9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h

an attempt to uncover the truth about September 11th 2001
mirror of “NERDCITIES/GUARDIAN” site : disclaimer


From the book Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid (with comment).
Chapter 1: What went wrong with the investigation?


The original text is black with quotes in mauve and highlights on a mistyrose background.
Comment is in red with quotes in this color and highlights on this background.

The Science Committee of the House of Representatives held a meeting March 6, 2002 to discuss the investigation of the World Trade Center collapse. Their report concluded that the investigation was "hampered". One problem was that clean-up crews arrived the same day and immediately began disposing of the rubble. The result was:

"Some of the critical pieces of steel ... were gone before the first [investigator] ever reached the site."

When investigators finally arrived at the site they discovered they were subservient to the clean-up crews:

"...the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence..."

Why was the investigation given such a low priority? Or should that question be phrased: Why was the disposal of rubble given first priority? Were New York residents simply too shocked by the attack and too concerned about finding survivors to care about saving the rubble for scientists?

According to an article on December 25, 2001, the New York Times asked city officials about the destruction of the rubble:

"Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation."

Their silence provides support for one of Congressman Boehlert's accusations:

"I must say that the current investigation ... seems to be shrouded in excessive secrecy."

"I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled." Professor Astaneh-Asl of Berkeley, at the Committee on Science hearing, March 6, 2002.


An analogy: Imagine clean-up crews arriving immediately after a murder. When detectives arrive the most important bullets have been sold to recyclers; the dead body has been buried; and most of the blood has been washed away. Also imagine that the cleanup crews have more authority than the detectives, so the detectives must ask permission to take photos and retain evidence.


"No one is in charge"

With thousands of missing people, and with statistics showing that many would die within 24 hours, rescuers were under a lot of pressure on September 11th to find survivors quickly. Neither the emotionally charged rescuers nor the families of the missing people had time to carefully document the rubble. Rather, rescuers tore through the rubble as soon as the dust had settled, and they worked throughout the night. There were so many rescuers and they worked so fast that by the next morning Mayor Rudy Giuliani announced that they had disposed of 120 dump trucks of rubble.

Destroying rubble was understandable during the first few days of the rescuer. However, some portions of the rubble were smoking because of the high temperatures, and those piles of hot rubble should have been left alone. The only sensible place to look for survivors was in the cool areas. Consequently, all of the hot piles of rubble should have been untouched when the investigators arrived.

By the seventh day it was extremely unlikely that people were still alive in the rubble. After one month looking for survivors was ridiculous. However, the frantic destruction of rubble continued month after month, regardless of the impossibility of finding survivors. Furthermore, Building 7 had been evacuated many hours before it collapsed, so there was no reason to look in that pile of rubble.

By April of 2002 virtually all of the rubble had been removed. It appears as if these cleanup crews were so incapable of thinking that after having received orders to search for survivors, they continued to do so even when it made no sense. They also searched areas where nobody could possibly be found. Who was supervising this situation?

Perhaps the words of Congressman Boehlert in the report of the Committee on Science are more accurate than we want to believe:

"...there are no clear lines of authority ....
No one is in charge..."

But perhaps the words of Congressman Boehlert are not accurate at all. Perhaps somebody, or some group, was very much in control and was very interested in disposing of all evidence that might indicate a controlled demolition.

"...there are no clear lines of authority ....
but someone is definitely in charge..."

Was the New York City government simply incapable of dealing with such an unusual and extreme disaster?


"... there are no clear lines of authority .... No one is in charge..."

"I must say that the current investigation -- some would argue that "review" is the more appropriate word -- seems to be shrouded in excessive secrecy."

"...valuable evidence has been lost irretrievably, and blueprints were unavailable for months."


Congressman Boehlert,Chairman, Committee on Science, from the hearing on March 6, 2002


"...we are staffing the [investigation] with part-time engineers and scientists on a shoestring budget."

"The building performance assessment currently being conducted of the World Trade Center collapse is just that: an assessment, not an investigation."

"In addition, the [group of investigators] studying the collapse has apparently been hampered in accessing building construction documents."


Professor Corbett, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, at the Committee on Science hearing, March 6, 2002


Bush and Cheney want to "limit" investigation

On January 25, 2002 vice-president Cheney called Senator Daschle on the phone and asked him to "limit the scope and the overall review of what happened". Cheney did not bother to explain his intentions to the American people, but we have Daschle's remark to CNN reporters:

"The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism,"

Daschle was not convinced that there was a shortage of resources or personnel, so four days later President Bush had a private meeting with him and asked him again to limit the investigation.

Was the Bush administration correct that investigating the September 11th attack would hamper the war on terrorism? Consider that the investigation of the September 11th attacks would actually be two, separate studies:

1) The technical investigation. An analysis of the rubble by scientists to determine the cause of the collapses would not interfere with an investigation of terrorism.

2) The analysis of the terrorists. This would be an analysis of where the terrorists lived, how they financed their operation, where they learned to fly, and how they took four airplanes off course without the FAA or military doing anything about it. The FBI and CIA would be involved in this analysis. Since the FBI and CIA also investigate terrorism, Bush could claim that there were not enough agents to carry on regular business and investigate the September 11th attack.

