Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Michael Moore on Larry King mp3 download

Michael Moore on Larry King mp3 download

Download the audio (mp3 sound) of Mike Moore on CNN's LARRY KING from here:


http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/7d0ea64606_0.74MB
http://d4.myfreefilehosting.com/d1/Michael_Moore--larry_king-30apr08-1.mp3

http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/3309f8131c_0.78MB
http://d3.myfreefilehosting.com/d1/Michael_Moore--larry_king-30apr08-2.mp3

http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/a2c859329f_0.82MB
http://d3.myfreefilehosting.com/d1/Michael_Moore--larry_king-30apr08-3.mp3

http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/5887b9f95d_0.71MB
http://d3.myfreefilehosting.com/d1/Michael_Moore--larry_king-30apr08-4.mp3

http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/1339e857b4_0.69MB
http://d2.myfreefilehosting.com/d2/Michael_Moore--larry_king-30apr08-5.mp3

http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/77ad463c30_0.44MB
http://d3.myfreefilehosting.com/d2/Michael_Moore--larry_king-30apr08-6.mp3

http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/184315956b_0.53MB
http://d3.myfreefilehosting.com/d2/Michael_Moore--larry_king-30apr08-7.mp3


LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Michael Moore. He's got a lot on his mind and he's ready to unload.
Why is he endorsing Barack Obama? How did his forbidden love for Hillary Clinton turn to disgust? And what does he make of John McCain?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: ...disingenuous filmmaker who would have us...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Michael Moore for the hour, taking your calls and e-mails, next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Whether you agree or disagree, it is always, always interesting to listen to Michael Moore, the Oscar winning documentary filmmaker. His most recent film, "Sicko," is credited with helping o make health care a 2008 campaign issue.

And, just earlier this month, he endorsed Barack Obama.

Thanks for coming back, Michael.

When you were last -- when you were here in February, you said you had opinions on the race, but were not endorsing anybody. What changed?

MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: Well, I think that the whole movement behind Obama is very impressive. And I think it's a good thing for the country, first of all. I mean that's the first that really, I think, has grabbed my attention.

As far as Obama as a candidate, I think that this is a very decent individual. And I've been just impressed through the various debates as to how he's handle himself, how he has responded to the issues and responded to people. And...

KING: What about how he's handled the Reverend Wright thing?

MOORE: Well, you know, I don't know, Larry. I mean I think anybody who goes to church knows if -- I mean I just heard Hillary Clinton say there on the -- that other station, O'Reilly.

KING: Right. We're going to show a couple of clips from it, yes. MOORE: Talking about how had, you know, had she heard those things from her pastor, she would have got right up out of the church. (LAUGHTER) and I was thinking, jeez, you know, I mean I go to mass still. I'm a practicing Catholic. I've been that way all my life. But if I had -- if I had gotten up every time I heard a priest from the pulpit in my travels around the country say things like, as I've heard them say, that birth control is a sin, that women should not be priests, that women have a different role in the church...

KING: You'd be walking out all the time.

MOORE: Well, I would have been walking out so much -- that would have been so much aerobic activity for me I...

KING: Yes, but how do you think...

MOORE: ...I wouldn't look like this.

KING: The candidate you're endorsing, how do you think he's handled this?

MOORE: I think he's handled it the best way that he can. I think that, you know, that's my point, how are you going to get -- it's like suddenly I came in with a videotape saying Larry, I've got a video of your rabbi here from 1959...

(LAUGHTER)

MOORE: ...and we're going to show it now to everybody.

It's like how can you be responsible for that?

KING: How much do you think it will hurt him?

MOORE: Well, I don't know. I think most people are sick and tired of this -- all of these distractions with the campaign...

KING: You really think so?

MOORE: Yes. I think...

KING: So you think is cable news driven?

MOORE: I think a lot of it is. I think it's driven a lot by Mrs. Clinton's campaign. I think that...

KING: She hasn't mentioned (INAUDIBLE).

MOORE: Well, she does mention it. She has mentioned it. And she said that, you know, instead of just having some empathy, I guess, for what his situation is with a pastor who said the things that he said and, frankly, I mean I watched the Bill Moyers interview. And if you really listened to a lot of what Reverend Wright says and if you watch the entire sermons, it was presented as something very different on the news than what actually, I think, existed.

KING: But it was the appearance before the Press Club in Washington...

MOORE: Right. I think that...

KING: ...that really ticked everybody off.

MOORE: Well, because Reverend Wright saying that when Obama speaks, he doesn't really mean what he says, he's just a politician. That's -- that's the exact opposite of what Obama has been during this campaign. He's tried to be, essentially, the anti-politician, and to take politics into a better era in this country.

And so to have his pastor -- his former pastor say these things, that he's not being sincere, I would be as angry as Senator Obama was yesterday.

KING: OK. You announced your endorsement of Obama on April 21 in a letter on your Web site. You also slammed Hillary Clinton in these words -- I want to get them right.

Here's what you said: "Over the past few months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting." You also wrote, directly addressing Senator Clinton: "You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry Uncle Tom and give it all to you."

Why so rough?

MOORE: Well, I guess I'm disappointed. I have been a supporter of Senator Clinton from a long time ago. I wrote a chapter about her in my first book, called "My Forbidden Love for Hillary," at a time when it was very popular to go after her. I was sick and tired of people attacking her for who she was. I thought she was a very good and...

KING: And she's certainly been a leader in health care...

MOORE: ...and...

KING: ...which is one of your big things.

MOORE: Well, we can get to that in a second. I want to talk both about her plan and Obama's plan.

KING: All right.

So what disappointed you?

MOORE: Well, I supported her run for Senate. My wife and I contributed to her campaign. But the huge disappointment was when -- when she had -- when she was presented with an opportunity for a moment -- a profile in courage moment in October of 2002, to not give Bush the authorization to go to war, she voted for war. And she continued to vote for war for the years after that. And it was -- it was, as I said... KING: That's the trigger?

MOORE: Well, that's -- yes. And I said on your show the last time, you know, I had not endorsed Senator Obama at that point. I just said that I morally, morally -- and I say that, you know, from a very deep place inside of me, can't vote for somebody who voted for this war. This is an immoral war and it never should have happened. We don't have a right to invade another country...

KING: So that's the reason?

MOORE: ...that's not attacking us. Yes. And that began it. But I still hoped that she would do that others have done -- Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards and others, who have since apologized for their vote and said they were wrong. She won't say that she was wrong or apologize for it...

KING: She...

MOORE: ...and I'm disappointed in that. But when I said disgusted, that came with the ABC debate. When she threw out Farrakhan, when she said the word Farrakhan and Hamas -- Hamas, to somehow attach that to Senator Obama, I just thought that was beneath everything that she used to stand for. And I think at some point, she's going to be disappointed in herself for having done that.

KING: OK. Whew.

When we come back, we'll hear a little of Hillary, who went one- on-one with Bill O'Reilly a little earlier tonight. And we'll have Michael Moore react to that interview.

Fasten your seat belts. This is going to be interesting.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Michael Moore.

All right, Hillary went on the Bill O'Reilly show a little early. Here's one of what she -- a little bit of what she had to say.

Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL O'REILLY, HOST, "THE O'REILLY FACTOR": Now, I'm paying 33 percent Fed tax now.

You're going to raise that to what?

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm going up to what we had in the 1990s for people...

O'REILLY: Thirty-nine, 39-and-a-half...

CLINTON: ...for people -- 36, 39 for people... O'REILLY: All right. So I'm getting a six-and-a-half percent bump...

CLINTON: Well...

O'REILLY: And so is Bill Clinton.

CLINTON: ...it's the only for the people making more than $250,000.

O'REILLY: No, that's me. That's me. You're talking to him.

CLINTON: I know.

O'REILLY: OK.

CLINTON: And I...

O'REILLY: Sorry. All right...

CLINTON: ...I am very happy that you're going to...

O'REILLY: All right. To 6.5 percent...

CLINTON: ...pay more so that we can...

O'REILLY: I know you are.

CLINTON: ...cut middle class taxes...

O'REILLY: Fine.

CLINTON: ...on people who get up every day...

O'REILLY: I'm a generous guy.

CLINTON: ...and do hard work that keep our country going.

O'REILLY: But before I vote for you, I want to know exactly how much you're going the take out of my wallet, all right.

CLINTON: I'm going to take as much...

O'REILLY: So you've got 6.5...

CLINTON: ...as you were paying in the 90s. And as I recall, you did pretty well in the '90s.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Are we discussing the host's wallet or what?

MOORE: Yes, I...

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Or taxes?

MOORE: You know, he asked me the same question when I was on his show. He goes, how much would you -- how much would you have me pay in income tax, 50 percent?

I said no, more.

Sixty?

I said no. No, more.

Seventy?

I said, yes, sounds good.

You'd have me -- you'd have people -- we'd have to pay 70 percent in income tax?

I said, no, no, not, we, Bill, you.

KING: Do you know...

MOORE: I'd have a law that you would pay.

KING: You know in World War II, Frank Sinatra paid 90 cents on a dollar.

MOORE: Yes. And was a wealthy man.

KING: Yes.

MOORE: He lived quite well, didn't he?

KING: He managed to struggle through.

MOORE: Right. And Bill O'Reilly is worrying about having to pay 39 percent.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: That -- a lot more on Hillary, though. And we'll show another clip in a little while.

MOORE: Yes.

KING: Are you so disappointed that you would consider -- let's say she got the nomination.

You might vote for McCain?

MOORE: Well, oh, absolutely not. No, no, no. The -- I said in the...

KING: So you wouldn't go that far? MOORE: No. That's -- that's over the edge.

(LAUGHTER)

MOORE: I said in the same letter that most people I know are just going to stagger into the voting booth in November and look for the big D on the ballot. And it really isn't going to matter what the name is on there, whether it's...

KING: You think a Democrat's going to win?

MOORE: Oh -- well, yes. I mean people are just...

KING: Really?

MOORE: People are -- 81 percent of the public says that we're on the wrong track. We've been through eight years of misery. And it's not just the war, although that should be enough right there. But it's everything from what people are paying for gas now to our health care mess and everything else in this country that has just -- we've lost so much time. And when you -- when you saw last week that they're limiting how many bags of rice you can take out of Costco, I mean...

(LAUGHTER)

MOORE: I mean that's -- that's the first sign that something here has gone seriously awry.

KING: Don't you think, Michael, that the Democrats, though, they're the one party that can figure out a way to lose this?

MOORE: Well, yes, I mean it's -- I understand that. And -- but it's not about the Democratic Party. This has gone beyond that. That's what's so great about Obama is that he's not a partisan person in that way. And that's why so many people -- I mean Julie Nixon, last week...

KING: Endorsed him, yes.

MOORE: ...endorsed him. Julie Nixon is for Obama. Michael Moore is for Obama. That, I think, explains the breath of the support that he has in this country.

KING: Do you think the Reverend Wright thing is over?

MOORE: It's over when cable news decide it's over. And, you know, I mean when -- you know, when these networks come up with something new. I mean I was kind of -- I was enjoying the flag lapel controversy.

By the way, Larry King, where is your flag lapel pin?

I don't -- I don't see it on you.

KING: Where's yours?

MOORE: Well, I'm wearing mine. That's right. It's right -- it's the world's smallest flag lapel pin.

KING: Oh, I see it.

MOORE: You just can't see it.

KING: Microscopic.

MOORE: That's why you don't wear a coat, so you don't have to wear the flag lapel pin.

KING: So you found me out.

MOORE: Yes, that's right.

(LAUGHTER)

MOORE: We'll put that in with your videotape of your rabbi -- your former rabbi, I mean.

KING: Do you expect or fear that Reverend Wright might start making other media appearances, like he says, tit for tat -- you said this about me, I'm coming back at you?

MOORE: Well...

KING: Possible?

MOORE: Oh, yes, I guess it's possible.

KING: And then we run with it.

MOORE: Well, I hope you run the same -- the speeches from the minister that supports John McCain, who said that the Catholic Church was the whore of Babylon and the other things that he said.

I mean, there seems to be so much attention on the things that Reverend -- and mostly what did Reverend Wright say? He said that we were a nation founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves.

Any disagreement there?

