.S. history and risked their lives in its wake will soon be informed that their names must be run through the FBI’s terrorism watch list, according to a letter obtained by HuffPost.

Any of the responders who are not compared to the database of suspected terrorists would be barred from getting treatment for the numerous, worsening ailments that the James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Law was passed to address.

It’s a requirement that was tacked onto the law during the bitter debates over it last year.

The letter from Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, informs medical providers and administrators that they should begin letting patients know before the new program kicks in this July.

“This is absurd,” said Glen Kline, a former NYPD emergency services officer. “It’s silly. It’s stupid. It’s asinine.”

“It’s comical at best, and I think it’s an insult to everyone who worked on The Pile and is sick and suffering from 9/11,” said John Feal, a former construction worker who lost half a foot at Ground Zero and runs the advocacy group Fealgood Foundation.

The provision was added in an amendment by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) during the heated debate over the bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee last May.

Sept. 11 responders in the committee room at the time mostly shook their heads at the move, which Democrats accepted on a voice vote after battling to bar other amendments on abortion and immigration that might have killed the bill.

But suddenly the point is no longer just a strategic concession to get a law passed.

As doctors and administrators begin acting on the federal instructions, participants in the 9/11 treatment and monitoring programs will soon be told that their names, places of birth, addresses, government ID numbers and other personal data will be provided to the FBI to ensure they are not terrorists.

[Read more…]

Nearly 9 Years Later, Final Sift of World Trade Center Rubble Yields Remains of Possibly As Many As 72 People

source: Earth Times

Washington – Remains of victims have been discovered in the rubble of the World Trade Center nearly nine years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a news report said.Seventy-two bone fragments were found in about two dump trucks of debris that had yet to be sifted by forensics experts, US television’s ABC News reported Tuesday, citing the New York Medical Examiner’s Office.The office said DNA testing was likely to identify some of the remains, given the size and condition of the bone fragments. About 1,000 people of the nearly 3,000 victims of the suicide plane hijackings that brought down the two towers of the World Trade Center have yet to be identified.The experts sifted through 645 cubic metres of debris over three months to find the remains. The debris was the last from the World Trade Center that had yet to combed.

Read Original Post

Feal Good Foundation Responds to Obama Flip-Flop on 9/11 Health Bill

via: Facebook

FEAL GOOD FOUNDATION RESPONSE TO NEWS THAT THE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES DOES NOT SUPPORT H.R. 847

Dear Fellow First Responder:

As you may already know, today we have learned that President Barack Obama no longer supports H.R. 847, the Congressional bill that would guarantee funding for health care and research. While this news is stunning, and a complete reversal of his position on this bill during his 2008 presidential campaign, please be assured that the Feal Good Foundation alongside its friends in labor and the N.Y. Congressional Delegation will continue to fight for this bill and to advocate for full Presidential support. Our fight is not over.

Nearly eight and one half years ago we, the First Responder Community, demonstrated our strength, resilience and determination of spirit following September 11th. We must do so again. While the President’s current stance on H.R. 847 represents an obstacle, we have surmounted such obstacles before and will continue to overcome them now. “Never Forget” is more than a campaign slogan or bumper sticker to the men and women who bravely immersed themselves into the toxic Ground Zero air to save the lives of strangers and rebuild New York City and this country. We will “Never Forget” and today I tell all those opposed to H.R. 847 “We Will Never Give Up.”

H.R. 847 is about guaranteed health care treatment, monitoring and research; nothing more, nothing less. We have witnessed First Responder after First Responder fall victim to 9/11 illnesses over the past several years. Just this week another firefighter and friend perished as a result of his heroic actions. While the White House and detractors of H.R. 847 are quick to point out that treatment for First Responders currently exists at the Centers of Excellence, such arguments are missing the central mandate of the bill – guarantees! The reluctance of the White House to support this bill merely 8 ½ years after the worst terrorist attack on United States soil merely solidifies the need for guaranteed care now. Shall we rely on “discretionary budgetary spending” twenty years from now when the World Trade Center attack is a distant memory to new administrations? Are we to trust that presidents in the years to come will allocate sufficient funding for treatment and research when we are already being told that current administrations “don’t have the money to make us healthy? We cannot and will not give up hope that this government will recognize its moral imperative to care for the World Trade Center First Responders.