Were Bush and Cheney trying to protect the FBI, FAA,CIA, military, and/or the Bush administration from accusations of incompetence? Consider that before September 11th an FBI agent sent a memo to both FBI headquarters and to a New York FBI unit that was looking for Osama bin Laden. As the NY Times explained it:

"An F.B.I. agent in Phoenix told counterterrorism officials at the bureau's headquarters last July that he had detected an alarming pattern of Arab men with possible ties to terrorism taking aviation-related training, and urged a nationwide review of the trend."

"Do you realize how serious this is? This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!" A Minneapolis flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the suspicious request of Zacarias Moussaoui.

Were Bush and Cheney trying to protect Silverstein, Goldman and Lowy (the new proprietors of the entire WTC complex, after having leased WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space just seven weeks previous to the collapse (the Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease)) from accusations that the collapse was part of an enormous insurance scam. As Professor Van Romero (New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology) explained to the Albuquerque Journal:

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse... It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that... It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points"

"Do you realize how serious this is? This man Van Romero is claiming the twin towers were bought down by explosives.".


Did the CIA interfere with the investigation?

On September 20th the Los Angeles Times reported that Israel had warned the FBI and CIA a month before the attack that terrorists were slipping into America to conduct "a major assault"

The report claimed that about 200 potential terrorists had entered the US, but apparently did not name one of them. One wonders how one can know 200 people are potential terrorists without knowing anything about them, not even their names or aliases. No wonder the FBI ignored the report, if such a useless warning was really offered, and is not just a figment of the Los Angeles Times' imagination.

The next day the Times printed a brief correction that claimed the accusation was false. The "proof" that the original report was false was explained as:

...the CIA flatly denied the story, and FBI officials said they knew of no such advisory.

This situation is as silly as a court dismissing charges against a person on the grounds that he "flatly denied" the accusations.

The "proof" that the original report by the Los Angeles Times was true, was never offered. Why should we implicitly trust the Los Angeles Times, but assume the CIA is lying?

...the Los Angeles Times published the story, therefore the story is true. Newspapers never lie (trust the press, but not the CIA).

This situation is as silly as a court believing charges against a person on the grounds that one person (the press), perhaps with a vested interest in hurting the other, has simply said so.

The Times also offered this statement as proof that the original report was false:

The Times has since learned that the (accusation) was based on a British newspaper report, not on independent information.

Apparently British newspapers cannot be trusted. Does that mean we trust American newspapers? Unfortunately, NO. When it comes to honest reporting about 9-11 and Israel, American newspapers cannot be trusted. If so, an American newspaper reported that a flight instructor in Minneapolis phoned the FBI to complain that a possible terrorist wants to learn how to fly a commercial jet. I suppose the FBI would flatly deny that report, but perhaps the FBI and CIA are simply trying to suppress the evidence they dislike. But perhaps, the American press is simply trying to advance the evidence they like (often with little regard for the truth). Other sources have reported accusations that the German intelligence service warned America that an attack is being planned.

Perhaps US government officials want to stop the investigation because they fear investigators would conclude that there were so many warnings and clues that even a troop of Girl Scouts would have been able to catch the terrorists.

Perhaps US government officials want to stop the investigation because they fear investigators would conclude that American Jews and Israel were involved.


Imagine finding this in the LA Times:

Correction, Sept 12, 2001. A September 11 article reported that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack. However, Osama flatly denied the accusation.

The Times has since learned that the accusation was based on a British newspaper report, not reputable sources.


Imagine finding this in the LA Times:

Correction, Sept 12, 2001. A September 11 article reported that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack. However, this story was based on an inaccurate report from the FBI.

The Times has since learned that the accusation was based on an erroneous report from the FBI, which had identified 19 suspects on the ludicrous assumption that they used their real names when purchasing tickets for the aircraft. Since many of the individuals fingered by the FBI have since turned up alive and well in the Middle East, FBI director Robert Mueller has admitted that the identities of the 9-11 hijackers are in question and that the connection of Osama bin Laden to 9-11 is now (at best) tenuous.

Do you remember reading this retraction in the Los Angeles Times?

No, because even though it is true and contains critical information for US citizens, the amazingly dishonest American media decided to repress it. An article from the BBC (British Broadcasting Cooperation) reporting this, can be found here.


What happened to the investigation of the suspicious investments?

On September 18, 2001 the Chicago Board Options Exchange announced that they were investigating the possibility that terrorists had profited from the attack. Officials said there was an unusually high volume of suspicious activity in which investors were betting that the price of United Airlines and American Airlines stock would drop. These suspicious trades occurred on each of the three business days prior to the September 11th attack, implying that some people learned of the attack a few days before it occurred. The Securities and Exchange Commission also began an investigation of these trades. (Incidently, nobody is denying that these investments took place.)

Another spin on this, is that those responsible for the 9-11 disaster, not only tried to frame the Arabs, but also tried framing factions of the Bush administration, to keep them "in line". This was done in a number of ways, one of which was to purchase stock options in the names of those people who might not buy into the lies spread by the American press. The suggestion of complicity would be used to insure their silence.

