Brian’s Column: Stepping up to the Law of Causality on 9/11

An open letter to my engineering colleagues concerning the tragic realities of 9/11

My Dearest Friends of Reason and Science:

Open Letter re: 9/11First, please forgive the presumption— should it indeed be a presumption—that as a corollary of your being an engineer you have a absolute devotion to the validity of reason and science.  It’s entirely possible in the years since graduation from engineering school someone may have convinced you otherwise, i.e. that things are true or false based on what God reveals or what other agencies (secular or clerical) claim to be true based on “higher authority” than objective reality as judged scrupulously by your own mind.

You know what I’m driving at I suppose, and I’m confident most of the esteemed colleagues to whom I’m addressing this missive have a strong personal loyalty to facts… and to any evidence these facts embody as leading to proof of a proposition.  Whether that proposition be an assertion of what causes a building to rise (or fall), a ship to float (or sink), or guilt to be established beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  Today my objective is to demonstrate that “a preponderance of” these facts and evidence leads inescapably to US government-official culpability and complicity in the coordinated criminal acts of 9/11/2001.

Let me restate my objective slightly: I’m going to to refer you—right now via a large footnote referencing my extant columns, reviews, and other links on this subject[1]—to a preponderance of evidence while showing the following:

If only one substantial piece of evidence demonstrates that a central proposition of the “official 9/11 conspiracy theory”[2] cannot be true, then the entire theory is false AND a new, impartial citizen-empowered investigation of 9/11—having subpoena power—must be set up to determine who and what were behind the criminal attacks.  [Note that every official body set up thus far to investigate 9/11, from the 9/11 Commission to the National Institute of Science and Technology, has been explicitly subordinate to the Bush Administration—the 9/11 Commission’s director Philip Zelikow was the Bush admin’s adviser on preemptive wars and the directors of NIST, an agency of the Commerce Department, are all Bush appointees.]

Then if you feel I successfully provide that evidence and make that solitary principal argument deflating the official theory, I ask you to join me as a member of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  More urgent, especially if you have an engineering or architectural degree, please sign the petition at the AE 9/11 Truth Website.

Context

Let me back up a minute to discuss for the benefit of the public-related part of this letter what my own engineering milieu consists of.  Basically, I became an engineer for idealistic and romantic reasons—stemming from a youthfully naive relationship with the novels of Ayn Rand.  It was the late 1960s.  I felt, doggone it, these men and women who create the bridges and the trains and the towering skyscrapers—who fly into space, for chrissakes—are heroic individuals… and their work is full of passion and excitement.  That’s the kind of life I want to live.

Plus, I was getting nowhere in my liberal arts classes arguing heroic Randian individualism to hippie leftists and my dead-eyed liberal-arts teachers at the University of Texas in Austin.  Then after moving to Detroit and toiling as a bricklayer’s helper, it also dawned on me that hard manual labor was not my vision of the future.  So I enrolled as a mechanical engineer at Wayne State University.  I found most of the kids at Wayne’s engineering school, in the Motor City after all, cared more for designing better powertrains than for romantic literature or libertarian causes.  But my grades were good enough, I graduated, and spent the next 15 years as a bona fide engineering worker bee in several fields.

Naturally I got to know people in the profession… primarily at one aerospace company in SE Michigan.  I have several good friends and acquaintances from this company, which relationships survive to this day—tho some of these guys think I’m on the quixotic side.  Anyway, this group is mainly who I’m writing this open letter to.  Because we’re coming up on the seventh anniversary of the Big Lie (sorry, I mean, the 9/11 attacks), the good people at AE911truth.org have a big push now to achieve the threshold of 1,000 degreed architects and engineers signing its petition for a real investigation.

World Trade Center 7

I don’t know a single person, much less a single engineer, who having considered for a nanosecond the reality of the destruction of World Trade Center 7, is comfortable with the official story of 9/11.  As Jesse Ventura says, “How do two planes bring down three buildings?!” [WTC7 came down for no apparent reason at 5:20 p.m. 9/11/2001; it was not struck by an airplane.] Not only do we have videotape of symmetrical implosion of the 47-story building onto its own footprint, we also have videotape of its owner Larry Silverstein stating he gave the order to “pull it.”  Both videos have been displayed so infrequently on MSM news outlets that roughly half of the American public does not even know World Trade Center 7 fell into a neat pile of rubble that fateful day.

But That’s a Fact, Jack!

What’s more, the construction and design of WTC 7 was similar to that of WTC 1 and WTC 2: a large number of highly redundant massive steel core columns (24 for WTC 7, 47 for WTC 1 and 2) running the entire height of the building.  Like the buildings struck by airplanes, WTC 7 did not tip or topple, sequential internal explosions were evident, and it had all the standard characteristics of a “controlled implosion” (also called explosive demolition) used to safely destroy tall buildings in dense cities. For a list of these characteristics, please refer to the ae911truth.org Web page on the right-hand column.

So whether or not you can buy the explanation of NIST that an unspecific and unsubstantiated combination of airplane explosion and fire caused the observed symmetrical disintegration of WTC 1 and 2 (at free fall speed)—btw as an engineer, did you ever wonder why the Towers (if they even could be demolished by a Boeing 767) didn’t just tip at the point of impact?[3]—, you cannot apply that explanation to WTC 7.[4Therefore, the only reasonable explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 is explosive demolition… which means planning, access, expert application of explosive charges on key structural members over a period of several months, and a number of other characteristics that do not fit the profile of “19 crazed Arabs under the maniacal control of a former CIA agent languishing with kidney disease in a cave in Afghanistan.”