The Feal Good Foundation will not give up its efforts on behalf of the First Responders. It is our sincere hope that you will continue to join us in our quest for justice.

Sincerely,

John Feal

Explosive Theory

source: Metroactive

Eight years after 9/11, a growing organization of building trades professionals suspect that there was more to the event than the government will admit

by Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie
JUST A FEW YEARS ago Ed Munyak, a fire protection engineer for the city of San Jose, seemed like a lonely, out-there figure, a sometimes-target because of his outspoken position on the events of Sept. 11, 2001. These days, hundreds of other building trade professionals have joined him in challenging the official narrative about the collapse of three buildings at New York’s World Trade Center (WTC) on that fateful, traumatic day.

Munyak, of Los Altos Hills, is a mechanical and fire engineer whose job is to review building plans to ensure they comply with the California Building and Fire Code. In 2007, after speaking out on his own for a few years, Munyak signed on with a then-fledging organization called Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911 Truth), founded by Bay Area architect Richard Gage.

Today, far from being isolated, Munyak now counts as allies 804 professional architects and building engineers from around the country. Collectively, they have joined Munyak’s call for an independent technical investigation of the causes of the WTC buildings collapse. In doing so, they reject the federal government’s conclusions that two airplanes alone brought the buildings down—without the aid of pre-planted explosives.

Munyak and his fellow AE911 supporters recently received acknowledgement from the FBI’s counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization’s core evidence deserves—and will get—FBI scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach assessed AE911’s presentation as “backed by thorough research and analysis.”

Munyak and his professional allies insist that they are not conspiracy theorists, and they refuse to speculate on the “why” or “who” of 9/11. Munyak described their basic position in an interview with Metro.

“Buildings do not fail from fire related causes in the way that World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 failed. Steel frame or composite steel buildings, modern high-rise buildings—they just do not collapse catastrophically like that. It’s impossible.

“Only if you sever columns in some other way will those buildings collapse. It takes too much energy, and that energy was not there even with adding in all that jet fuel. It defies all engineering analysis and theory that those buildings collapsed in that manner. It just doesn’t make any sense.”

Apparently reinforcing this position, a team of three scientists working at technical laboratories in the United States and Denmark reported in April that analysis of dust that they say was gathered at the World Trade Center found evidence of the potent incendiary/explosive “super thermite,” used by the military.

The re-investigation movement received attention this week after it percolated into the high ranks of the Obama administration.

The President’s green jobs advisor, Van Jones, resigned on Sept. 5 amidst a controversy over his statements about Republicans and his endorsement of a 2004 statement by the group 9/11 Truth.org, when he was head of an Oakland non-profit organization.

The letter, signed by more than 100 official-version doubters, called for “immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the [Bush] administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

BLOWN THEORY: 9/11 Truthers point to photographs and videotape as evidence that explosives were used to destroy the twin towers.

Patriotic Duty

San Jose architect Thomas Lyman Chamberlain, another member of AE911 Truth, calls the official account of the 9/11 events “a fraud.”

“In light of the human life and liberties being taken based on that fraud,” Lyman wrote on the AE911.org site, building industry professionals “have a patriotic duty to invoke their credentials on behalf of the victims and the integrity of our nation.”

Chemical engineer T. Mark Hightower of San Jose, a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, agrees. “It is clear that the buildings had help to bring them down,” he says.

AE911 Truth has grown rapidly, igniting a struggling grassroots movement of hundreds of other “9/11 Truth” organizations, and spearheading a growing assault on the official story. In recent years, other single-profession 9/11 Truth groups have launched or gained momentum, including those comprised of airline pilots, firefighters, veterans, medical professionals, scholars, lawyers, religious leaders and former government employees.

Also individually calling for a new inquiry are two dozen retired U.S. military brass and eight former U.S. State Department officials, along with a number of Republicans who have served in high federal positions since President Reagan, including former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts and former Reagan administration Assistant Defense Secretary (and retired Marine Corps colonel) Ronald D. Ray.

Activists around the country attribute AE911’s professional credibility and its unwavering focus on the WTC as the fuel that has galvanized the movement. David Ray Griffin, the retired Santa Barbara philosophy professor and theologian who is perhaps the leading intellectual force within the Truth groups—with seven 9/11 books to his credit, including The New Pearl Harbor—notes that it “is possible many of these organizations wouldn’t even have formed without AE911 first being there.”