I mean, that was the essence of his speech. And he chose words and said things that I wouldn't say, Senator Obama wouldn't say and you wouldn't say. But it's a free country. He said it. But we're not voting for Reverend Wright. We're trying to -- we're trying to get ourselves off of eight years of a Bush/McCain era that has driven this country deep, deep down.

KING: So it may not have damaged him as much as we may have thought it did.

MOORE: You know, I don't think it has. And I would hope that Senator Clinton wouldn't hope that this somehow plays to the worst in people's fears, especially white people.

KING: OK. And... MOORE: I just -- again, I hope that she will maintain her...

KING: Well, we'll see.

In January, you posted a Web site letters that had good things about Obama's win in Iowa. But you also wrote this: "Barack, you can talk all you want about let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along, but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now and if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipients of health industry payola after Hillary."

Are you saying he -- that's what he's getting, the industry...

MOORE: Yes. And I believe, actually, in that time since I wrote that in January, it's flipped and he's now number one, at least with -- she's...

KING: In funds from the health care...

MOORE: She has one -- she's number one, I think, with the pharmaceutical companies and he's number one with health insurance. Or vice versa, I can't remember what. But they're one and two in terms of...

KING: Do you think if you take, you must be beholden to them?

That's what Ralph Nader used to say.

MOORE: Well, you...

KING: If I take too much, then I'm beholden to you.

MOORE: Well, yes. I think that's -- I think that -- I think anybody understands that that's the way the game is played.

KING: So he's...

MOORE: Well, that's why neither Senator Obama or Senator Clinton's health care plans will bring real universal coverage to this country, because they both allow the insurance companies to still control what's going on. You have to remove the private profit-making health insurance companies, because as long as they have to make a profit, that means they can't take care of everybody in the same way or they won't make the money they need to make.

You have to remove profit as a motive, just as you -- it's one of those basic services. We wouldn't have a police department that had to show a profit every year -- or a fire department that had to show a profit every year. We should don't that with our health care system, either. And no other Western country does that.

KING: You mean health is a right?

MOORE: Well, absolutely. Yes, it's a human right. And it is everywhere else, except, unfortunately, here. KING: With Michael Moore, more reaction to the latest Hillary Clinton interview, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back.

Michael Moore obviously supports Barack Obama.

But LARRY KING LIVE has devoted a lot of time to the views of Hillary Clinton's backers, too. In fact, we had a one-on-one with the senator herself just last week. And Hillary Clinton also has a standing invitation to return as a guest on this show, along with Barack Obama, any night.

We're back with Michael Moore. Let's see another clip from Hillary with Bill O'Reilly earlier.

Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Can you believe this Reverend Wright guy?

Can you believe this guy?

CLINTON: Well, you know...

O'REILLY: What do you think?

CLINTON: Well, I'm going the leave it up to voters to decide, you know...

O'REILLY: No, but what do you think as a American?

CLINTON: Well...

O'REILLY: You're an American.

CLINTON: Well, what I said when I was asked directly is that I would not have stayed in that church.

O'REILLY: No, no, no, no. But you're an American citizen. I'm an American citizen. He's an American citizen, Reverend Wright.

What do you think when you hear a fellow American citizen say that stuff about America? What do you think?

CLINTON: Well, I take offense at it. I think it's offensive and outrageous. And, you know, I'm going to express my opinion. Others can express theirs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Any comment?

MOORE: Yes, I'm a white guy. And I don't...

KING: I'm a white guy?

MOORE: Yes, I'm a white guy. And I think -- I think -- I've got to tell you something. If you were black in this country, especially if you are of his age, of his era or even -- or times before that or even kids today, when you look at the situation in our inner city schools, I mean, you have to ask yourself, Larry, what's it like to be black in America?

And what kind of rage would you feel?

And if you did feel that rage, what kind of things would you say that, at times, would be outrageous, crazy even, because you've had to live through this for so long.

And I do not believe, as a white guy, that I am in any position to judge a black man who has had to live through that. And I would never refer to him as -- in the way that Senator Clinton just did. You know, I can say that I would disagree or that I wouldn't use the language that he used or whatever. But to go after him like this, I just think it's a diversionary tactic, it distracts us from the real issues. And the issue is John McCain is four more years of George W. Bush. John McCain is four years of George W. Bush.

That's what we should be talking about and not what an elderly black man is saying because he's upset on how he's been treated.

And let me say this, too, because I've received a number of letters from older women, especially, who support Hillary Clinton. And they support her with great passion because they've had to suffer as a second class citizens in this country.

If you're a 50, a 60, a 70 -- I've had letters from women in their '80s and actually a 90-year-old woman who said to me, you know, I lived in a time where, as a woman, had my mother decided to go and vote, she'd be arrested -- arrested and thrown in jail because she wanted to vote in the United States of America.

So women feel this -- a similar sense of trying to undo what's been wrong for so long. And women, to this day, don't -- they're not paid the same, in terms of what men are paid. They don't have a lot of the same opportunities that men have.

And so I understand that anger, too, and that frustration and that outrage.

And I guess what I -- I guess the difference I see here is, is that I have not heard Senator Obama try to make people afraid to vote for Senator Clinton because she's a woman. I haven't heard anything out of his mouth.

But for her to try and make white, you know, working class, as they say, people vote for her and not him, to frighten them with words like Farrakhan and Hamas and things like that, I just -- I just think that that's not necessary. KING: What about what John McCain gave for his country?

MOORE: In terms of...

KING: His body.

MOORE: Well, and the torture that he went through?

KING: Yes.

MOORE: And now he votes.

KING: He can be a little angry, too, can't he?

MOORE: Yes.

KING: And the war that ended unpopular.

MOORE: Well, I guess that's -- and we've seen him angry. And as a senior citizen, maybe he's experiences things now, as an elderly American, where it's not the same as if you were a young person in this country. Certainly if he wanted to go and get a job other than U.S. senator at his age, he'd have a pretty hard time, wouldn't he?

KING: He probably couldn't get it.

MOORE: He probably couldn't get a job, even though he's able- bodied and can still work. So it's good that all these issues come up and we have...

KING: So they all can have gripes?

MOORE: Well, no, not me because...

KING: You have no gripes?

MOORE: Well, I'm not -- I can't -- no. I have no gripe about the fact that I'm a 50-year-old white guy because we've been running the show for a long time. And it's time to open it up, I think, and let some other people run this show.

KING: Do you think Barack has the tough temperament to run in November, I mean, when things really get back to the wall?

MOORE: Yes, I absolutely believe that. And I saw him playing basketball yesterday.

KING: He's pretty good.

MOORE: Yes. It was -- he was very good. And he did not allow -- he didn't give any ground to people. I like that. The more he applies that to politics, the better. That's what I said in my letter -- put your game face on, because these Republicans are not going to go down without a fight, believe me. They've enjoyed being in power and they like what they've attained through that power.

KING: Do you see any possibility, any chance of Barack running with Hillary?

MOORE: I don't see it now. But, you know, it's hard to say. You know, it's only...

KING: Things get funny.

MOORE: This weekend will be, what, four months since Iowa.

That's all it's been is four months, right?

KING: That's all, yes.

MOORE: The election is six months away. So it's all that time we just went through plus 50 percent -- or, actually, one third, I guess it would be, right?

Six months, yes. I wasn't (INAUDIBLE) a math (INAUDIBLE). But you get my point. I mean and we've got a long ways to go.

And so I think -- I hope a lot of the animosity that exists now will subside and everyone will join together, because we don't want a third term for the Bush administration. I think that is going to bind everyone together.

KING: And you have no doubt that McCain means that, that he -- he'll be a continuation?

MOORE: Oh, absolutely. I think what -- you just have to look at his policies. I mean look at his health care proposal yesterday -- a market-based health care system.

(LAUGHTER)

MOORE: A market -- I mean that's just absolutely insane when you're talking about people's health, that it -- that we're talking about market forces and profit. And he actually -- he wants to get rid of the health insurance you would get from your employer and have you pay for it. Oh, and he'll give you a little tax...

KING: The government will give you money, though.

MOORE: Yes, he'll give you a $5,000 tax credit, even though the average health insurance policy right now for a family that doesn't have employee health insurance is about $12,000 a year.

So he'll give you $5,000. So you'll be out an extra $7,000, which is a tax, by the way. So, in other words, John McCain wants to increase taxes.

KING: You have a way of figuring that out.

MOORE: Well, it's...

KING: OK.

MOORE: We don't call it a tax, but that's exactly what it is. KING: Coming up, an exclusive first look at -- you're going to see something -- Michael Moore's new movie.

Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Our special guest tonight is Senator Barack Obama.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You feel good going into the convention with so much at stake.

MCCAIN: I am who I am to start with, and that is a conservative.

CLINTON: His policies are wrong for America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Michael Moore.

You'll be putting out a new documentary about the 2004 election. The working title is "We Were This Close Around the Time of the National Political Conventions."

You're letting us have a sneak peek.

Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOORE: Twenty-one hours until the polls close. Only eight hours now until they open. These next 21 hours, my friends, are the most important hours of our lifetime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Where were you speaking?

MOORE: This is the night before the 2004 election in Tallahassee. I went on a 62-city tour, 62 cities in 45 days. The goal was to get as many young people out to vote as possible. We succeeded in being the only age group, 18 to 29-years-olds, that Kerry won. He lost every other age group.

Myself -- and I did a tour, a bunch of hip-hop artists; Russell Simmons did a tour, Bruce Springstein, REM, Pearl Jam. They did -- all of a these different people were out there trying to get the youth vote out. We were actually quite successful. As it turned out, Kerry only lost by one state, 100,000 votes in that state.

People need to remember that. A lot of people are nervous now. Could McCain win? Look at what's happening to Democrats? We're only one state shy. That's all we've got --

KING: One red state shy?

MOORE: One red state shy. It's Ohio or Florida.

KING: That will come out during the convention?

MOORE: I'm going to get it out in a very mass produced way through --

KING: What are you calling it?

MOORE: "We were This Close." I want people to remember that we had these arenas every night; 15,000 people would show up. It was incredible. You actually could see the early beginnings of this massive movement now that's behind Obama. It's only going to continue to get bigger. I think that's a very positive thing for the country.

KING: Going to do some calls and some e-mails. Let's start with a call first.

Somerset, Kentucky, hello.

CALLER: Hi, I was just wondering what Michael thought about Hillary and Barack not mentioning anything about bin Laden anymore? I mean, that's still a big issue for me.

KING: I don't think anybody's mentioning him.

MOORE: I don't know why they don't, because it's certainly one of the great failings of the Bush years.

KING: Do you think had they just stayed in Afghanistan, they would have gotten him? Had they not gone to Iraq?

MOORE: Had done the job initially, starting with had Bush read the intelligence reports before 9/11. Let's start there, and all of the way through what happened in the months after that. You've had Richard Clark on your show. I think he's explained very intelligently how they blew it. So, it's a good question. They shouldn't be afraid to bring it up.

Certainly this has gone on longer than World War II. We defeated Hitler and Mussolini and the Japanese in less time than this war has gone on, trying to find one guy. I got to say, actually, personally -- and I have nothing to back this up. I don't think bin Laden is hiding in some cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan. This guy's a multi- millionaire.

KING: Where he is?

MOORE: I don't know where he is.

KING: If he's not hiding in a cave --

MOORE: Have you ever known a multi-millionaire to hide in a cave. Would you live in a cave for six years?

KING: I'd go to Vegas.

MOORE: Maybe he's back in Saudi Arabia. Maybe someone's protecting him. He's got the money to take care of himself, if, in fact, he's alive.

KING: We have an e-mail from Jamie In Louisville: "What do you make of these rising gas prices? Do you think the U.S. will ever break free of its addiction to oil?"

MOORE: We better do something about. We have lost eight years now. Lot of the experts say that we don't have that many years of oil left under the earth. We better make plans to do something. That's why I brought up the rice at Costco. We're having to limit the amount of rice. This is rice. This is the first gas line, back in 1973, the rice thing and Costco, that's what we'll remember was a turning point, because it cost so much just to get food to the stores, not to mention how we use petro-chemicals to grow our foods.

Front page of "The New York Times" today that farmers are having a hard time getting fertilizer, which of course is petro-chemical based. Our problem -- let me just say this. Our problem with oil is not how to run our cars. Detroit knows how to run cars and other ways than gasoline. They've known that for a long time. We'll figure that out. We'll make that happen.