To suggest that those responsible for the 9-11 disaster were ready to jeopardize the whole operation for a few million dollars, is almost laughable. It is even more ridiculous when you realize that the money trail is easily followed.


The reports also mention that 2.5 million dollars in profits were never collected by the investors. Were the investors afraid of getting caught if they asked for their profit?

Those who do not know they have invested, are unlikely to collect.

Nine months have passed since the attack, and we are still waiting for the results of the SEC investigation. Who were those investors? Were they friends and family members of the terrorists or Osama bin Laden? Did the investors disguise themselves so well that nine months is not enough time to identify them? If they are disguised that well, why didn't they collect their 2.5 million dollars in profit?

There may be a sensible explanation for the investments and the inability to identify the investors, but the silence surrounding this issue is suspicious. Accusations on the Internet have targeted CIA officials as investors. If those accusations are correct, some CIA officials knew the attack would involve only United and American Airlines; i.e., they had access to very specific details, implying they had enough information to prevent the attack.

Is Caspian oil affecting our government?

The earth's oil supplies are dwindling, and no large pools have been discovered for years. The world's last remaining source of oil is in the Caspian Sea area. Since no nation has yet shown an interest in developing alternatives to oil, all nations will need access to that Caspian oil as the Mideast oil wells run dry during the next few decades. The Caspian Sea could become the world's most important piece of "land".

Whenever people do not totally understand the motives of the US, they resort to the "they did it for oil" angle.

I remember people claiming that the Kosovo war was about oil. People still claim this. However, the truth is that the Kosovo war was to prevent the Kosovo Moslems from becoming the new Palestinians. It was designed to prevent the Serbs participating in actions as disgusting as those employed by the Jews against the Palestinians in 1948. Having hundreds of thousands of (rightfully) outraged Moslems living in refugee camps along the borders of Serbia would have been a recipe for disaster, just as it has been in the Middle East.


If the Russians get control of that oil, they could create economic hardship for other nations beyond anything OPEC has tried. Not surprisingly, American and British oil companies have been trying for years to put oil pipelines to the Caspian sea through Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Taliban refused to cooperate. Most people in Afghanistan are more concerned with food than oil.

Oil could be one possible reason that some people allowed this terrorist act to take place. Accusations on the Internet suggest that the CIA and the Bush family wanted to let the attack occur so they could accuse the Taliban of allowing Osama to operate terrorist camps in Afghanistan, then use that as an excuse to destroy the Taliban.

Oil could not be one possible reason for the 9-11 disaster. For one thing, Afghanistan has next to no oil, but even the lesser claim that the US "did it for an oil pipeline", is suspect, for if the US had given the Taliban just a fraction of the money they spent bombing them, the Taliban and Northern Alliance would have allied and helped guard the pipeline for them.

The September 11th attack was devastating, but perhaps the CIA did not expect such damage. Perhaps they expected the planes to merely punch a small hole in the side of the towers, as an airplane did to the Empire State Building in 1945 when it crashed into it. Or perhaps the CIA assumed the military would intercept the airplanes. Or perhaps they were under the impression that only one or two planes would be hijacked.

This whole section is designed to implicate the CIA in the 9-11 plot. More likely, is that the CIA had absolutely no idea of what was about to happen.

When the CIA saw how destructive the attack was, they may have panicked and put pressure on the government to suppress all investigations. Perhaps the unclaimed 2.5 million dollars belongs to American citizens who became so upset over the incident that they wished they had never invested.


"The potential prize in oil and gas riches in the Caspian sea, valued up to $4 trillion, would give Russia both wealth and strategic dominance."

"Central Asian resources may revert back to the control of Russia or to a Russian led alliance. This would be a nightmare situation."

"We had all better wake up to the dangers..."


From an article in 1999 by Mortimer Zuckerman, the editor of U.S. News and World Report. He advocated getting control of the Caspian oil before the Russians get it.

How many people in the U.S.government would be tempted to take advantage of a terrorist attack to justify going after Caspian oil? Does OPEC frighten you? How would you feel with Russia in control of the world's last remaining oil supplies?

"[the oil companies]...cannot begin construction [of a pipeline] until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place."

From the testimony of John Maresca, VP of Unocal Corporation at the House Committee On International Relations, February 1998.


Unless we investigate, we learn nothing

Most people blame fire for the collapse of the two towers, not the airplane crashes. Building 7 collapsed also, but it was not hit by an airplane so it collapsed entirely due to fire. No fire had ever caused a steel building to crumble, but on that day a fire did to three buildings what no fire had ever done before. How did fire cause those buildings to collapse? Are there other office buildings, apartment buildings, or shopping malls that could also collapse from a fire? How should we design future buildings to resist fires?

NIST is one of the government agencies investigating the collapse of the towers. However, Dr. Bement, the director of NIST, did not seem interested in investigating Building 7. As he explained to the Committee on Science:

"...[NIST] would possibly consider examining WTC Building 7, which collapsed later in the day."

Notice that Bement did not say he would possibly investigate; rather, he said he would possibly consider investigating.