“AE911 represents the biggest boost yet to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement,” Griffin says. “It is clear there are far more architects and engineers who have spoken out against the official story than have publicly supported it.”

FALLOUT:The government’s theory about what destroyed WTC Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, does not satisfy members of AE911 Truth.

Building a Case

The local members of AE911 Truth and their allies elsewhere make these arguments:

• Crucial elements of the key government study on the step-by-step events that occurred in the collapse of the WTC buildings don’t stand up to analytical scrutiny. The study was undertaken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the U.S. Commerce Department agency responsible for building and other safety codes and standards.

• An airplane crash and subsequent fire aren’t sufficient cause to bring down the towers, not even when combined with the presumed dislodging of fireproofing that protected the core steel beams in the areas in which the two planes struck. (This dislodging, NIST asserts, made the steel vulnerable to softening by fire and brought on the collapse—the first ever of a steel-framed building hit by fire.)

•  NIST never tested for explosive residues despite evidence, including many eyewitness accounts from first responders and people who escaped the buildings, that explosives and incendiaries were present.

•  The collapse of the three buildings resembles two different types of controlled demolitions, and not the bending or toppling of a heated building section that might result from a fire.

Following the collapses, NIST assembled a panel of more than 300 staff and external experts and spent three years and $20 million on what it claims is the most exhaustive technical study ever of a building collapse.

Released in 2005, the initial NIST report concluded that the twin towers, which NIST agrees could not normally be brought down by fire alone, collapsed because of a combination of factors, most crucially the dislodging of fireproofing by the planes’ impacts. This allowed certain beams to soften sufficiently to force an inward bending of perimeter-supporting steel beams, putting so much pressure on the fire-weakened—and in some cases severed—center steel columns (three severed in one tower and five in another out of 47 in each) that they collapsed in the areas where the planes had struck.

NIST also stated that there was more than enough “mass plus acceleration” of the upper stories of the twin towers as they fell to force a collapse of the lower structure straight down at nearly free fall speed, with each floor adding its weight and the force of its fall to the pressures on the floors below—a theory it argues is supported by elaborate computer models.

NIST’s report on the third building to collapse, WTC7, released in August 2008, argues that mass computer modeling of existing evidence also fails to support an explosives theory. The report concludes that WTC7 was brought down by seven hours of fires combined with falling debris from the towers that weakened an entire building section and forced the collapse of a key support column, allowing the building to cave in on itself.

(The NIST towers report should not be confused with the 9/11 Commission Report, which came out a year earlier with a wildly inaccurate technical analysis that not even NIST accepts.)

Poll numbers reflect varying levels of disbelief of the official narrative. The Zogby poll in 2004 found that half of New Yorkers thought that U.S. officials knew the terrorist plot was going to unfold and consciously failed to act. The New York Times and CBS News commissioned an Angus Reid Global Monitor poll in 2006 and found that 80 percent of Americans thought President Bush was at least hiding something regarding 9/11.

In 2006, Popular Mechanics magazine published a study debunking critiques of NIST, most notably the assertion that explosives brought down the Trade Center buildings. All this was before engineers, scientists and architects began to organize and present evidence challenging both the official narrative and Popular Mechanics‘ defense of that narrative.

Puzzling Evidence

Within his 20-year career, Richard Gage counts among his accomplishments the design of numerous fireproofed steel-framed buildings. In an interview with Metro, Gage, 53, a lifelong Republican, described having a moment of clarity when he first heard alternative theories of 9/11 presented in March 2006 by David Ray Griffin. As he tells it, he was driving to a construction meeting and crossed the talk radio political divide that day to listen to progressive Pacifica Radio’s KPFA interviewing Griffin.

“What Griffin was saying is that the ends of these beams that were being ejected out of the World Trade Center at 55 mph were dripping with molten steel, and they landed more than 500 feet away,” Gage recounts. The station also played interviews recorded after 9/11, including with firefighters who described hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light that would support an explosives/incendiaries theory.

Before this, Gage notes, he hadn’t paid heed to the technical details of the collapse or questioned the official story. Particularly striking to Gage was the fact that the taped eyewitness interviews had only in August 2005 been released to The New York Times by the city of New York by court order—nearly four years after 9/11.