We can generate electricity through wind and solar, hydro- electric, other means. That's not going to be our problem getting electricity in our homes. But a wind mill can not produce fertilizer. A wind mill cannot get the rice to Costco. A wind mill -- our glasses that you and I are wearing, this is petro-chemical. How does a solar panel create this? That's going to be the real problem, not how to run our cars or our electricity.

KING: You think gas prices are going to keep going up?

MOORE: I would assume so, because we're already at a peak here, where the actual -- the ability to manufacturer and produce oil -- we're at the limit now. And now we're going to be producing less and less each year for the next 10, 15, 20 years. And if there's only, some say, 40, 60 years of oil left that we can get out of the Earth, there's a calamity waiting to happen somewhere down the road. There's no discussion about it. We just lost eight years to try and do something about it.

KING: You're pessimistic.

MOORE: I am pessimistic about this. I just think because it's not part of the national conversation -- the only thing we seem to talk about is it's costing more to get to work. That's a horrible thing. Look, everybody's getting a check this week from Bush. So, they can give it back to Bush's oil buddies at the gas stations.

KING: Go spend it. Bill Clinton, helpful or harmful for Hillary Clinton. I'll ask Michael when we get back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Right now, I would immediately lower gas prices by temporarily suspending the gas tax for consumers and businesses.

MCCAIN: I reiterate my commitment to doing everything I can to see that Americans have a little bit of a holiday between Memorial Day and Labor Day from having to pay 18 cents a gallon additional.

OBAMA: We're arguing over a gimmick to save you half tank of gas over the course of the entire summer, so that everybody in Washington can pat themselves on the back, and say that they did something.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Hillary Clinton and McCain support that. Obama opposes it. Do you agree with Obama?

MOORE: Absolutely, it's a gimmick. It doesn't take care of the problem. It doesn't make us go after what we really need to deal with, in terms of this oil problem. Again, I'm sad to see Senator Clinton pandering in that way.

KING: We mentioned Bill Clinton; has he been helpful or harmful?

MOORE: That's a good question. It's so weird. I would have thought a year ago --

KING: Slam dunk.

MOORE: Slam dunk, because all you have to do is remind people of what the cost of a barrel of oil was eight years ago when he lost office, or any of a number of things, in terms of the way it was. I don't know why it is. I think he's missed by a lot of people. I think, if he was running, he would probably do fairly well.

On the other hand, too, people forget that we're in a lot of the predicament that we're in too because of things that he pushed, in terms of NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that really changed who controls the media and how media is bought and sold in this country, and the flow of information, which is now -- I don't want to dignify it too much by calling it information over these air waves.

KING: Baltimore, Maryland, we take another call. Hello.

CALLER: Hi. I want to say that I'm a long-time fan and a huge supporter of Mr. Moore's issue. But I'm disappointed and want to know why you're not endorsing the one candidate that's pushing for single payer health care, which is Ralph Nader, when it's such a crucial issue that we get this right for this country.

MOORE: As I said, neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama have the correct health care program that's going to solve.

KING: She's saying why not endorse Nader? MOORE: I think Ralph Nader at this point is just a sad reflection of what he used to be and what he was, and the importance that he had to this country. Now it's just about Ralph Nader. I don't think anybody's really interested in that.

KING: We have an e-mail question from Debra from Grand Canyon, Arizona; "if Obama's the nominee, who should he pick as his vice president?" Would you take the job? That's a sure way to ensure defeat.

MOORE: Actually, it was funny, O'Reilly, before he went on the air there -- I was watching before the interview with Mrs. Clinton tonight. Apparently, he had written on his Web site that she couldn't even defeat Michael Moore. That was the epitome of --

KING: Who would you have Obama pick?

MOORE: I haven't thought of that. I don't know. I certainly thought John Edwards had a lot of great things to say. You know, I don't know if he would want the job. Again, these are valuable minutes here over the public air waves. I'm just -- I'm a person. I'm not a pundit. I don't play the game of who's going the win and how they're going to do this. I don't know --

I'm concerned about the 50 million that don't have health insurance tonight and why we're still in this crazy war. Those are the issues and that's what we should be talking about.

KING: We're talking about it.

MOORE: Yes.

KING: We have an e-mail from Martin in Istanbul, Turkey: "I thought 'Fahrenheit 9/11' would affect the 2004 election, but it didn't. Did you think it would? What impact do you think it had?"

MOORE: I think a lot of people had that hope that a movie could actually affect an election. I think it had a definite impact in terms of it got out the youth vote and helped in that way. A movie can't turn an election around. But I think, you know, "Fahrenheit 9"/11 fired that first shot. It told people a lot of things about President Bush that they didn't know about before. It hasn't been good for him ever since. Sometimes it takes a while. It doesn't happen the first time around.

KING: Will the death of Charlton Heston, does that make you feel bad personally, because you gave him such a kind of rough time?

MOORE: Actually, if you watch the movie, I didn't give a rough time. He was very gracious. He let me into his home. We did the interview. Then he started saying things -- I was being very gentle in terms of my questioning. He was talking about the wise old white men that founded this country, and the reason Canada doesn't have as many murders is because they don't have the sort ethnic thing that we've got. He started going down sort of the --

KING: Racial --

MOORE: The Al Campanas (ph) road of saying things that he heard himself saying and then he ended the interview. Listen, Charlton Heston was a great actor. I have nothing but respect as a human being. I feel bad for his family and their loss.

KING: Well said. We'll be right back. Does Michael Moore own a gun? We'll hear his answer coming up on LARRY KING LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Michael Moore's our guest. Do you own a gun?

MOORE: Well, when I made the film "Bowling for Columbine," I went to local bank. They had a giveaway; if you opened up a certain bank account, a CD, you got a gun. You used to get a toaster.

KING: A gun?

MOORE: They were handing out guns.

KING: You've got one.

MOORE: So I've got a gun, yes.

KING: Where is it?

MOORE: I'm thinking about raffling it off to raise money for a good cause or something. Because I really --

KING: You feel funny with it around?

MOORE: I don't think that -- you know, I have enough security where I don't need to worry that. So --

KING: Good.

MOORE: You know, that's kind -- it's not good, actually. Why would I need security. I'm just making movies.

KING: You're an innocent movie maker. Let's take another call from Huntington Beach, California for Michael Moore, hello.

CALLER: I had a question for Michael Moore, who I have long admired for him going at the issues. I'm confuse because he mentioned that October 2002 was the breaking point for him thinking Hillary Clinton was, I don't know, well in tune with what --

KING: She voted for Iraq.

CALLER: Right. But he knows well that behind that vote it wasn't just to tell Bush go to war. It was, if all else fails, then you have the permission to go to war. And also, she probably didn't apologize because she went based on the information that she had, which was much more limited that what Bush and his cohorts --

KING: Isn't that a good point?

MOORE: No. No, because, you know, I and at that time 30 percent of the country was against the world. That means 100 million went with the information they had and they knew what Bush was up to. We knew what he was up to and that he wasn't to be trusted --

KING: You knew there were no weapons of mass destruction.

MOORE: I think I had a good gut instinct. I wasn't a weapons inspector. But I and 100 million other Americans knew that we were played here and that they really wanted to go to war. This was about oil. It was going to be a horrible catastrophe. If 100 million people could figure that out, why couldn't Senator Clinton figure that out? It's like, you don't want a president who's not as smart as 100 million other Americans. You want a president who is smarter than you, who can discern, gee, someone like George W. Bush wants the authorization. What would happen if I gave that to him?

It was handing a stick of dynamite to somebody who had every intention of throwing it.

KING: Durham, North Carolina, take another call for Michael Moore. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. Hi, Michael.

First, Michael, thanks for coming Durham last year. We really enjoyed you. My question is pertaining to race relations. Based on this election -- of course, we talked about it a lot --are you considering in the near future doing a documentary of race relations. We would really love to see something like that.

KING: Race in America?

MOORE: I have thought about it. I have thought about not so much race relations, but I think the whole Reverend Wright thing has re-energized my thinking about, you know, how we got to where we're at and to take a look back at that. And so, yes, I have thought about doing that. And I may do that in the near future.

KING: We have another segment to go. What's the first thing he would do if he were president? We'll ask when LARRY KING LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: All right, President Moore, what's first thing you would do?

MOORE: Well, first thing I would do is not run, because my job is to keep an eye on whoever's in office. And I think that's a good enough job to have in this country. But, certainly, if I were elected president of the United States --

KING: First thing. MOORE: First thing is the war has to end. Second thing is we have to get our country back into our hands and out of the hands of corporate America. They've been calling the shots for far too long for the past 20 years. The third thing I would do is free HBO for everyone.

Really, I think if more people watched HBO --

KING: Great channel.

MOORE: It's the best thing on television, really. Why not give it to everybody?

KING: Tell Time Warner. They own us.

MOORE: I have made my plea. Who's the head of Time Warner.

KING: Jeff Buchs is chairman of the whole --

MOORE: Is he your boss?

KING: Up the ladder, he's the boss.

MOORE: You have some pull. You could get free HBO for every American if you wanted to. Larry.

KING: Free HBO.

MOORE: You were asking me a serious question. I'm sorry. Actually, you know what I would do is I would get -- I would try to lower Americans' taxes to the rate that the French pay. The French pay less taxes than we do, less.

KING: Socialist country?

MOORE: That' right, most of Europe pays less than we do. That's not the way we're told in this country. We're told, oh, they pay all these horrible taxes; 40 percent of their income goes to income taxes. Actually, the French federal income tax is around 10 percent. That 10 percent covers everything, the road, the cops, the military.

What they do is they have these other taxes. Here's your tax for your health care. Here's your tax for education. Here's your tax -- it's listed on your payroll stub, where it pays for these things.

KING: What's the total?

MOORE: Hear this out. In France, you have free health care, free college, and free or near free day care. The average America, if they don't have their health care covered, it's 12,000 dollars a year out of their pocket. That's a tax. If they're paying day care, 200 bucks a week, a month, whatever. That's a few thousands a year. College loans, people are paying their college loans at 40 years old, thousands of dollars in college that you don't pay in France.

If you added up tonight what every American, what you're paying right now out of your pocket for your college education, for day care, for health care, add that on to the taxes you pay, you're paying a lot more than what you're paying in France.

We don't call it a tax in this country. We have other words for it. That's what we're doing. We're being taxed to death. The French, for all that they riot and get out in the street and protest and whatever, you never see them out in the street saying, we pay too many taxes. They never complain about that because they get something for it. They get to go to a doctor when they're sick. Their kids get to go to school and college, not have to worry about it. They have help with their kids if they have kids and have to work.

That's all taken care of. They don't complain about their taxes. We complain about our taxes because we can't get a pothole fixed.

KING: We have about a minute left. Do you think you'll ever see a country you want?

MOORE: Absolutely. I think, if you taken the long view of it, it has gotten better. It gets better as we go down that road. It only gets better if we participate. This is a participatory democracy. It only works if everybody gets involved. If you sit back on the sidelines and say, I'm going to be a spectator and watch this, it doesn't happen.

KING: How are they going to turnout and vote, what percentage?

MOORE: I think we're going to have a huge turnout this year. I think people -- I swear to go, they're crying uncle right now with what they've had to go through, and they're not going to want four more years of this. In spite of whatever concerns they have may have about Senator Obama or if it turns out to be Senator Clinton, whatever concerns they have, they'll put those aside when they think about four more years of what we have had for the last eight years. That's not going to go down with the American people. I have a lot of faith and optimism in their desire to turn this country around.

KING: Are your security guards ready to escort you out?

MOORE: I actually have no security here. What I meant by that is that the power of prayer protects me.

KING: As a good Catholic, I understand.

MOORE: I do believe that. Thank you very much.

KING: Michael Moore. Just a reminder, we had a one on one interview with Senator Clinton just last week, but also has a standing invitation to return as a guest any time.

MOORE: Any a standing invitation with me for lunch.

KING: That's going to crack.

MOORE: Absolutely. KING: Don't forget to dial our Web site, CNN.com/larryking. You can download our current podcast, Laura and Jenna Bush. We also have a special Michael Moore politically charged quick vote. You can always e-mail upcoming guests.