Furthermore, Bement made this remark at a meeting in March of 2002. This was nearly six months after the building had collapsed, and most of the rubble had already been removed. How many more months would have to pass before he would "possibly consider" investigating? Was he waiting for all rubble to be removed so he could avoid dealing with the issue? Or was he simply following President Bush's suggestion to "limit" the investigation?

If another agency conducted a thorough investigation of Building 7, or if the rubble was saved until more personnel and resources were available, then Dr. Bement's lack of interest would be understandable. However, no agency was thoroughly investigating any of the buildings that collapsed, and, more importantly, no agency made an attempt to save the rubble.

Unless we figure out how fire caused these buildings to collapse, we will never know how to determine if a building is susceptible to collapsing from a fire. An investigation would also help us determine whether our building codes need revision. Unfortunately, the rubble was never properly analyzed. Rather, within hours of the collapse the crews began hauling the large pieces of steel to scrap yards and dumping the rest into landfills. Not only was this destruction of rubble irresponsible but, according to the editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine, it was an illegal destruction of evidence:

"I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."

There are two main reasons that we have laws demanding preservation of evidence. First, a proper analysis takes more than a few glances of the evidence by one person; it may require days or months of inspections and experiments, and individuals at different laboratories may be needed. Second, unless the evidence is preserved, we cannot perform further analyses if we have doubts about the original analysis, or if other questions arise in the future. So why did our government violate our laws? Furthermore, why are they allowed to get away with violating our laws? Why are they allowed to interfere with the investigation? Why are so few people in Congress complaining about these violations? Compare this tolerance of law-breaking with the frequent public condemnation of Clinton for violating our laws in regards to Monica Lewinsky.

By January, 2002 the editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine reached his limit of tolerance and published an article that month accusing the investigation of being "a half baked farce". He also demanded: "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." In support, other firemen wrote an article in which they pleaded with readers to send e-mails to our government to hold a real investigation.

Unfortunately, everybody who complained about the pathetic investigation or the destruction of evidence was ignored (or worse; some were insulted as "unpatriotic" or "conspiracy nuts"). By April, 2002 virtually all of the rubble had been disposed of. Now, with no evidence, determining how the fires caused those buildings to collapse is impossible.

In reality, since the buildings were demolished, it would have been impossible to prove "how the fires caused their collapse", even if the debris had not been melted down. However, if we had saved enough of the debris, one may have been able to prove that the buildings were demolished by way of a controlled demolition. Alas, with the destruction of the debris, one can no longer hope to prove that the buildings were demolished, or can one?

Of course one can. The basis of the proof is very simple:

BOTH OF THE TOWERS FELL IN LESS THAN 10 SECONDS.

That is all one needs to know to be able to prove that the Twin Towers were demolished. You see, it is physically impossible that the top of a building pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building (or through any other building for that matter) at the same rate that it falls through air. The fact that the towers collapsed in 8-10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.

The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower "undamaged" parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as in a controlled demolition).



Compare the investigation of Clinton to that of the 9/11 attack:

Ken Starr spent 40 million tax dollars investigating Clinton's sexual activities. By comparison, there was so little money for the 9/11investigation that some scientists volunteered to work for free on weekends.

Perhaps half the population did not want to investigate Clinton's sexual activities, but Republicans pushed for an investigation anyway. By comparison, most people want an investigation of the 911 attacks, but Bush has pushed to "limit" the investigation.

Most people tolerate lies and secrecy in regards to sex, but Republicans demanded Clinton be honest about his sexual activities anyway. By comparison, most people do not consider lies or secrecy acceptable in terrorist attacks, fires, or building collapses, but our government is secretive and interfering with the investigation anyway. The FBI laboratory analyzed the stains in Monica Lewinsky's dress. By comparison, NIST does not want to analyze anything from Building 7.


When terrorists attack, the US government responds with suspicious behavior

The American government responded to the terrorist acts by violating our laws and conducting a pathetic investigation. This lack of leadership opened America up to accusations of corruption, incompetence, paranoia, stupidity, and conspiracies. One accusation came from the government itself. In the report from the March 6, 2002 hearing at the Committee On Science:

"The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access and delayed the [investigators] in gaining access to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns."

Should we accuse the Committee On Science of being a group of "conspiracy nuts"? Before you answer that question, let's look at a previous FEMA investigation.


Should we demand that Bush follow the law, as millions of people demanded of Clinton during the Clinton / Lewinsky investigation? Here are a few of the remarks:

"We elect a President to enforce these laws."

From Sen. Michael DeWine's impeachment of Clinton statement, February 12, 1999

"The President cannot be judged on a different standard than anyone else simply because he is the President."

Statement of Rep. Cass Ballenger on Impeaching Clinton, December 18, 1998

"We are a nation of laws...." Millions of people made that remark.

"...the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President Clinton obstructed justice..."

From the report produced by Ken Starr, in the section "Grounds for Impeachment"


FEMA investigates a fire in 1991

On February 23, 1991 a fire started on the 22nd floor of a 38 story office building at One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although the fire was initially small, it spread to eight floors of the building, burned for 19 hours, and caused the deaths of three firefighters.