“This was information that has been hidden by the city of New York, and it became obvious the reason why they hid it,” Gage said. “So I began looking at it myself. The more I read, the more disturbed I got, and I realized fairly quickly what I needed to do, and that was to start Architects and Engineers for 9/11Truth.”

As founder and executive director, the soft-spoken Gage has since become something like a subversive Al Gore, delivering a disturbingly inconvenient PowerPoint presentation that he maintains dissects most of the key elements of the NIST report. Somewhat obsessed with recruiting as many building professionals as possible, Gage left his job and spends most of his time traveling from city to city presenting the core forensic case to bodies of fellow experts and to any groups that will listen.

“Most all of the architects and engineers that I present to, once they see the graphic evidence, they are completely overwhelmed, as I was, with the forensic-based scientific facts surrounding this case,” Gage says. He gets similar buy-in from nonprofessional groups of all political stripes.

Like Munyak, Gage cites the fact that steel framing serves as a heat conductor, actually cooling fires and equalizing the burden on any one steel section. “The steel doesn’t get to the temperature that would cause it to weaken,” he says. “No steel-framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire, and we have almost 100 examples.”

As for NIST’s theory that once the towers’ impact-area beams gave way, the mass above them would rapidly crush the lower stories, Gage argues that the premise ignores the laws of physics.

“No force can crush that kind of a structure at near freefall speed. It’s ludicrous,” he says. “Not only that, the videos show that 95 percent of the south tower is being blown outside, indicating explosions. And the top of the north tower is being reduced from 15 stories to seven stories before it even starts to drop. Half of its mass is destroyed in the first two seconds.

“The remaining mass cannot fall at near freefall speed and crush 80,000 tons of steel and pulverize to powder 90,000 tons of concrete and create tons of molten metal by some unknowable process.”

Defending the NIST research, spokesman Michael Newman says the agency’s computer models were highly reliable in their crucial assessment of the amount of fireproofing dislodged—a factor not present in fires in other steel buildings cited by Gage.

NIST, supported by a number of independent building and explosives professionals who are critical of AE911, also stands behind its theory that the impact of the upper floors crushed the lower ones.

“Basically, gravity and the utter force of the upper floors forced the towers down,” Newsman says. “If you have 20 floors of mass suddenly released, as it goes downward it picks up more mass and more force—and, yes, you can have a building collapse in 10 seconds, and yes, it is physically possible.

“We believe that three years of hard scientific technical investigation based around a tremendous amount of evidence and confirmed by many physicists will give you the same conclusions.”

Newman adds that while the force of the collapse created air pressure that blew debris outward, mimicking what Gates argues are explosions but which NIST says were not, there was more than enough mass still descending straight down to hammer the lower floors into collapsing one by one, each failed floor then adding to the descending mass.

However unquestioningly the public, media and government may have accepted NIST’s conclusions (“I saw the planes hit the buildings; what else could have brought them down?” is a common refrain), Gage and his “not-so-fast” colleagues argue that they easily found flaws and ignored evidence in the study.

Most prominently, the 47-story steel structure Building 7 was never struck by a fire-proof dislodging plane but collapsed anyway.

Dust to Dust

Moreover, according to Gage and others, a major clue that something in the twin towers was producing far more heat than could a jet fuel fire (and reached far more of the steel structure than the areas around the jet fuel fires) is the alleged sightings by some first-responders and later by some of the debris-removal crews, of molten metal, like hot lava, some found to be glowing in the basements of WTC buildings up to three weeks after 9/11—far longer, they say, than jet fuel sources could produce. (Interviews of many cleanup-crew members by a demolition company found no evidence of molten steel sightings. Gage cites evidence to the contrary.)

Newman says NIST believes that any molten metal sightings, including metal seen pouring from the south tower, were likely molten aluminum from the airplane. Moreover, he says, NIST was not presented with evidence of molten steel, and if some melted, this occurred after the event, in fires underground, and was not a contributing factor to the fall of the building. Gage dismisses this as “impossible without a source of oxygen such as thermate,” adding that molten metal seen in NIST-cited videos isn’t the color of molten aluminum.

The 9/11 Truthers also respond that most of the steel evidence was carted away rapidly and recycled in China before it could be examined to prove either melting or NIST’s key theory of dislodged fireproofing, and consider this “destruction of evidence.”

Supporting AE911’s theory is Dr. Steven E. Jones, a nuclear physicist known for his work in cold fusion. Jones says he was forced into early retirement from his position as a professor at Brigham Young University because of his work attempting to show that powerful explosives were present in the WTC towers.