MOORE: Remember, free HBO. Free HBO.

KING: Tomorrow night, Dr. Phil.

MOORE: That will be good.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 10:36 PM 0 comments

Sunday, April 27, 2008

GLADIO TURKEY ITALY

Italian Senator To Attend Meeting In Istanbul
Published: 4/27/2008





ROME - An Italian senator will participate in a meeting on "law, state and deep state (on alleged activities of secret state agencies)", in the Turkish city of Istanbul.

"Deep state" is believed to be an influential and informal anti-democratic coalition within the political system of countries, composed of high-level elements within the military, security and intelligence services, the judiciary, and important figures of organized crime.

Italian senator Felice Casson will attend the conference organized by "Young Civilians" at the Bilgi University on April 26th.

Casson was the person who revealed the existence of a secret organization named "Gladio" when he was a first instance judge.

"There cannot be secret or underground organizations in democracies, similar to the Gladio in Italy," Casson told AA correspondent in his office at the Italian Senate in Rome.

The Italian senator said that the Gladio had tried to steer the internal policy of Italy, and told the AA that it was totally abolished on October 24th, 1990.

Casson said some of those involved in the Gladio were acquitted due to lapse of time, whereas some others were punished on charges of certain incidents.

On the "operation Ergenekon" in Turkey, Casson said the judiciary undertook great responsibilities and underlined importance of illuminating this incident.

"Ergenekon" terrorist organization was brought to daylight after police seized hand grenades, TNT explosives and fuses in a house in Istanbul on June 12th, 2007.

The Italian branch of Gladio was the first one to be discovered. It was set up under Minister of Defense (from 1953 to 1958) Paolo Taviani`s supervision.

On May 31st, 1972, judge Felice Casson found out that explosives used in an attack that killed three gendarmery officers in Pateano were provided from an arms depot that belonged to a secret organization.

The "Gladio" organization was officially revealed in 1980s at the end of a deep investigation.

In 1990, the organization was dissolved.

Those days, many circles thought and claimed that there were "Gladio-like organizations" in all NATO member states during the Cold War era.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=228153

(BRC-ULG)


==========================


Gladio Turk is the most effective

The prosecutor Felice Casson who revealed Gladio in Italy told Turkish prosecutors: "Search Gladio archive."

I have seen that every NATO country has a Gladio. Turkey has an important strategic location. Turkish Gladio is more important than Italian ones because of its proximity to Soviet Union.


The prosecutor solving Italian Gladio: "Turkey has the most effective Gladio"

Italian prosecutor Felice Casson said: "Turkey has strategic significance. Turkey is among Arabian world, Russia and Europe. Besides, you have both ethnic and religious issues."

Felice Casson decoded the organization established by CIA in NATO countries after opening the assassination file of the three gendarmeries killed in 1972. "Gladio" meaning "Roman Sword" in Italian was established against occupation by Soviet Union and was managed from one center. They were named after history and mythology of their countries; Greece had "Sheepskin", France had "Weathercock" and Turkey had "Counter Guerilla". The structure had two elements: "military officers and civilians." The body consisting of civilians is "Ergenekon". In the early 1990s, western countries ended the activities of Gladio. The responsible ones were tried; but not in Turkey. After re-opening the file of three gendarmeries killed in 1972, the connection with the fascist groups was revealed. Top level authorities of the organization the gendarmeries were working for were also connected. When this event was solved, Gladio was revealed. This organization was directly connected to CIA. Referring to the source of the weapons found within the scope of Ergenekon operation, Casson, said: "I encountered records of the shelters in various parts of the country when I checked archives of SI.SMI., Italian military service. The explosives and weapons in the shelters originated from both East and West. I applied to the Prime Ministry to investigate the archives of Italian military intelligence service. I got the permission. If Turkish prosecutors have the same license, they should investigate the archives, too. Then Gladio may be deciphered."
spacer

http://english.sabah.com.tr/01DE03B6DC6B40BB98B07A34681A0A7C.html

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 11:36 PM 0 comments

Monday, April 21, 2008

Jesse Ventura Talks 9/11 Truth with Meria Heller

http://www.lovearth.net/meria.gifhttp://educate-yourself.org/cn/911meriahellerchicago.jpg DOWNLOAD MP3 - listen to

Jesse Ventura Talks 9/11 Truth with Meria Heller


http://www.meria.net/freeshow.mp3 67,527,099 bytes 21 April 2008

Meria is usually pay-to-listen, but right now she's offering a free sample broadcast of her interview with Jesse Ventura! http://911blogger.com/node/15118#comment

http://www.wonderfulworldofhunter.com/gueststars2/images/jesse_ventura.jpg

Jesse Ventura (born July 15, 1951 as James George Janos), also known as "The Body", "The Star", and "The Governing Body", is an American politician, retired professional wrestler, Navy UDT veteran, actor, and former radio and television talk show host. He was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2004. He is also a 1-time AWA Tag Team Champion.

In the Minnesota gubernatorial election of 1998 he was elected the 38th Governor of Minnesota and served from January 4, 1999 to January 6, 2003 without seeking a second term.

Ventura was born James George Janos in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the son of Bernice Martha (née Lenz) and George William Janos. His father's parents were ethnic Hungarians from what is today Slovakia, and his mother had German ancestry.[1] Ventura said himself he is Slovak.[2] Ventura (then known by his legal name of Janos) graduated from Minneapolis's Roosevelt High School in 1969.

From September 11, 1969 to September 10, 1975 he served in the United States Navy as a Navy UDT and was on active duty January 5, 1970 through December 10, 1973 during the Vietnam era. Ventura served with Underwater Demolition Team 12 during his time on active duty. He later served reserve service as a member of SEAL Team ONE. According to the United States Naval Special Warfare Command policy, Ventura is entitled to use the title "SEAL", due to both his service in the UDT and SEAL teams, and his successful graduation from UDT-R (now BUD/S) training. He was awarded the National Defense Ribbon and the Vietnam Service Ribbon but was not in combat to qualify for the Combat Action Ribbon. In his autobiography, Ventura described SEAL training as the toughest experience of his life. "It's worse than anything you can imagine," he wrote, "You have to want it bad, very bad." Ventura always mentioned how much he respected his SEAL instructor Master Chief Petty Officer Terry "Mother" Moy. He asked Moy to stand by his side when he was sworn in as governor. He ended his inaugural address with the SEAL war cry "HOOYAH!"

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p43/truthseeker_05/IMG_1302.jpg

He returned to Minnesota and attended North Hennepin Community College in the mid-1970s at the same time he began weightlifting and wrestling. It was around this time that he briefly served as a bodyguard for The Rolling Stones. In 1975, Ventura married his wife Terry. The couple have two grown children: a son, Tyrel (b.1980), and a daughter, Jade (b. 1984).

Wrestling career

He created the stage name Jesse "The Body" Ventura to go with the persona of a bully-ish beach body builder, taking "Ventura" from his wife's maiden name. As a professional wrestler, Ventura wrestled as a "heel", and often used the motto "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!" Much of his flamboyant persona was copied from "Superstar" Billy Graham, a charismatic and popular performer during the 1970s and '80s.[4] Years later, as a broadcaster, Ventura made a running joke out of claiming that Graham stole all of his ring attire ideas from him.
Jesse Ventura in the WWF.
Jesse Ventura in the WWF.

In 1975, Ventura made his debut in the Central States territory, before moving to the Pacific Northwest, where he wrestled for promoter Don Owen.[5] During his stay in Portland, Oregon, he had notable feuds with Dutch Savage and Jimmy Snuka and won the Pacific Northwest Wrestling title twice (once from each wrestler), and the tag team titles six times (twice each with Bull Ramos and "Playboy" Buddy Rose, and once each with Steve Strong and Jerry Oates). He later moved to his hometown promotion, the American Wrestling Association in Minnesota, teaming with Adrian Adonis as the "East-West Connection" in 1979.[6]

The duo won the AWA World Tag Team Championship on July 20, 1980 on a forfeit when Verne Gagne, one-half of the tag team champions along with Mad Dog Vachon, failed to show up for a title defense in Denver, Colorado. The duo held the belts for nearly a year, losing to "The High Flyers" (Greg Gagne and Jim Brunzell).

Shortly after losing the belts, the duo moved on to the World Wrestling Federation, where they were managed by "Classy" Freddie Blassie. Although the duo was unable to capture the WWF Tag Team Championship, both Adonis and Ventura became title contenders, each earning several title shots at champion Bob Backlund.

"The Body" continued to wrestle until September 1984 when blood clots in his lungs ended his in-ring career; it forced him to miss a title match against WWF Champion Hulk Hogan. Ventura claimed the blood clots were a result of his exposure to Agent Orange during his time in Vietnam. After a failed comeback bid, he began to do color commentary on television for "All-Star Wrestling" (replacing Angelo Mosca) and later "Superstars of Wrestling" (initially alongside Vince McMahon and Bruno Sammartino, and with McMahon after Sammartino's departure from the WWF in 1988), hosted his own talk segment on the WWF's "Superstars of Wrestling" called "The Body Shop", and did color commentary on radio for a few National Football League teams (among them, the Minnesota Vikings and Tampa Bay Buccaneers). Ventura most notably co-hosted Saturday Night's Main Event with Vince McMahon and the first six WrestleManias (1985-1990) and most of the WWF's Pay-Per-Views at the time with Gorilla Monsoon (the lone exception for Ventura being the first SummerSlam, in which Ventura served as the guest referee during the main event). Following a dispute with WWF Chairman Vince McMahon over him using his image for the video game company Sega, McMahon-who had a contract with rival company Nintendo at the time- released Ventura from the company in August of 1990 [7].

http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/jesse_mrt.gif

He also did commentary for World Championship Wrestling from 1992-94. His professional wrestling commentary style was an extension of his wrestling persona, as he was partial to the heels, which was something new and different at the time. The lone exception to this rule was the Wrestlemainia VI match between Hulk Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior. Since they were both faces, Ventura took a neutral position in his commentary; even praising Hogan's display of sportsmanship at the end of the match when he handed over the WWF Championship to the Warrior after he lost the title. The praise of Hogan's action was unusual for Ventura because he regularly rooted against Hogan during his matches. Hogan and Jesse were at one point close friends[8]. However, Jesse abruptedly ended the friendship after he discovered, during his lawsuit against Vince McMahon, that Hogan was the one who had told Vince about Jesse's attempt to form a labor union in 1984.[8]

Acting career

Ventura acted in the 1987 movie Predator, whose cast included future California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and future Kentucky Gubernatorial candidate Sonny Landham. He had a starring role in the 1991 sci-fi movie Abraxas, Guardian of the Universe, and supporting roles in The Running Man, Demolition Man, Repossessed, The Master of Disguise (in which he steals the Liberty Bell) and Batman & Robin - the first and last of these also starring Schwarzenegger. Ventura also made an appearance in Major League 2, being "White Lightning" in the movie that the character Willie Mayes Hayes starred in. He also appeared as a self help guru (voice only) in The Ringer trying to turn Johnny Knoxville into a more confident worker. Ventura also had a cameo in The X-Files episode "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" as a Man in Black alongside fellow 'MiB' Alex Trebek. In the Futurama episode "A Head in the Polls", his head is shown in the Hall of Presidents, implying that he was elected President. His jar is labeled Jesse "The Head" Ventura, implying that he changed his nickname once he lost his body.

Political career

See also: Minnesota gubernatorial election, 1998

Mayor of Brooklyn Park

Following his depature from the WWF, Ventura took advice from a former high school teacher and ran for mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota in 1990 on the Independent Party ticket.[9] Ventura successfully beat the city's 18-year incumbent mayor and served from 1991 to 1995.[10] Between 1995 and his run for governor, Ventura had a radio call-in show (KSTP-AM 1500) in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Governor of Minnesota

Ventura ran for Governor of Minnesota in 1998 as the nominee for the Reform Party of Minnesota (he later joined the Independence Party of Minnesota when it broke from its association with the Reform Party of the United States of America). His campaign consisted of a combination of aggressive grassroots events and original television spots, designed by quirky adman Bill Hillsman, using the phrase "Don't vote for politics as usual." He spent considerably less than his opponents (about $300,000), and is widely regarded as one of the first candidates to effectively use the Internet as a medium of reaching out to voters in a political campaign.