FEMA investigated this fire and produced a detailed report of explanations, recommendations, and photographs. They determined that the fire started in a pile of rags that contained linseed oil, and that negligence allowed it to spread. Improperly maintained smoke detectors and improperly set pressure valves on water lines were cited as examples of negligence. The fire was finally extinguished when it reached a floor where the sprinkler system functioned properly. The report on the Meridian Plaza fire provides two interesting points:


On December 13, 2001 the New York Times reported that the fireproofing materials in the World Trade Center had been in need of repairs for years, and that government officials insist those accusations are simply exaggerations of salesmen who were trying to sell fireproofing material. While it is true that salesmen sometimes push the truth to sell their product, those reports of faulty insulation would be tempting to use as justification for a court case.

The Committee On Science accuses landlords and insurance companies of "interfering" with the investigation, but those people may have done more than merely "interfere". They may have pushed government officials into destroying the rubble. City officials may have been worried about lawsuits, also. All of these people may have pressured Bush and Cheney into requesting a limit to the investigation.


This is one of several drawings of pressure valves in the report FEMA produced about the fire at One Meridian Plaza in 1991. This report was so detailed that it explained how these valves work and how to use them properly.

Obviously, in 1991 FEMA was capable of producing serious reports. Why couldn't they do the same with the World Trade Center?

FEMA report 049, Feb 23, 1991.


The FEMA report on the World Trade Center Collapse

FEMA published their report in May of 2002. The title is World Trade Center Building Performance Study. It is report#403. The report contains a lot of interesting information about the buildings, but it does not explain their collapse. For example, on why the towers collapsed:

The FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study is fraudulent and designed to protect the American presses lies. Like all good propaganda, it is some 90% correct and 10% false.

With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.

In that sentence they imply that they are innocent investigators who simply did not have enough information. They neglect to explain that the reason there is so little information is because the rubble was destroyed and the investigators were "hampered".

On why Building 7 collapsed the report mentions:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

Again they imply they are innocent investigators who need to do further research. However, by the time they published this report (May 2002), all of the rubble had been destroyed. Therefore, it is impossible for them to do further research. If FEMA had truly been interested in researching Building 7, they would have done the research before the rubble was destroyed, or they would have put aside some of the rubble for a later analysis.

One of the excuses FEMA gives for their inability to explain the collapse is that the collapse was a unique event:

As with any first-time event, difficulties were encountered at the beginning of the relationship between the volunteer engineering community and the local government agencies.

Many disasters can be referred to as a "first-time event". Rarely does an earthquake, fire, hurricane, tornado, airplane accident, chemical spill, or train derailment happen exactly like a previous disaster. FEMA is simply making excuses for their lousy investigation.

Furthermore, notice their phrase "volunteer engineering community". At a meeting on October 24, Edward DePaola announced that SEAoNY was looking for volunteers "to help collect data". Why didn't anybody ask the US Government for money to hire scientists and engineers to work full time? Is it possible that the management at FEMA, SEAoNY, NIST, and other agencies truly believe that the collapse of the World Trade Center can be investigated with volunteers on a tiny budget? I doubt anybody in management is that naive. I think these agencies either had no intention of investigating, or they were under pressure to "limit" the investigation. The FEMA report even supports the accusation that the investigators were hampered:

"Also, because there was no identification system in place for the first few days, it took up to 3 hours for SEAoNY volunteers to get to the command center from the outer perimeter of the site, a distance of less than six blocks."

The area around the World Trade Center was blocked off to keep out the public, and checkpoints were set up at several entrances. The crews destroying the rubble could quickly get through the checkpoints, but the investigators were often delayed for hours. Why would the lack of an" identification system" cause only the investigators to be delayed? Why wouldn't all people be delayed equally? And why would the delays be so long?


"Some of the engineers are volunteering their time, and others are being paid. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is financing the effort, which will cost about $600,000"

"...[the engineers] communicate mostly by phone as they continue to hold their regular jobs"


Compare their budget to the $40 million spent by Ken Starr during his investigation of Clinton's sexual activities. Starr had full time help, not weekend volunteers.

From an Associated Press article in January, 2002 describing engineers who were inspecting the rubble.


"These pieces were accidentally processed in salvage yard operations before being documented."

A remark from the May 2002 FEMA report.

Some investigators wandered through the scrap yards in the hope of finding steel beams that would help explain the collapse. They marked the beams they wanted for the investigation with paint. However some of those beams were "accidently" destroyed.


Why so many dead firemen?

The airplanes caused the towers to shake a bit upon impact, but after a few seconds the towers settled down and appeared to have survived. From a structural perspective,there were no signs that the towers were unstable; no noises from the building; no cracks developing, and no pieces falling off.

As a result of the stable appearance, hundreds of firemen ran into the towers without fear, just as they had run into other steel buildings on fire. Their thoughts were to extinguish the fires and help people get out of the buildings, not whether the buildings would crumble. A short time later, without warning, the towers crumbled.

In addition to the firemen, several photographers were injured, and at least one died. Were these photographers foolish to get so close to the towers? No. As with the firemen, the photographers had no reason to worry about the structural stability of the towers. Neither the photographers nor the firemen were fools; rather, they were victims of the world's most bizarre building collapses. How could such a strange event not justify a serious investigation?