After Jones initial analysis was harshly criticized for flaws by BYU’s own building engineering department, Jones and other scientists co-authored a new critique accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed New Civil Engineering Journal that mentioned thermite as a potential culprit in the building collapses. This was followed by a research paper published last April.

Co-authored by Jones and associate professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University’s famed Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, and by Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab manager for BYU’s Transmission Electron Microscopy lab, as well as four other researchers, the paper provided vivid microscopic photo evidence of highly flammable red-gray chips that the authors say appear to be super thermite found in four different reputed WTC dust samples sent to Jones by suspicious New Yorkers who had collected them shortly after 9/11.

Thermite, a mixture of aluminum powder and iron oxide, is known to burn through steel. Adding either silicon, magnesium or titanium to the mixture makes it thermate or “super thermite,” a substance with an accelerated capacity to cut through steel. According to Gage, “the military uses it to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.”

“Dr. Jones found the chemical signature of thermite,” Gage says. “So, the evidence all ties together to support the hypotheses of a controlled demolition.”

In an interview with Metro, Jones said his and his colleagues’ microanalysis of the four different samples of dust collected from various sites in lower Manhattan revealed not only extensive presence of red-gray chips of unignited thermite, it also found significant traces of microspheres of previously molten iron that are normally the product of incendiary explosions far hotter than jet fuel fires.

“What strikes me as odd,” Jones said, “is that these red chips we found are so striking, and yet no one has reported their presence before. These red chips are very unusual and very prevalent, and they test out as being consistent with a form of thermite. We can ignite them, and they react very violently when touched off. So how do you explain their presence in the towers’ dust?

“USGS [the U.S Geological Survey, which did some testing on WTC dust for NIST] has a lame explanation for not looking for this. I have been encouraging them to test early dust samples, but they haven’t responded.”

Jones said he sent a letter in April 2008 to NIST about his findings, inviting it to test its own dust for such chips. In public comments since, NIST has dismissed his research as not scientifically valid, because Jones can’t prove the “chain of custody” of the dust he tested. Other groups, notably contributors to AE911.info, which supports the NIST findings, argue that neither the samples nor Jones tests are reliable.

Jones simply says: “They don’t need my dust to test. They have plenty of dust of their own where they know the chain of custody. They just won’t test it.”

Mushroom Clouds

Gage, Jones and other critics cite other official evidence possibly pointing to explosives including the fact that iron-rich microspheres were found in tests by USGS and RJ Lee Labs.

Says Gage, “In the twin towers, it’s very explosive. You can see the explosions in all the videos, and what’s happening is the explosions are creating this incredible dust cloud. The dust clouds are forming immediately. In the dust from the WTC, you have millions of these tiny, perfectly spherical microspheres of iron. Now, where did they come from?

“The only way they could have been formed is to have molten iron and then a series of explosions whose incredible force atomizes, if you will, the molten iron.”

Dr. Jones notes that a USGS scientist told him the microspheres might have come from the cleanup process, when crews were cutting steel. “Problem is that we have samples from long before the cleanup began,” he says.

Gage and other Truthers point to other indications of explosives. Besides vast mushroom clouds of dust and debris exploding outward at the top of both towers, videos show squibs that appear to be many small explosions. Moreover, like some first responders and escapees, in some cases live on-air broadcasts reporters joined in describing the explosions.

According to Newman, NIST studies showed that the apparent explosions and squibs were actually compressed air from the force of the collapse finding openings and blowing debris and dust outward in an explosive manner.

Eyewitness accounts of explosions, he says, weren’t evident in 10,000 interviews NIST conducted, and a few such reports were readily explained by other phenomena.

“No one gave us any evidence that there was any kind of explosive,” Newman says. Nor did NIST find evidence of a “severe high-temperature corrosion attack,” he says, noting that sulfur and manganese were heavily present in building materials and that any corrosion might have occurred in the debris pile after the buildings’ collapse, due to the conditions there.

AE911 critics support NIST with an argument that explosive sounds likely derived from electrical and air-conditioning transformers exploding, the sound of floors collapsing onto each other, or rivets popping all at once as the pressure got to them. “The way I see it, it had to be the rivets,” the online Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories quotes one firefighter saying.