He won the election in November 1998, narrowly (and unexpectedly) defeating the major-party candidates: St. Paul mayor Norm Coleman (Republican) and Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. "Skip" Humphrey III (Democratic-Farmer-Labor).

After his victory, bumper stickers and T-shirts bearing the slogan "My governor can beat up your governor" appeared in Minnesota and became ubiquitous virtually overnight. Ventura circulated material stating his wish to be known in office as "Jesse 'The Mind'". The nickname stuck, but as a sarcastic and facetious way for opponents to highlight his frequent controversial remarks. Far more frequently, people continued to use "Jesse 'The Body'" or adapt his former stage name as "Jesse 'The Governing Body'."

Ventura went on to gain the highest approval rating of any governor in Minnesota history, with some polls ranking his public approval as high as 73 percent in 1999, despite controversial public comments. Later in his term, however, a decline in the economy and a growing unwillingness by the public to accept some of his more controversial behaviors and statements led to a sharp decline in his popularity. Citing undue media scrutiny into the lives of his family he chose not to run for reelection in 2002.

Political positions
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)

Ventura's main campaign promise was a tax refund to Minnesota residents. The state was running a budget surplus at the time, and Ventura believed that the money should be given back to the public. In political debates, he often admitted that he had not formed an opinion on certain policy questions. Sharing many views with libertarians, Ventura frequently described himself as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." He selected teacher Mae Schunk as his running mate. His participation in the 1998 Minnesota Governor debates boosted his popularity as a candidate.

Later as governor, he came to support a unicameral (one-house) legislature, light rail public transport, property tax reform, gay rights, and abortion rights. While funding public school education generously, he opposed the teachers' union, and did not have a high regard for the public funding of higher-education institutions. Additionally, Ventura supported the use of medicinal marijuana, advocated a higher role for third parties in national politics, and favored the concept of instant-runoff voting.

Lacking a party base in the Minnesota House and Senate, Governor Ventura's vetoes were often overridden.

Ventura was elected on a Reform party ticket, but he never received support from Ross Perot's Texas faction. When the Reform party was taken over by Pat Buchanan supporters before the presidential elections of 2000, Ventura left the party in February 2000, referring to it as 'hopelessly dysfunctional'. However, he maintained close ties to the Independence Party of Minnesota, which also broke from the Reform party around the same time.

Litigation

In 1987, while negotiating his contract as a WWF commentator, Ventura waived his rights to royalties on videotape sales when he was falsely told that only feature performers received such royalties. In 1991, having discovered that other non-feature performers received royalties, Ventura brought an action for fraud, misappropriation of publicity rights, and unjust enrichment in Minnesota state court against Titan Sports. The case was removed to federal court, and Ventura won an $801,333.06 jury verdict on the last claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal, and the case,,[11] 65 F.3d 725 (8th Cir.1995), is an important result in the law of restitution.

Now because of Ventura's victorious lawsuit, whenever the WWF/WWE wants to use his commentary for a mass marketed VHS/DVD, Ventura will get a percentage of the sales.

Light rail transit

During the first part of his administration, Ventura strongly advocated for land-use reform and substantial mass transit improvements, such as light rail. In his March 1999 State address, he proclaimed, "I want to ride a train by 2002," referring to a light rail line running between downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America. He made the light rail project a priority, obtaining additional funding from the Minnesota state legislature to keep the project moving. The Hiawatha Line was completed in 2004, significantly exceeding all ridership estimates.

Controversies as Governor

During his tenure as Governor, Ventura experienced several controversies that drew a considerable amount of fire from the press in the Twin Cities, which has long prided itself on independence from and criticism of the state government.

Garrison Keillor

Shortly after Ventura's election as governor of Minnesota, author and humorist Garrison Keillor wrote a satirical book about the event, spoofing Ventura as "Jimmy (Big Boy) Valente," a self-aggrandizing former "Navy W.A.L.R.U.S. (Water Air Land Rising Up Suddenly)" turned professional wrestler turned politician. Initially, Ventura responded angrily to the satire. He became conciliatory afterwards, however, and said that Keillor "makes Minnesota proud".[12]

Shutdown of the Governor's Mansion

Ventura attracted the ire of critics when he chose not to stay at the governor's mansion during his tenure, choosing instead to shut it down and stay at his home in Maple Grove after the legislature refused to increase spending for security. Critics argued that it meant the loss of jobs for several working-class people at the mansion and re-opening the mansion after Ventura's departure would cost more than if Ventura had kept the mansion open.[13]

"Drunken Irishmen" remark

During his term, Ventura made an appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, in which he responded controversially to the question posed by Letterman, "So which is the better city of the Twin Cities, Minneapolis or St. Paul?". Ventura responded, "Minneapolis. Those streets in St. Paul must have been designed by drunken Irishmen". He later apologized for the remark, adding that it was not intended to be taken seriously.[14]

Pledge of Allegiance

Ventura vetoed a bill to require recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, saying:

"I believe patriotism comes from the heart. Patriotism is voluntary. It is a feeling of loyalty and allegiance that is the result of knowledge and belief. A patriot shows their patriotism through their actions, by their choice. No law will make a citizen a patriot".[15]

China

After a trade mission to China in 2002, he announced that he would not run for a second term as governor of Minnesota. During another trade mission to Cuba in the summer of 2002, he denounced the economic sanctions of the US against that country.[16]

Wellstone memorial

Ventura greatly disapproved of some of the actions that took place at the 2002 memorial for Senator Paul Wellstone, his family, and others who died in a plane crash on October 25, 2002. Ventura said, "I feel used. I feel violated and duped over the fact that [the memorial ceremony] turned into a political rally".[17][18] He left halfway through the controversial speech made by Wellstone's best friend, Rick Kahn. Because of the rally and other issues revolving around the exclusion of third-party candidates from the resulting election, he appointed Dean Barkley to represent Minnesota in the Senate until Wellstone's term expired in January 2003. Al Franken wrote that Ventura was disrespectful at the memorial, notably for chewing gum throughout the service.

The media

Ventura enjoyed an arduous relationship with the local media. He referred to them as "media jackals," a term that even appeared on the required press passes to enter the governor's press area.[19] He accused the media of hounding him and his family for personal behaviors and beliefs while neglecting coverage of important policy issues. Later, Ventura told a reporter for The Boston Globe that he would have run for a second term if he had been single, referencing the media's effect on his family life.[20]

Statements on prostitution

In one of his books, Ventura mentions a visit to a prostitute near Reno, Nevada and he admitted to visiting brothels in the Philippines while serving in the military. Ventura has publicly stated that prostitution should be legal, since it will exist in any case, and legal controls protecting the health of clients and workers are needed.[21] He said "I voted in hopes to make prostitution legal once, and I'd do it again in a second".[22] He admitted to trading a belt made of gun cartridge cases in exchange for 10 dollars plus the services of a prostitute in Nevada during his younger days.

Early resignation

Governor Ventura sparked media criticism when, nearing the end of his term, he suggested that he might resign from office early to allow his lieutenant governor, Mae Schunk, an opportunity to serve as governor. He further stated that he wanted her to be the state's first female governor, and have her portrait painted and hung in the Capitol along with the other governors. Ventura quickly retreated from the comments, saying he was just floating an idea.[23]

Health

In 2002, Ventura suffered a severe blood clot in his lungs that left him hospitalized.[24]

During his wrestling days, Ventura was a user of anabolic steroids, used to increase his already considerable physique. He admitted to this after retiring from competition, and went on to make public service announcements and appear in printed ads and on posters warning young people about the dangers and health risks of using steroids.[25]

Religion

In a Playboy interview, he said:

"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business."

In his 1999 best-selling memoir I Ain't Got Time to Bleed, Ventura responded to the controversy sparked by these remarks by elaborating on his views concerning religion: "I’d like to clarify [my comments published in Playboy] about religious people being weak-minded. I didn’t mean all religious people. I don’t have any problem with the vast majority of religious folks. I count myself among them, more or less. But I believe because it makes sense to me, not because I think it can be proven. There are lots of people out there who think they know the truth about God and religion, but does anybody really know for sure? That’s why the founding fathers built freedom of religious belief into the structure of this nation, so that everybody could make up their minds for themselves. But I do have a problem with the people who think they have some right to try to impose their beliefs on others. I hate what the fundamentalist fanatics are doing to our country. It seems as though, if everybody doesn’t accept their version of reality, that somehow invalidates it for them. Everybody must believe the same things they do. That’s what I find weak and destructive."[26]

Ventura endorsed equal rights for religious minorities, as well as people who don't believe in God, by declaring July 4, 2002, "Indivisible Day" through this proclamation:

"WHEREAS: The unique feature of this nation at its founding was its establishment of a secular Constitution that separated government from religion - something never done before; and WHEREAS: Our secular Constitution has enabled people of all worldviews to coexist in harmony, undivided by sectarian strife; and WHEREAS: President James Madison made clear the importance of maintaining this harmony when he said, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the endless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"; and WHEREAS: The diversity of our people requires mutual respect and equal protection for all our citizens, including minority groups, if we are to remain "One nation, indivisible"; and WHEREAS: It is the unfettered diversity of ideas and worldviews that have made our nation the strongest and most productive in the world; and WHEREAS: Eternal vigilance must be maintained to guard against those who seek to stifle ideas, establish a narrow orthodoxy, and divide our nation along arbitrary lines of race, ethnicity, and religious belief or non-belief. NOW, THEREFORE, I, JESSE VENTURA, Governor of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim that Thursday, July 4, 2002 shall be observed as: INDIVISIBLE DAY In the State Of Minnesota."

Governor Ventura's office accidentally proclaimed October 13 to 19, 2002 as "Christian Heritage Week" in Minnesota.[27][28]

Outside career

Ventura has been criticized for privately profiting from his heightened popularity. He was hired as host for the failed XFL football enterprise, served as a referee at a World Wrestling Federation match, and published several books during his tenure as governor. On his weekly radio show, he often criticized the media for focusing on these deals rather than on his policy proposals.[29]

Post-gubernatorial life

Ventura was succeeded in his office by Republican Tim Pawlenty. He began a cable television show in October, 2003, on MSNBC called Jesse Ventura's America. The show was broadcast once a week, on Saturdays, unlike many MSNBC shows which are on five nights a week (this show was originally planned for five nights a week as well, but MSNBC executives changed their minds). At the time of its airing, Jesse Ventura's America was the only national television show filmed in Minnesota. Among his guests were Charles Barkley, Gray Davis, Arianna Huffington, Rob Kampia, and Kathy McKee. However, the show was soon canceled.

In 2004, fellow Navy veteran and Harvard graduate student Christopher Mora promoted the idea that the academic establishment had failed to reach out to citizens experienced in public service, but who did not fit the traditional idea of a politician. He successfully lobbied for the selection of Ventura, who started teaching a study group at Harvard University for the Spring 2004 semester as a visiting fellow at the Kennedy School of Government's Institute of Politics (IOP). His 90-minute study group focused on third party politics, campaign finance, the war on drugs, and other relevant political issues. Ventura scheduled multiple famous friends to appear for his seminars including Dean Barkley and Richard Marcinko. These presentations were among the highest attended in the history of the IOP[citation needed].

On March 14, 2004, Ventura appeared as an honored guest at World Wrestling Entertainment's (WWE) WrestleMania XX as part of the "WWE Hall of Fame Class of 2004." Later in the evening he approached the ring to interview Donald Trump, who had a front row seat at the event. Trump affirmed that Ventura would receive his moral and financial support were he to ever reenter the world of politics. Alluding to the 2008 election, Ventura boldly announced that "In 2008, maybe we oughta put a wrestler in the White House".