(A book that should have been written) Since our government cannot properly investigate the collapse of three buildings, can we trust them to deal with our economy, city planning, health care, or education?


Building 7: diesel fuel, high voltage, and spies

Photos of Building 7 show an apparently conventional office building, but inside was a giant cavity that took up most of the first five floors. Two of the city's electrical substations were inside the cavity, with a total of ten giant transformers, each 35 feet tall and 40 feet wide. The transformer inputs were 13,800 volts. The reason this strange situation came about is that the substations were already on the land. Due to the lack of vacant land in Manhattan, Building 7 was designed to sit on top of the substations and completely enclose them.

To make the structure stranger (and more dangerous), there were several tanks of diesel fuel in the building to power several emergency generators in case the electric power to the city was cut off. American Express had a 275 gallon tank for their backup generator; Mayor Giuliani had a 6,000-gallon tank to supply three 500 kW generators for his Emergency Command Center; the investment firm Salomon Smith Barney had two 6,000 gallon tanks for their nine 1.725 MW generators; and the landlord had two 12,000 gallon tanks for two 900 kW generators, plus those tanks supplied the Secret Service with fuel for their unspecified generators. At the time of the attack, the building had the capacity to hold 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and -- if the FEMA report is correct -- the generators had a total capacity of about 20 megawatts of electricity. Not surprisingly, the New York fire department complained more than once that this situation was risky. Some people were even more insulting.

Both the diesel tank and generator used by American Express were so small that they were placed together on the 8th floor. However, the other tanks and generators were gigantic,

One wonders what Eric is trying to hide here with his use of the word "gigantic" for the tanks of diesel, the largest of which was smaller than a 12 foot cube. Your average gas station has much more "gigantic" tanks.

The calculation is 12,000 gallons = 12,000 x 0.133681 = 1,604 cubic feet. The cube root of 1,604 is about 11.7 feet, so the "huge, gigantic, enormous" 12,000 gallon diesel tank was about 12 foot by 12 foot by 12 foot.


and they were separated from each other. The large tanks were near the ground floor, except for the Mayor's 6,000 gallon tank, which was on the 2nd floor. The generators were on the 5th, 7th, and 9th floor. Pumps and pipelines carried the fuel from the large tanks up to small tanks that fed the generators. As you can imagine, if any of those pipelines were to leak, fuel could drip down as many as nine floors, plus into the basement.

As I can imagine?.... no way. I cannot image any self-respecting engineer designing such a system without a cutout mechanism to shut down the pumps if the pipes burst or leaked. Who are you trying to kid?

Is the electric power supply in New York City so unreliable that office buildings truly need this much backup power capacity? Apparently so; the FEMA report implies that Building 7 was a "normal" office building:

An array of fuels typically associated with offices was distributed throughout much of the building.

Do you know of any "typical" office buildings that have several pipelines to carry 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel to 15 or more generators with a combined capacity of 20 megawatts? Was something going on in Building 7 that nobody wants to admit to?

To put the 20 megawatt capacity into perspective, a modern electricity generating station has a 1,000 to 5,000 megawatt capacity.

Building 7 belongs in an industrial zone where people are casting metal objects or firing pottery. Why did the city allow such a hazardous situation in a public office building? Perhaps Mayor Giuliani, Salomon Smith Barney, and the landlord wanted the rubble destroyed to prevent investigators from blaming the collapse of Building 7 on their giant fuel tanks and network of pipelines.

Part of the secrecy with Building 7 may be due to the CIA, Department of Defense, and Secret Service, all of which had offices in that building. The FEMA report claims that two 12,000 gallon tanks of diesel fuel belonged to the landlord, but the landlord does not show up as a tenant in the building, so it appears as if the landlord provided the fuel to his tenants. The FEMA report mentions that both the Mayor and the Secret Service took fuel from the landlord's 12,000 gallon tanks, but the landlord may have supplied fuel and backup generators for some of his other tenants, also, such as the CIA and Department of Defense. Perhaps all the people involved with these diesel tanks pushed for the destruction of the rubble so that nobody would accuse them of being the reason the building collapsed, which would also prevent lawsuits against them.

Perhaps all the people involved with the demolition of WTC Seven pushed for the destruction of the rubble so that nobody would be able to prove that the building was demolished.


On April 24, 2002, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimated the cleaning and rebuilding to cost up to $29 billion. If $29 billion is not serious enough for a full investigation, at what price point is a full investigation granted?


The US Government is creating suspicion, not respect

Almost everyone in the world was sympathetic towards the USA on September 11th. Unfortunately, during the ensuing months, the strange response from the US Government has caused some of that sympathy to be replaced with suspicion and anger.

No sensible reason exists to limit the investigation of the World Trade Center collapse; America has enough money and manpower to do the job properly. Secrecy about Building 7 cannot be justified, either; our government should not help hide irresponsible and/or illegal behavior of landlords, the CIA, or the mayor of New York City. Additionally, there is no sensible explanation for why the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot identify the suspicious investors of airline options prior to the attack.