“So why didn’t we look for explosive residues in the towers?” Newman asks rhetorically. “Because there was no evidence saying go that way. There was a lot of evidence saying look at the impact of the plane, the loss of fire-proofing, the bowing of the perimeter beams, which was the final straw that broke the camel’s back.”

Even so, why not test debris—a relatively simple operation—to put the question fully behind and silence critics? Newman says NIST did calculate the quantity of thermite that would be needed—and found that it would require a tremendous amount in each column to get it to melt.

Newman acknowledges that NIST’s response that it sees “no need” to test dust for any form of thermite won’t satisfy critics, and adds: “We don’t try to debate or argue with these folks because they have their opinions and what they believe is evidence, but to us it is counterproductive to engage in debate.

“We’d rather let the body of evidence we presented stand on its own merits. We feel this is a very good piece of work—in many ways pushing investigations way beyond what’s gone before. Our work is to help strengthen buildings, and proof of the validity of our research is that most all our recommendations for changing building codes have been accepted by the international organization that models building codes. That wouldn’t have happened if they doubted our findings.”

Gage and his allies say that Newman is one among a group of government-dependent employees fearful that evidence of explosives would be too traumatic for the public to handle—and probably too risky to their political superiors.

Notably, however, unlike with, say, Environmental Protection Agency research on WTC toxins, no whistleblowers have emerged to lend credence to that theory. Not one NIST scientist or technician has protested the findings or leaked an accusation that the NIST report was influenced by political pressure.

Ed Munyak, who is more nuanced than Gage in his critique of NIST, concedes that the NIST report actually provides some evidence supporting alternative theories of the WTC collapse. Munyak argues that top-down influence shows up in the overall presentation of the report to the public and its final conclusions, not in all its details provided by working technicians and scientists.

“There is some very good information in the NIST report if you really look at it and analyze it, as I’ve done, that makes the case that something else happened,” Munyak says. “The report [conclusion] says there was one structural failure and after that happened, collapse was inevitable. Which just is not the case. I’m saying that’s the falsehood of the NIST political leaders, not so much the people who do the research.”

“The fact is that the collapses don’t resemble any fire-induced behavior of structures, but it exactly mimics a controlled demolition, so why not investigate that? It’s all very suspicious and that’s why an independent investigation is needed so we can all learn from this.”

LA Weekly founder Jay Levin is writing a book about the WTC scientific dispute. Tom McKenzie is a freelance reporter.
Read Original Post

Surprising Cancers Seen in Young 9/11 Officers

source: MSNBC/ Associated Press (AP)

Researchers probe possible small spike in immune system cancer rate

Father_Michael_Judge_9_11Researchers say a small number of young law enforcement officers who participated in the World Trade Center rescue and cleanup operation have developed an immune system cancer.

The numbers are tiny, and experts don’t know whether there is any link between the illnesses and toxins released during the disaster.

But doctors who coordinated the study, published Monday in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, said people who worked at the site should continue to have their health monitored.

“What we are trying to get out there is: Be alert,” said Dr. Jacqueline M. Moline, director of the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

The researchers looked at 28,252 emergency responders who spent time amid ground zero dust and found eight cases of multiple myeloma.

Those findings were no surprise. Multiple myeloma is the second most common hematological cancer in the U.S. after non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Normally, researchers would expect to find about seven cases in a group as large as the one examined in the study.

However, four of the people who fell ill were under age 45, and multiple myeloma is thought to be more rare among people of that age. Under normal circumstances, researchers would have expected to find only one case of the disease in that age group.

Those four young multiple myeloma patients included one officer who was caught in the dust cloud on 9/11 and then spent months working long hours at the site. Another spent 111 days at the Staten Island landfill where the rubble was sifted. Two others had less exposure, working 12 and 14 days each in the pit and rubble pile.

The study said it is possible the monitoring program was simply more effective at finding the illness among people who wouldn’t ordinarily be subjected to intense medical tracking.

Nevertheless, Moline said, “You shouldn’t be seeing so many cases of myeloma in younger folks.” The median age of diagnosis for that cancer in the general public is 71.

Several groups are studying New Yorkers exposed to toxic dust when the skyscrapers collapsed.

To date, no study, including the one published Monday, has established a link between that dust and cancer, said Lorna Thorpe, a deputy commissioner and epidemiologist at New York City’s health department.