On October 22, 2004, with Ventura by his side, former Maine Governor Angus King endorsed John Kerry for President at the Minnesota state capitol building. Ventura did not say a word at the press conference, showing his continued contempt for the press. When prodded for a statement, Governor King responded, "He plans to vote for John Kerry, but he doesn't want to make a statement and subject himself to the tender mercies of the Minnesota press".[30]

In November 2004, an advertisement began airing in California featuring Ventura. In it, Ventura voices his opposition to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's policies regarding Native American casinos. Like Hogan, Schwarzenegger at one point was also a close friend of Ventura as well, but since Schwarzeneggr's victory in California, Ventura has not reportedly given him any praise; Schawarzenegger didn't even mention Ventura's name in an interview with Fox News in 2005, where reporter Chris Wallace asked him if he was quote "the next Jesse Ventura" [31]. Ventura is serving as an advisory board member for a new group called Operation Truth, a non-profit organization set up "to give voice to troops who served in Iraq." “The current use of the National Guard is wrong....These are men who did not sign up to go occupy foreign nations”.[32]

In August 2005, Ventura became the spokesperson for Betus.com, an online Sportsbook.[33]

In 2005, Ventura repeatedly discussed leaving the United States. In September of 2005, Ventura announced on The Mike Malloy Show that he was leaving the U.S. and planned to "have an adventure". In late October 2005, he went on the The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch and reiterated that he was leaving the U.S. due to, among other things, censorship. He has since moved to Baja California, Mexico.

In September of 2006, Ventura endorsed and campaigned with independent Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman,[34] and Independence Party of Minnesota 's gubernatorial candidate Peter Hutchinson and Team Minnesota. He revealed he now spends much of his time surfing near his home in Mexico.

Ventura participated on the June 11, 2007 WWE Raw Draft Special on the USA Network, where he was seen giving "Appreciation" towards Mr. McMahon.

In April 2008, A book authored by Ventura, titled Don't Start the Revolution Without Me was released. In it, Ventura describes a hypothetical campaign in which he is a candidate for President of the United States in 2008, running as an independent.[35] In an interview with the Associated Press at the time of the book's release, however, Ventura denied any plans for a presidential bid, stating that the scenario is only imaginary and not indicative of a "secret plan to run".[36]

However, in an interview on CNN's The Situation Room on April 7, Ventura hinted that he is considering entering the race for the United States Senate seat now held by Norm Coleman.

Questions regarding 9/11

On April 2nd, 2008, Jesse Ventura expressed doubts on the Alex Jones radio show about some of the events of the 9/11 attacks.[37][unreliable source?]. He said that he felt that many unanswered questions remain, such as how World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by a plane, could have collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11 in a manner which resembled a perfectly executed controlled demolition[38][unreliable source?] Ventura stated:

"Two planes struck two buildings . . . but how is it that a third building fell 5 hours later? How could this building just implode into its own footprint 5 hours later - that's my first question - the 9/11 Commission didn't even devote one page to that in their big volume of investigation . . . In my opinion, there is no doubt that that building was brought down with demolition."[39][unreliable source?]

He also expressed bewilderment at how the Twin Towers appeared pulverized[40] and wondered how they could drop at virtually free-fall speed, when, he claimed, no other massive steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed in this manner due to fire before. He stated:

"How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity - if you put a stopwatch on them, both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds - how can that be? ... [Also] jet fuel is four-fifths kerosene, which is not a hot-burning fuel: and they want us to believe that it melted these steel-structured girders and caused these buildings to pancake-collapse to the ground?! I was on the site within two weeks after it happened, and I saw none of these 'pancakes'. Wouldn't they all be piled up in a huge mass on the ground? And yet everything was blown into dust! When you look at it from that aspect, none of it makes any sense, if you apply common sense to it ..." [39]

Bush Administration Insider Says U.S. Government Behind 9/11
Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the United (more)
From: Halifaxion
Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 11:27 AM 0 comments

Saturday, April 19, 2008

911 WTC FALL -- scientific

The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 3540 35
18741495/08 2008 Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the
World Trade Center Destruction
Steven E. Jones* ,1 , Frank M. Legge 2 , Kevin R. Ryan 3 , Anthony F. Szamboti* ,4 and James R.
Gourley 5
1 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84604, USA
2 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
3 Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
4 Blackwood, NJ 08012, USA
5 Dallas, TX 75231, USA
Abstract: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on
9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those
areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths
about the WTC collapses.
Keywords: World Trade Center, 9/11, Total collapse, Pancake theory, Momentum conservation, Residues.
INTRODUCTION
On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers of the World
Trade Center (WTC) were hit by airplanes. Total destruction
of these highrises at near freefall speeds ensued within two
hours, and another highrise which was not hit by a plane
(WTC 7) collapsed about seven hours later at 5:20 p.m.
The US Congress laid out the charge specifically to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
``Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed fol
lowing the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how
WTC 7 collapsed'' [1]. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) was acting with a similar motivation in
their earlier study of these tragic collapses [2]. NIST and
FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the
specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that lim
ited approach while leaving open a number of unanswered
questions. Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific
discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agree
ment with NIST and FEMA. Understanding the mechanisms
that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will
enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environ
ment for people using similar buildings and benefit firefight
ers who risk their lives trying to save others.
DISCUSSION
1. WTC 7 Collapse Issue
FEMA: ``The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this
time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises con
*Address correspondence to this author at the S&J Scientific Company, 190
East 4680 North, Provo, Utah, USA; Tel: 8017355885; Fax: 801422
0553; Email: HardEvidence@gmail.com
4 Hawthorne Court, Blackwood, NJ, 08012, USA; Tel: 8562284747;
Email: tonyszamboti@comcast.net
tained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only
a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investiga
tion, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue'' [2].
FEMA analyzed the remarkable collapse of WTC build
ing 7, the 47story skyscraper that, even though it was not hit
by a plane, collapsed about seven hours after the second
Tower collapse. We certainly agree that FEMA's best fire
based hypothesis ``has only a low probability of occurrence.''
NIST's final report on WTC 7 has been long delayed and is
eagerly awaited [3]. Apparently it is difficult to fully explain
the complete and rapid collapse of WTC 7 with a firebased
hypothesis alone.
2. Withstanding Jet Impact
FEMA: ``The WTC towers had been designed to with
stand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land
at a nearby airport...'' [2]
NIST: ``Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the
aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respec
tively. The global analyses with structural impact damage
showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity''
[4].
Yes, we agree, as do previously published reports: ``The
110story towers of the World Trade Center were designed
to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal
impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total
collapse occur?'' [5]
John Skilling, a leading structural engineer for the WTC
Towers, was interviewed in 1993 just after a bomb in a truck
went off in the North Tower:
"We looked at every possible thing we could think
of that could happen to the buildings, even to the
extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John
Skilling, head structural engineer....

36 The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 2 Jones et al.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit
the Empire State Building [which did not col
lapse], Skilling's people did an analysis that
showed the towers would withstand the impact of
a Boeing 707.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would
be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane)
would dump into the building. There would be a
horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,"
he said. "The building structure would still be
there."
Skilling a recognized expert in tall buildings
doesn't think a single 200pound car bomb would
topple or do major structural damage to a Trade
Center tower. The supporting columns are closely
spaced and even if several were disabled, the oth
ers would carry the load.
...Although Skilling is not an explosives expert,
he says there are people who do know enough
about building demolition to bring a structure like
the Trade Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in
that type of work and gave him the assignment of
bringing these buildings down with explosives, I
would bet that he could do it." [6]
Thus, Skilling's team showed that a commercial jet
would not bring down a WTC Tower, just as the Empire
State Building did not collapse when hit by an airplane, and
he explained that a demolition expert using explosives could
demolish the buildings. We find we are in agreement.
3. Pancake Theory Not Supported
NIST: ``NIST's findings do not support the ``pancake
theory'' of collapse, which is premised on a progressive fail
ure of the floor systems in the WTC towers... Thus, the
floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phe
nomenon'' [3].
Agreed: the ``pancake theory of collapse'' is incorrect and
should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by
the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary
``Why the Towers Fell'' produced by NOVA [7]. The ``pan
cake theory of collapse'' is strongly promoted in a Popular
Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited
ideas [8, 9]. We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the
``pancake theory'' is not scientifically tenable and ought to be
set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of
the WTC Towers and WTC 7.
4. Massive Core Columns
NIST: ``As stated above, the core columns were designed
to support approximately 50% of the gravity loads'' [4]. ``The
hattruss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers,
and thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the
aircraft impact and subsequent fires for a much longer
time---enabling large numbers of building occupants to
evacuate safely'' [10].
``Pacific Car and Foundry of Seattle, Washington, fabri
cated the closely spaced exterior wall column panels that
gave the buildings their instantly recognizable shape. Stanray
Pacific of Los Angeles, Cal, fabricated the enormous box
and wideflange columns that made up the core... The core
of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was
made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from
threestory long plates, and heavy rolled wideflange
shapes.'' ``The core columns were designed to carry the
building gravity loads and were loaded to approximately
50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact.... the exte
rior columns were loaded to only approximately 20% of their
capacity before the aircraft impact'' [11].
We totally agree that the WTC Towers included ``mas
sive'' interconnected steel columns in the cores of the build
ings, in addition to the columns in the outside walls. The
central core columns bore much of the gravity loads so the
Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the false notion that
the Towers were ``hollow tubes'' with the floors supported
just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide
acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering
professor asserted, ``The structural design of the towers was
unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of
closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The
resulting structure was similar to a tube...'' [12].
The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substan
tial loadsupporting core structure as well as perimeter col
umns -- and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling
false popular notions.
5. Essentially in Free Fall
NIST: [Question:] ``How could the WTC towers collapse
in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)---
speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar
height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?'' [Answer:]
...As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1,
these collapse times show that: ``... the structure below the
level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the
falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The po
tential energy released by the downward movement of the
large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact
structure below to absorb that energy through energy of de
formation. Since the stories below the level of collapse ini
tiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy
released by the falling building mass, the building section
above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos''
[3].
We agree with some of this, that the building ``came
down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.'' This is an
important starting point. (Because of obscuring dust clouds,
it is difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the state
ment that the buildings ``came down essentially in free fall''
seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for the WTC
Towers and also for WTC 7.) [13, 14] Further, we agree with
NIST that ``the stories below the level of collapse initiation
provided little resistance'' to the fall -- but we ask -- how
could that be? NIST mentions ``energy of deformation''
which for the huge core columns in the Towers would be
considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it
(which they were not) in order to claim that the ``intact struc
ture'' below would not significantly slow the motion.
Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law
of physics in glibly treating the remarkable ``free fall'' col
lapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of

WTC Destruction: Points of Agreement The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 2 37
Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of
thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper
part of the building because of its mass, independent of de
formation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy
and Momentum must both be conserved.)
Published papers have argued that this negligence by
NIST (leaving the nearfreefall speeds unexplained) is a
major flaw in their analysis [13, 14]. NIST ignores the possi
bility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete
building collapses in near freefall times by moving the ma
terial out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alterna
tive explanation that fits the data without violating basic
laws of physics. We should be able to agree from observing
the nearfreefall destruction that this is characteristic of con
trolled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition
is one way to achieve complete collapse at near freefall
speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST's calculations of
how they explain nearfreefall collapse rates without explo
sives.
We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Con
servation of Momentum and Energy for the rapid and com
plete destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a
discussion of alternative hypotheses that are consistent with
momentum and energy conservation in these nearfreefall
events.
6. Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure
NIST: ``NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endur
ance of trusses like those in the WTC towers.... All four test
specimens sustained the maximum design load for approxi
mately 2 hours without collapsing... The Investigation Team
was cautious about using these results directly in the formu
lation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling is
sues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on Sep
tember 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems,
were substantially different from the conditions in the test
furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established
that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large
gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of
time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location
on September 11'' [4].
We agree that NIST had actual fire tests completed and
that all four ``trusses like those in the WTC towers'' survived
the fireendurance testing ``without collapsing.'' We also
agree that ``the fires in the towers on September 11 ... were
substantially different from the conditions in the test fur
naces;'' the test furnaces were hotter and burned longer.
NIST may wish to perform a series of different tests in an
endeavor to discover some other hypothesis for collapse ini
tiation. As it stands, however, we have no physical evidence
supporting the concept of total collapse due to fire from real
fireendurance tests. On the contrary, these reallife tests
indicate that the buildings should not have completely col
lapsed. In addition, we have hundreds of cases of fires in tall
steelframe buildings and complete collapse has never oc
curred.
But experts said no building like it [WTC7], a
modern, steelreinforced highrise, had ever col
lapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engi
neers have been trying to figure out exactly what
happened and whether they should be worried
about other buildings like it around the country....
Although the fireproofing was intended to with
stand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts
said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center
that are treated with such coatings have never col
lapsed in a fire of any duration. Most of three
other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World
Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds,
including fire [15].
Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Almost all large buildings will be the location for
a major fire in their useful life. No major highrise
building has ever collapsed from fire... The WTC
[itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975;
however, the building survived with minor dam
age and was repaired and returned to service [16].
Yet three such highrise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7)
completely collapsed on a single day, 9/11/2001, and could
not be returned to service. There is much left to learn here.
7. Fires of Short Duration
NIST: ``The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most
a few minutes'' [4]. ``At any given location, the duration of
[air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 C was about 15 min
to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures
were near 500 C or below'' [4].
We agree. But then, given that the fires were brief and
patchy, how did both towers experience suddenonset failure
of structural steel over a broad area in each tower and how
could the collapses of all three WTC highrises have been so
symmetrical and complete? [13, 14, 17] We seek discussion
on these points.
8. WTC Fires Did Not Melt Steel
NIST: ``In no instance did NIST report that steel in the
WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of
steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahren
heit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel)
fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Cel
sius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum
upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius
(1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example,
see NCSTAR 1, figure 636)'' [3].
Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Ea
gar on this point:
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the
WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and
many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is
argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially
with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The
temperature of the fire at the WTC was not un
usual, and it was most definitely not capable of
melting steel [18].
We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires
were not capable of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may
have trouble explaining the molten material flowing out of
the South Tower just before its collapse, as well as evidence
for temperatures much higher than NIST's reported 1,100 C