The behavior of the US government leads me to conclude that some government officials are trying to hide something. I doubt that President Bush is so naive that he truly believes America has a shortage of investigators; certainly he had some other reason to interfere with the investigation. I also doubt that FEMA officials were too naive to realize that destroying the rubble was both illegal and irresponsible. Certainly FEMA deliberately allowed our laws to be violated. I also doubt that both the Chicago Board officials and the SEC cannot determine who those suspicious investors are; certainly someone is interfering with their investigations. Something is going on, and it is not likely to be legal.


"Our forefathers' act of civil disobedience created America."

Rick Stanley, in his statement January 9, 2002, encourages citizens to do "...your very own personal act of civil disobedience, to make our country better."

Some people advocate allowing the FBI to torture suspects. If torture is a useful tool for government, would it be a useful tool for citizens to use on government officials who refuse to do their jobs properly?


The US Government is creating anger

Judging by the number of accusations and complaints on the Internet, I am just one of thousands of people who suspect something is seriously wrong. Worst of all, some people are angry, and some are encouraging rebellion.

"Each act of civil disobedience will create a better America"

That quote from Rick Stanley's statement on January 9, 2002 reflects the attitude of many citizens. As of May 2002, Stanley was a Libertarian candidate for the US Senate in Colorado. Stanley and others complain about a variety of issues that revolve around the terrorist attack on September 11th, such as "The Patriot Act"; the proposal to allow the FBI to use torture; and the destruction of the World Trade Center rubble.

Luke Helder, the man arrested for putting bombs into mailboxes in Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois may be one of these angry people. The remarks found on the note left with the bombs reads:

"The United States strives to provide freedom for their people. Do we really have personal freedom?"

Some people believe we should ignore Helder because of his mental instability. If he were the only angry person, and if his anger was random, we could dismiss his violence as resulting from his mental disorders. However, thousands of citizens are angry with the government. Ignoring them on the grounds that they are "conspiracy nuts" or "wackos" does not solve any problems or protect us from their violence.

"Let them eat cake!"

We should learn from Marie Antoinette that a government should investigate and deal with angry citizens, not laugh at or ignore them. Unfortunately, the only people who understand this concept are successful managers in private companies. The successful managers do not ignore violence among employees. In fact, the best managers observe the attitudes among employees. They strive to keep the employees happy and their morale high. Compare that to the American government officials who not only ignore violence, they also have no concern about the morale of the citizens.

Conspiracies

The September 11th attack is a serious problem that we should acknowledge and deal with. The Internet is full of accusations, calls for rebellion, and conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, these remarks are likely to result in increased anger, apathy, violence, and distrust of government.

In response to the charges of corruption and conspiracies, other citizens claim the nation is full of "conspiracy nuts" and morons. However, these accusations only reinforce and divide the citizens. This fighting will hurt the morale of America, and that will hurt all of us.

The more shocking conspiracy theories claim that the rubble was destroyed to hide evidence that explosives were used to assist in the collapse of the buildings. An example of this type of conspiracy theory speculates that the CIA, Bush family, and others decided to fake the attack in an attempt to make the world angry at the Taliban, providing us with an excuse to destroy them so that we could try installing a government that would give us access to Caspian oil.

Another example of this type of conspiracy theory speculates that American Jews, helped by Israelis, decided to fake the attack in an attempt to make the US angry at the Moslem world, and provoke the US to fight Israel's wars. In particular, they wanted the US to destroy Israel's major enemies: Iraq, Syria and Iran. Afghanistan, was just to get the "ball rolling". The effort to get the US to attack Iraq continues to this day.

The U.S. military action in Afghanistan is as suspicious as the superficial investigation of the World Trade Center collapse, fueling many conspiracy theories. Our government claimed that we bombed Afghanistan to search for Osama and his terrorist camps, but how do we locate Osama by flying high above the clouds and dropping bombs on people who had nothing to do with the September 11th attack? All we did with our bombs was kill innocent people and destroy some of the world's most primitive villages. The goal of U.S.military appears to be the removal of the Taliban rather than locating Osama and his training camps.

After destroying the Taliban, the US military essentially gave Afghanistan to the Northern Alliance. There was no attempt to help the citizens of Afghanistan develop a sensible government. The suspicious aspect of our friendship with the Northern Alliance is that during the 1980's our government gave billions of dollars in weapons and other aid to Osama and his terrorists to help them defeat the Northern Alliance. Osama was not a "terrorist" back then, however. Rather, when President Reagan welcomed some of Osama's Mujahadeen allies to the White House, he referred to them as, "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers".

The Russians supported the Northern Alliance then, and they still support them today. So why in 2002 did we give Afghanistan to the Northern Alliance? Are we trying to become their new best friend?

The Taliban, not the Osama, was the focus of the US military campaign from Day One. Osama was merely the excuse for the bombing. The US military never showed any interest in searching for Osama or his terrorist camps. I suppose the US government believes the Northern Alliance will be so grateful to us that they grant us access to Caspian oil.


Two conspiracies that I find amusing rather than credible:
  • God did this to America because America has become immoral.
  • The towers were destroyed by aliens.
  • That Eric is part of the conspiracy (actually, more credible than amusing).

"That's not what militaries do" Remark by General Tommy Franks to a group of international reporters in April of 2002 when asked about the failure to find Osama bin Laden.