The timing of the four cases examined by the team at Mount Sinai also raised questions about whether they are related to their work at ground zero, she said.

Most research on multiple myeloma indicates that it usually takes 10 to 20 years for someone to develop that cancer after an environmental exposure to a carcinogen.

In these cases, the cancers were diagnosed in as little as three to four years after the attacks, suggesting that something else caused the disease.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32349670/ns/health-cancer/

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes back to the Program Dr. Steven E. Jones

This important episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program Physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones.  Dr. Jones is a retired physics professor and first emerged in late 2005 with his important paper, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, and has continued to do groundbreaking research into the “collapses” of all three high rise buildings on September 11th, 2001.

Our talk today with Dr. Jones features an in-depth discussion on a new paper which has been formally published and peer reviewed by The Open Chemical Physics Journal titled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.  In this revolutionary new research paper, discoveries made in the World Trade Center dust, particularly the red/gray bi-layered chips, are examined in great detail and include evidence of the thermite fingerprint at every juncture.

The research paper ends with this sentence, which pulls no punches when it comes to what the authors believe these red/gray chips to be:

“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

Kevin Ryan says,

“My colleagues and I have a new mainstream peer-reviewed paper published today, entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust From the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”.  Basically it shows that high tech explosive/pyrotechnic materials are scattered throughout the WTC dust.  How can this be?”

Dr. Steven E. Jones another co-author of the paper writes:

“In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.”  The red/gray chips are the “loaded gun” of  9-11.

Download this important episode of Visibility 9-11 here.

Find links to the research paper, these episodes, and watch for other planned interviews on this topic at our Visibility 9-11 Special Report, The Thermite Fingerprint; The Loaded Gun.

An Early Birthday Present For Me From My Father

I met my father for lunch today, and he had an early birthday present for me. It was a piece of the above mural in a picture frame, along with a brief description.

About Yakov’s Mural
After 9/11, Yakov Smirnoff used his art as an outlet for his grief. He created the painting “America’s Heart” including a special message that reflected his belief in the human condition.

“The human spirit is not measured by the size of the act, but by the size of the heart.”

Yakov shares that, “Along with so many people, I was stunned as I watched the images on television on the morning of September 11; and what made this devastation even more grievous was to know that what I was watching was coming from New York harbor, which is the home of the Statue of Liberty. She had to stand there and watch our American landscape changing in front of her very eyes, never to be the same. And yet she stood there, together and strong without wavering. I think it’s a wonderful metaphor for all of us, to stand there, together and strong, without wavering, in love and not fear.”

[Read more…]

The 9-11 Dust, Part 3 on Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey interview with Ground Zero First Responder John Feal

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Ground Zero First Responder John Feal
The 9-11 Dust (Part III)
In this the 3rd of our series on the 9-11 Dust, Visibility 9-11 welcomes to the program John Feal, president of the Feal Good Foundation. One week after September 11th, Christie Todd Whitman stated that, “Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington D.C., that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink.”, even as the EPA had information to the contrary. In fact, the 9-11 dust was extremely caustic and in August of 2003, the EPA issued a report showing the changes the Bush administration made to the initial cautionary statements which were originally meant to warn the public of the dangers in the dust. These warnings were changed to reassurances and the public never heard the truth. These lies have resulted in thousands of people getting sick from breathing the toxic dust, and now, over 5 years later, they are dying. If you think our own government isn’t capable of deliberately killing its’ own citizens, think again.

Soon after 9/11, our guest John Feal (a US Army veteran) started experiencing serious respiratory problems, a condition they now call “The World Trade Center Cough.” He spent two months in the hospital while he battled with a host of health problems. Because of an arbitrary exclusion in the law, Feal, like many search and rescue workers who were injured during a two-week window at Ground Zero did not qualify for the 9/11 relief fund. Like thousands of others, John risked his own life to save others, but when he became sick and injured, he was abandoned and forgotten.

Since 2003, John has acted as a leading advocate for 9/11 heroes who where denied both the benefits promised by the federal, state, local governmental and the charitable aid collected on their behalf. John is also a former board member of Unsung Hero’s Helping Hero’s, a not-for-profit raising awareness of the plight of 9/11 responders. In addition to assisting 9/11 workers as a whole, John has been active helping Ground Zero workers on an individual basis with administrative issues and by helping first responders get media coverage.

Direct Download this episode of Visibility 9-11.