38 The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 2 Jones et al.
[13]. We offer to discuss explanations for the observed high
temperatures.
9. Destruction of WTC Steel Evidence
NIST: ``NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements
from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces
represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel
examined at the various recovery yards where the debris was
sent as the WTC site was cleared. It is estimated that roughly
0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used
in the construction of the two towers was recovered.'' ``The
lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from
the structure...'' [1].
Thus, only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the
WTC Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by
NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime
scene?
For more than three months, structural steel from
the World Trade Center has been and continues to
be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that
could answer many questions about highrise
building design practices and performance under
fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, per
haps never to be seen again in America until you
buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astound
ing ignorance of government officials to the value
of a thorough, scientific investigation of the larg
est fireinduced collapse in world history. I have
combed through our national standard for fire in
vestigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one
find an exemption allowing the destruction of evi
dence for buildings over 10 stories tall [19].
And although only a small fraction of the steel was saved
for testing, it is clear that an ``enormous amount'' of the WTC
steel was examined either for or by NIST, and the samples
selected were chosen for their identified importance to the
NIST investigation [20].
We agree that only a ``small fraction of the enormous
amount of steel'' from the Towers was spared and the rest
was rapidly recycled. The destruction of about 99% of the
steel, evidence from a crime scene, was suspicious and
probably illegal, hopefully we can agree to that.
10. Unusual Bright Flame and Glowing Liquid (WTC 2)
NIST: ``An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the
upper photograph {Fig 944} a very bright flame, as opposed
to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is
generating a plume of white smoke, stands out'' [4].
``NIST reported (NCSTAR 15A) that just before 9:52
a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the
80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east
edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing
liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before
subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near
this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse
of this tower'' [3].
We agree and congratulate NIST for including these ob
servations of an ``unusual flame... which is generating a
plume of white smoke'' [4] ``followed by the flow of a glow
ing liquid'' having ``an orange glow'' [3]. With regard to the
``very bright flame... which is generating a plume of white
smoke'', NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, be
cause ``Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire
temperatures...'' [3].
Again, we agree.
The origins of this very bright flame and of the associ
ated flow of an orangeglowing liquid remain open questions
in the NIST report. NIST opened a very appropriate line of
investigation by publishing these significant clues from the
data, [3,4] providing an important starting point for further
discussion which we seek.
11. HighTemperature Steel Attack, Sulfidation
FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic In
stitute investigative team): ``Sample 1 (From WTC 7)... Evi
dence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the
steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent
intergranular melting, was readily visible in the nearsurface
microstructure.... Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)... The
thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion
due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. ...The
severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2
are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source
of the sulfur has been identified... A detailed study into the
mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed...'' [2]
We agree that the physical evidence for ``severe high
temperature corrosion attack'' involving sulfur is compelling.
Here we have grounds for an interesting discussion: How
were ``severe high temperatures'' reached in the WTC build
ings? What is the source of the sulfur that attacked the steel
in these buildings? The answers to these questions may help
us find the explanation for the ``total collapse'' of the Towers
and WTC 7 that we are all looking for.
The WPI researchers published their results [2,21] and
called for ``a detailed study'' of this ``hightemperature'' ``oxi
dation and sulfidation'' phenomenon. Yet the results were
unfortunately ignored by NIST in their subsequent reports on
the Towers' destruction [3,4]. Their failure to respond to this
documented anomaly is a striking phenomenon in itself. Per
haps NIST will explain and correct this oversight by consid
ering the hightemperature sulfidation data in their long
overdue report on the collapse of WTC 7. The existence of
severe high temperatures in the WTC destruction is by now
very well established [22]. It appears that NIST has inadver
tently overlooked this evidence and we offer to investigate
the matter with them, in pursuit of understanding and secu
rity.
12. Computer Modeling and Visualizations
NIST: ``The more severe case (which became Case B for
WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global
analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were
then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the
simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or
eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the
investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of
physical reality. Thus, for instance...the pulling forces on the
perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... [4]
``The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers

WTC Destruction: Points of Agreement The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 2 39
was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bow
ing of perimeter columns [4]. ``The results were a simulation
of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of
aircraft impact to the time at which the building became un
stable, i.e., was poised for collapse... [4].
We agree that NIST resorted to complex computer simu
lations and no doubt ``adjusted the input'' to account for the
Towers' destruction, after the fireendurance physical tests
did not support their preordained collapse theory.
But the end result of such tweaked computer models,
which were provided without visualizations and without suf
ficient detail for others to validate them, is hardly compel
ling. An article in the journal New Civil Engineer states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at
NIST] are refusing to show computer visualisa
tions of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite
calls from leading structural and fire engineers,
NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse
mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type
of finite element analysis model used by the
[NIST] investigators. ...A leading US structural
engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enor
mous resources to the development of the impact
and fire models. ``By comparison the global struc
tural model is not as sophisticated,'' he said. ``The
software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new
limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications,
extrapolations and judgment calls'' [23].
Further detailed comments on the NIST computer simu
lations are provided by Eric Douglas [24].
We would like to discuss the computer modeling and
extrapolations made by NIST and the need for visualizations
using numerical and graphical tools to scrutinize and validate
the finiteelement analysis.
13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking
NIST: ``This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007
request for correction... we are unable to provide a full ex
planation of the total collapse'' [25].
This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000
pages on the collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor,
yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties includ
ing Congress, which commissioned NIST to find a full ex
planation.
We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full expla
nation for the total collapse. Indeed they take care to explain
that their report stops short of the collapse, only taking the
investigation up to the point where each Tower ``was poised
for collapse'' [4]. We offer to help find that elusive ``full ex
planation of the total collapse'' of the WTC Towers which
killed so many innocent people, in the hope that it does not
happen again. We have a few ideas and can back these up
with experimental data [13, 22]. Our interest is in physical
evidence and analysis leading to a full understanding of the
destruction of the WTC.
14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues
From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] ``Did the NIST investi
gation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought
down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for ex
plosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite
and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot
knife through butter." [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel'' [3].
We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for resi
dues of thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable
admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials
including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and ex
plosion investigations by the NFPA 921 code:
Unusual residues might remain from the initial
fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite,
magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials [26].
Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)
would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of
thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure
for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will ex
plain why they have not looked for these residues? The code
specifies that firescene investigators must be prepared to
justify an exclusion [26].
NIST has been asked about this important issue recently,
by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:
Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it
didn't look for evidence of explosives?'' Neuman
[spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]:
"Right, because there was no evidence of that."
Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if
you don't look for it first? Neuman: "If you're
looking for something that isn't there, you're wast
ing your time... and the taxpayers' money.'' [27].
The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humor
ous if not for the fact that NIST's approach here affects the
lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that look
ing for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921
code is ``wasting your time.'' We may be able to help out
here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the
WTC remains using stateoftheart analytical methods, es
pecially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as
the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the
evidence for thermite use is mounting. [13, 22]
CONCLUSIONS
We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in
agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of
the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Cen
ter. We agree that the Towers fell at near freefall speed and
that is an important starting point. We agree that several
popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the
idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that
the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors ``pancaked'' to
account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse
of the 47story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to
explain from the point of view of a fireinduced mechanism
and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of
explosives [3, 22, 27]. Our investigative team would like to
build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST
investigation team, especially since they have candidly con
ceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):
``...we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total
collapse'' [25].

40 The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 2 Jones et al.
We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner
as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic
duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend
on it.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks for useful discussions with Jim Hoffman,
Dr. Gregory Jenkins, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Prof. Kenneth Kut
tler, Prof. David R. Griffin, Gregg Roberts, Brad Larsen,
Gordon Ross, Prof. David Griscom, Prof. Graeme Mac
Queen, and researchers at AE911Truth.org and STJ911.org.
REFERENCES
[1] S. W. Banovic, ``Federal building and fire safety investigation of
the World Trade Center disaster: Steel inventory and identification,
NIST NCSTAR13B''. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of
Standards and Technology, September 2005.
[2] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), World Trade
Center building performance study: Preliminary observations, and
recommendations, Report FEMA 403. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Emergency Management Agency, May 2002.
[3] S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. ``National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety
investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to fre
quently asked questions'', Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of
Standards and Technology, August 30, 2006. [Online]. Available:
NIST, http://wtc.nist.gov. [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[4] S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. ``Final report on the
collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR .
Gaithersburg'', MD: National Institute of Standards and Technol
ogy, September 2005.
[5] Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, ``Why did the World Trade Center col
lapse? Simple analysis'', J. Eng. Mech., vol. 128, pp. 26, January
2002.
[6] E. Nalder, ``Twin towers engineered to withstand jet collision'',
Seattle Times, February 27, 1993. [Online]. Available: http:// ar
chives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi
bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227
[Accessed April 5, 2008].
[7] Public Broadcasting System, ``Why the Towers fell'', Public Broad
casting System, 2002. [Online]. Available: http://www.pbs.org/

wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[8] J. B. Meigs, D. Dunbar, B. Reagan, et al. ``Debunking the 9/11
myths, special report'', Popular Mechanics, vol. 182, pp. 7081,
March 2005.
[9] D. R. Griffin, Debunking 9/11 debunking: ``An answer to Popular
Mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory'',
Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2007.
[10] S. Sundar, Opening remarks of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder (NIST), May
2006. [Online]. Available: NIST, http://wtc.nist.gov/media/