If our military is not searching for Osama, what are they doing in Afghanistan? What do militaries do?


Anger is spreading around the world

Americans are not the only people complaining about the US government. For example, in March of 2002 a Frenchman named Thierry Meyssan published the book The Frightening Fraud (or The Appalling Deception, depending on who translates it from French) in which he accused the U.S. military of faking the crash of Flight 77 on September 11th. Within three weeks 190,000 copies were sold, a new record for books in France.

It is also possible that the whole "Pentagon affair" was arranged to distract people from the obvious WTC demolitions. If this is so, I would have to say it has been largely successful.

A remark by Thierry Meyssan in a recent interview explains how some foreigners view the USA:

"...since the U.S. has used [the 9/11 attack] as one of their arguments to launch an attack against Afghanistan and has asked the whole world to stand at its side in the war, this is no longer a purely American affair."

Other nations did not get much involved in the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, but many are getting involved in the 9/11 attack. What if some of those foreigners become so angry at America that they provide money, weapons, or assistance to the American citizens or foreigners who want to attack the American government? If that happens, we will have more than mailbox bombs to worry about.

Did Al-Qaeda really bring the U.S. Military to its knees?

The U.S. military refuses to release the video from the security cameras that recorded the airplane crashing into the Pentagon on September 11.

It should be mentioned that the U.S. military did not release the "video" from the security cameras. The American media did (as admitted by the media itself). The reason the full video cannot be released is because there is no full video to watch. There are only five frames and they are obviously (and poorly) faked. Also, there is no airplane pictured in any of the frames. For more on the "video fraud", see this article.

We were practically forced to watch the airplanes hit the North and South Towers over and over and over again, so why not let us watch the video of the airplane hitting the Pentagon just one time?

The U.S. military has the largest supply of advanced weapons on the planet, but they claim to be afraid of a few terrorists with primitive technology (and why wouldn't they be, if they believed that just 19 very average Arabs had been able to cause tens of billions of dollars damage to the American economy). The implication is that the terrorists might see something in that video that will allow them to hurt America. Are the people in control of the U.S. military truly this cowardly? Or, is The Frightening Fraud correct that the military faked the airplane crash?


Osama bin Laden has never been located. Some people believe this was deliberate because it allows the U.S. government to use him again to justify more bombings or anti-terrorist legislation.

This is similar to Hollywood movies in which the bad guy gets away so there can be a sequel in the future.


Let's practice what we preach

Many people tell us that we either support the Bush administration 100% or we are part of the Axis Of Evil. These people believe they are helping to unify America by making such remarks, but they are merely making themselves look like hypocrites. These people boast about our Freedom of Speech and our right to question our government, and at the same time they try to suppress both freedoms.

Furthermore, the attitude that obedience to President Bush will create a unified nation is as ridiculous as a father announcing to his family that they will become more unified if they obey him without question. Obedience does not create unity, nor does it create happier people. Rather, it sets the people for abuse. Citizens need to take an active role in their nation, not become obedient soldiers.


Facts from the CIA on Afghanistan (before the USA bombed it). The US military certainly studied these facts to prepare for the "incredible" danger they were facing:

The majority of the population continues to suffer from insufficient food...

the country suffers from enormous poverty, a crumbling infrastructure...

Population: 26,813,057
Telephones: 29,000
Internet Service Providers: 1
Military expenditures: $ N/A
Literacy: 31.5%

the military does not exist on a national basis...

no functioning central government...

world's largest illicit opium producer...

narcotics trafficking is a major source of revenue.


Millions of Americans are appalled at the number of citizens who mindlessly followed Hitler and Saddam Hussein and the known war criminal Ariel Sharon. Nevertheless, take note that Americans are behaving the same way if they refuse to look critically at their own government. The patriots who chant "USA! USA! USA!", "Support George Bush!", and "You are either with us or against us!" should be chanting "Think! Learn! Investigate!", "Demand competent politicians!" and "It is OK in the USA to question the government!"

The world improves when people discuss issues, not when patriots give blind obedience to their government. Blind obedience would be acceptable only if there were such a thing as a "perfect" government.

The U.S. government's response to the September 11th-attacks is worse than an embarrassment considering the anger it stimulated within America and internationally. Unless we deal with this issue we are no better than the people we criticize. We need to work together for beneficial causes, not accuse one another of conspiracies, stupidity, and incompetence. So let's stop promoting the idea that patriotism requires blind obedience to President Bush. Let's look closely at the attack and the collapse of the buildings.

There are a lot of mysterious aspects surrounding the events on September 11th. If the US government had cooperated with an investigation, sensible explanations for everything may have been discovered. However, the government's strange response to the attack is evidence that some people are trying to hide something. But hide what? And who wants to hide it?

This book will explain some of the mysterious aspects of the World Trade Center attack that are providing fuel for various conspiracy theories. Those of you who do not believe anything illegal occurred should look for explanations for these mysteries The inability to properly explain the attack is simply more evidence that we are witnessing an incredible scam.

The above is the first chapter of Eric Hufschmid's book Painful Questions (with comment).




To find out how to order a copy, click the above image of the book.

Click here for CHAPTER TWO.