Sunder_Progressive%20Collapse_Remarks_050106.pdf [Accessed
March 27, 2008].
[11] S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. ``The role of metal
lurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers
collapse'',JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 2229, November 2007.
[12] D. A. Firmage. (April 10, 2006). ``Refuting 9/11 conspiracy the
ory'', The College Times, p. A6.
[13] S. E. Jones, ``Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely col
lapse?'', Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 147, September 2006.
[Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed
March 17, 2008].
[14] F. Legge and T. Szamboti, ``9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden
collapse initiation was impossible'', Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol.
18, pp. 13, December 2007. [Online]. Available: www. journalof
911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[15] J. Glanz, ``A nation challenged; the site: Engineers have a culprit in
the strange collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel fuel'', New
York Times, November 29, 2001, p. B9.
[16] N. J. Glover, ``Collapse lessons'', Fire Engineering, October 2002,
p. 97.
[17] D. L. Griscom, ``Handwaving the physics of 9/11'', Journal of 9/11
Studies, Letters, February 8, 2007. [Online]. Available:

www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[18] T. W. Eagar and C. Musso, ``Why did the World Trade Center
collapse? Science, engineering, and speculation'', JOM, vol. 53, no.
12, pp. 811, December 2001.
[19] W. Manning, ``Selling out the investigation'', Fire Engineering,
January 2002, p. 4.
[20] J. Gourley, R. McIlvaine, W. Doyle, S. E. Jones, K. Ryan and R.
Gage, ``Appeal filed with NIST pursuant to earlier request for cor
rection'', Journal of 9/11 Studies, 17 pp. 116. [Online]. Available:

www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[21] J. R. Barnett, R. R. Biederman and R. D. Sisson, Jr., ``An initial
microstructural analysis of A36 steel from WTC building 7'', JOM,
vol. 53, no. 12, p. 18, December 2001.
[22] S. E. Jones, J. Farrer, G. S. Jenkins, et al. ``Extremely high tem
peratures during the World Trade Center destruction'', Journal of
9/11 Studies, vol. 19, pp.111, January 2008. [Online]. Available:

www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[23] D. Parker, ``WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisa
tion'', New Civil Engineer, November 1, 2005. [Online]. Available:

http://www.nce.co.uk/news/2005/11/wtc_investigators_resist_call_

for_collapse_visualisation.html [Accessed April 8, 2008].
[24] E. Douglas, ``The NIST WTC investigation how real was the
simulation? A review of NIST NCSTAR 1'', Journal of 9/11 Stud
ies, vol. 6, pp. 128, December 2006. [Online]. Available:

www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[25] C. S. Fletcher (NIST), ``Response to request for correction'', Jour
nal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 1723, November 2007. [Online].
Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17,
2008].
[26] National Fire Protection Association, ``Guide for fire and explosion
investigations'', NFPA 921. [Online]. Available: http://www.nfpa.

org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=921 [Accessed
March 17, 2008].
[27] J. Abel, ``Theories of 9/11'', Hartford Advocate, Hartford, Con
necticut, January 29, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.

hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546 with reply: http://

www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5674 [Accessed
March 17, 2008].
Received: March 17, 2008 Revised: April 02, 2008 Accepted: April 08, 2008


we seek.
11. HighTemperature Steel Attack, Sulfidation
FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic In
stitute investigative team): ``Sample 1 (From WTC 7)... Evi
dence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the
steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent
intergranular melting, was readily visible in the nearsurface
microstructure.... Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)... The
thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion
due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. ...The
severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2
are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source
of the sulfur has been identified... A detailed study into the
mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed...'' [2]
We agree that the physical evidence for ``severe high
temperature corrosion attack'' involving sulfur is compelling.
Here we have grounds for an interesting discussion: How
were ``severe high temperatures'' reached in the WTC build
ings? What is the source of the sulfur that attacked the steel
in these buildings? The answers to these questions may help
us find the explanation for the ``total collapse'' of the Towers
and WTC 7 that we are all looking for.
The WPI researchers published their results [2,21] and
called for ``a detailed study'' of this ``hightemperature'' ``oxi
dation and sulfidation'' phenomenon. Yet the results were
unfortunately ignored by NIST in their subsequent reports on
the Towers' destruction [3,4]. Their failure to respond to this
documented anomaly is a striking phenomenon in itself. Per
haps NIST will explain and correct this oversight by consid
ering the hightemperature sulfidation data in their long
overdue report on the collapse of WTC 7. The existence of
severe high temperatures in the WTC destruction is by now
very well established [22]. It appears that NIST has inadver
tently overlooked this evidence and we offer to investigate
the matter with them, in pursuit of understanding and secu
rity.
12. Computer Modeling and Visualizations
NIST: ``The more severe case (which became Case B for
WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global
analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were
then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the
simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or
eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the
investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of
physical reality. Thus, for instance...the pulling forces on the
perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... [4]
``The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers

WTC Destruction: Points of Agreement The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 2 39
was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bow
ing of perimeter columns [4]. ``The results were a simulation
of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of
aircraft impact to the time at which the building became un
stable, i.e., was poised for collapse... [4].
We agree that NIST resorted to complex computer simu
lations and no doubt ``adjusted the input'' to account for the
Towers' destruction, after the fireendurance physical tests
did not support their preordained collapse theory.
But the end result of such tweaked computer models,
which were provided without visualizations and without suf
ficient detail for others to validate them, is hardly compel
ling. An article in the journal New Civil Engineer states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at
NIST] are refusing to show computer visualisa
tions of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite
calls from leading structural and fire engineers,
NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse
mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type
of finite element analysis model used by the
[NIST] investigators. ...A leading US structural
engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enor
mous resources to the development of the impact
and fire models. ``By comparison the global struc
tural model is not as sophisticated,'' he said. ``The
software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new
limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications,
extrapolations and judgment calls'' [23].
Further detailed comments on the NIST computer simu
lations are provided by Eric Douglas [24].
We would like to discuss the computer modeling and
extrapolations made by NIST and the need for visualizations
using numerical and graphical tools to scrutinize and validate
the finiteelement analysis.
13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking
NIST: ``This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007
request for correction... we are unable to provide a full ex
planation of the total collapse'' [25].
This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000
pages on the collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor,
yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties includ
ing Congress, which commissioned NIST to find a full ex
planation.
We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full expla
nation for the total collapse. Indeed they take care to explain
that their report stops short of the collapse, only taking the
investigation up to the point where each Tower ``was poised
for collapse'' [4]. We offer to help find that elusive ``full ex
planation of the total collapse'' of the WTC Towers which
killed so many innocent people, in the hope that it does not
happen again. We have a few ideas and can back these up
with experimental data [13, 22]. Our interest is in physical
evidence and analysis leading to a full understanding of the
destruction of the WTC.
14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues
From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] ``Did the NIST investi
gation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought
down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for ex
plosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite
and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot
knife through butter." [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel'' [3].
We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for resi
dues of thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable
admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials
including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and ex
plosion investigations by the NFPA 921 code:
Unusual residues might remain from the initial
fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite,
magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials [26].
Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)
would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of
thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure
for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will ex
plain why they have not looked for these residues? The code
specifies that firescene investigators must be prepared to
justify an exclusion [26].
NIST has been asked about this important issue recently,
by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:
Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it
didn't look for evidence of explosives?'' Neuman
[spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]:
"Right, because there was no evidence of that."
Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if
you don't look for it first? Neuman: "If you're
looking for something that isn't there, you're wast
ing your time... and the taxpayers' money.'' [27].
The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humor
ous if not for the fact that NIST's approach here affects the
lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that look
ing for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921
code is ``wasting your time.'' We may be able to help out
here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the
WTC remains using stateoftheart analytical methods, es
pecially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as
the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the
evidence for thermite use is mounting. [13, 22]
CONCLUSIONS
We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in
agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of
the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Cen
ter. We agree that the Towers fell at near freefall speed and
that is an important starting point. We agree that several
popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the
idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that
the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors ``pancaked'' to
account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse
of the 47story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to
explain from the point of view of a fireinduced mechanism
and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of
explosives [3, 22, 27]. Our investigative team would like to
build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST
investigation team, especially since they have candidly con
ceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):
``...we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total
collapse'' [25].

40 The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 2 Jones et al.
We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner
as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic
duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend
on it.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks for useful discussions with Jim Hoffman,
Dr. Gregory Jenkins, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Prof. Kenneth Kut
tler, Prof. David R. Griffin, Gregg Roberts, Brad Larsen,
Gordon Ross, Prof. David Griscom, Prof. Graeme Mac
Queen, and researchers at AE911Truth.org and STJ911.org.
REFERENCES
[1] S. W. Banovic, ``Federal building and fire safety investigation of
the World Trade Center disaster: Steel inventory and identification,
NIST NCSTAR13B''. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of
Standards and Technology, September 2005.
[2] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), World Trade
Center building performance study: Preliminary observations, and
recommendations, Report FEMA 403. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Emergency Management Agency, May 2002.
[3] S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. ``National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety
investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to fre
quently asked questions'', Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of
Standards and Technology, August 30, 2006. [Online]. Available:
NIST, http://wtc.nist.gov. [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[4] S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. ``Final report on the
collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR .
Gaithersburg'', MD: National Institute of Standards and Technol
ogy, September 2005.
[5] Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, ``Why did the World Trade Center col
lapse? Simple analysis'', J. Eng. Mech., vol. 128, pp. 26, January
2002.
[6] E. Nalder, ``Twin towers engineered to withstand jet collision'',
Seattle Times, February 27, 1993. [Online]. Available: http:// ar
chives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi
bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227
[Accessed April 5, 2008].
[7] Public Broadcasting System, ``Why the Towers fell'', Public Broad
casting System, 2002. [Online]. Available: http://www.pbs.org/

wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[8] J. B. Meigs, D. Dunbar, B. Reagan, et al. ``Debunking the 9/11
myths, special report'', Popular Mechanics, vol. 182, pp. 7081,
March 2005.
[9] D. R. Griffin, Debunking 9/11 debunking: ``An answer to Popular
Mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory'',
Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2007.
[10] S. Sundar, Opening remarks of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder (NIST), May
2006. [Online]. Available: NIST, http://wtc.nist.gov/media/

Sunder_Progressive%20Collapse_Remarks_050106.pdf [Accessed
March 27, 2008].
[11] S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. ``The role of metal
lurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers
collapse'',JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 2229, November 2007.
[12] D. A. Firmage. (April 10, 2006). ``Refuting 9/11 conspiracy the
ory'', The College Times, p. A6.
[13] S. E. Jones, ``Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely col
lapse?'', Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 147, September 2006.
[Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed
March 17, 2008].
[14] F. Legge and T. Szamboti, ``9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden
collapse initiation was impossible'', Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol.
18, pp. 13, December 2007. [Online]. Available: www. journalof
911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[15] J. Glanz, ``A nation challenged; the site: Engineers have a culprit in
the strange collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel fuel'', New
York Times, November 29, 2001, p. B9.
[16] N. J. Glover, ``Collapse lessons'', Fire Engineering, October 2002,
p. 97.
[17] D. L. Griscom, ``Handwaving the physics of 9/11'', Journal of 9/11
Studies, Letters, February 8, 2007. [Online]. Available:

www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[18] T. W. Eagar and C. Musso, ``Why did the World Trade Center
collapse? Science, engineering, and speculation'', JOM, vol. 53, no.
12, pp. 811, December 2001.
[19] W. Manning, ``Selling out the investigation'', Fire Engineering,
January 2002, p. 4.
[20] J. Gourley, R. McIlvaine, W. Doyle, S. E. Jones, K. Ryan and R.
Gage, ``Appeal filed with NIST pursuant to earlier request for cor
rection'', Journal of 9/11 Studies, 17 pp. 116. [Online]. Available:

www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[21] J. R. Barnett, R. R. Biederman and R. D. Sisson, Jr., ``An initial
microstructural analysis of A36 steel from WTC building 7'', JOM,
vol. 53, no. 12, p. 18, December 2001.
[22] S. E. Jones, J. Farrer, G. S. Jenkins, et al. ``Extremely high tem
peratures during the World Trade Center destruction'', Journal of
9/11 Studies, vol. 19, pp.111, January 2008. [Online]. Available:

www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[23] D. Parker, ``WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisa
tion'', New Civil Engineer, November 1, 2005. [Online]. Available:

http://www.nce.co.uk/news/2005/11/wtc_investigators_resist_call_

for_collapse_visualisation.html [Accessed April 8, 2008].
[24] E. Douglas, ``The NIST WTC investigation how real was the
simulation? A review of NIST NCSTAR 1'', Journal of 9/11 Stud
ies, vol. 6, pp. 128, December 2006. [Online]. Available:

www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[25] C. S. Fletcher (NIST), ``Response to request for correction'', Jour
nal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 1723, November 2007. [Online].
Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17,
2008].
[26] National Fire Protection Association, ``Guide for fire and explosion
investigations'', NFPA 921. [Online]. Available: http://www.nfpa.

org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=921 [Accessed
March 17, 2008].
[27] J. Abel, ``Theories of 9/11'', Hartford Advocate, Hartford, Con
necticut, January 29, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.

hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546 with reply: http://

www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5674 [Accessed
March 17, 2008].
Received: March 17, 2008 Revised: April 02, 2008 Accepted: April 08, 2008

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 3:39 AM 0 comments