Even the FBI now admits several of the alleged hijackers were using false identities… because approx. half of the Suicidal 19 are alive and well and protesting they were nowhere near the scene of the crimes. Interesting, isn’t it, that ABC, the New York Times, etc. haven’t carried the story of Arab hijackers who never boarded the planes they were alleged to have hijacked.

Since the destruction of WTC 7 was obviously explosive demolition, that mechanism of destruction should have at least been considered by any investigation of the crime.  Not only was explosive demolition not considered as a failure mechanism for any of the buildings—by NIST or the 9/11 Commission—the destruction of World Trade Center 7 was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.  If it had been, the Commission would have had to acknowledge that George Bush’s brother Marvin and cousin Wirt Walker III were principals in a company in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker serving as CEO from 1999 to January 2002.  And, heck, more astute members of the Commission may have had questions for ol’ Marvin and ol’ Wirt.

Interesting point: Both the 9/11C and the NIST teams assumed what they wanted to prove: The subtitle of the 9/11C report is “Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.”  NIST constructed elaborate computer models that mathematically required the observed result provided sufficient numbers of the algorithms they also wrote were in effect; then NIST argued that the causes modeled by those “destruction” algorithms must have existed because when they ran them in the program the “causes” produced the observed result.  Slick.[5]

Interesting question: If an explosive projectile can strike a building (or in the case of WTC7: alien brainwaves) causing it to free fall symmetrically into its own footprint, then wouldn’t controlled demolition companies all over the world clamor to develop that technique?  It has to require considerably less money and time than the intensely laborious multimillion dollar technology they use today.

Official Story Shot to Hell

So here we are, the one colossal contradictory fact of WTC 7 falsifies the entire official conspiracy theory.  Like a pyramid of cheerleaders, if one girl at the foundation leaves to take a powder, everyone takes a tumble. If WTC 7 was an explosive demolition—and per all the laws of three-dimensional physics nothing else makes sense—then the 19-hijacker story doesn’t make sense: how could hijackers have brought down a building they didn’t even bump into? Which further brings into question what really happened at the Pentagon (Flight 77), and in Pennsylvania (Flight 93), and why the President kept reading The Pet Goat, and why the military stood down, and so on and so on.

Appealing to “the Better Angels of our Nature”

Esteemed Colleague,

As engineers we tend to have a preference for not having to deal with complicated political problems where so much irrationality prevails.  That was certainly my inclination in becoming an engineer: we all have enough problems, who needs to play nursemaid to ignorant emotional masses.

But at some point refusing to consider a political evil becomes acquiescence to it.  If Albert Speer and the rest of the elite German architectural and engineering minds had not rationalized their capitulation to Hitler’s collectivism as an indifference to politics—if one man of technical intellectual stature had stood up in opposition to incipient Nazi tyranny—would the Third Reich have materialized?

We are engineers and architects.  We do not believe in magic.  When Siegfried and Roy make a woman disappear in a puff of smoke we don’t (really) stand back thinking, “Hmmm, I wonder if I could make that work on my wife or girlfriend?”

We know that technology can be made to resemble magic and be used, nefariously, to sway the opinions of adults who have been mind-controlled to view the world as children or primitives.  But none of us is immune to grandiose pyrotechnic displays, and the psychological trauma of the explosive disintegration of the WTCs on daytime television is hard to understate.

Yet as engineers and scientists we have to be the adults, the ones who constantly point out that the laws of identity and causality have no exceptions:  Even though the Sun “obviously” rotates about the Earth, we know the truth is the other way around.  Even though a fiery explosion occurs on the Battleship Maine in Havana Harbor, we (now) know it wasn’t caused by a Spanish torpedo.

So stick with the truth of 9/11, investigate it for yourself, and disregard the voices of political authority who would certainly prefer the truth be boxed out.  You can’t box out the truth indefinitely, so you might as well promote it.  Only small steps are needed. You won’t be placed under house arrest like Galileo or even lose your membership in the golf league; your wife will still love you (assuming she already does).

I’m not asking you to wrap yourself up in the overwhelming body of responsible scholarship that demonstrates 9/11 was an inside job.  I’m only asking you to exercise your responsibility as an American citizen—particularly as an engineer—to face facts and testify quietly for the supremacy of this evidence in formally unraveling what happened that day. Actually, I’m only asking that you face one inescapable fact—the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7.

And, yes, that fact has implications a lot of us have a hard time facing—Ken Jenkins presents a helpful dvd on the psychological issues of 9/11 truth, and my own column, 9/11 Truth Catharsis, builds on what Ken talks about.  But as engineers we’ll simply need to man up in this area and deliver our tough-love medicine.

That solid architectural-engineering fact: a) demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the official story of 9/11 is thoroughly false—with a high probability of it being a lie—and b), with additional knowledge of WTC security personnel, it demonstrates opportunity… for miscreants in and associated with the US government.

[If you should also care to read the leading scholarly and competent-journalistic analyses of 9/11, you will discover convincing motive for the crime of the millennium: substantial documentation exists that neoconservatives felt a “new Pearl Harbor” was necessary to get the American people to concur with the government’s wars of conquest (yes, mainly, per Alan Greenspan, for oil) in the Middle East.]

And I don’t think anyone can deny the feds and their elaborate support structure—who is it that supports whom?—in the international-banking and corporate-war-and-espionage matrix have the means to accomplish 9/11.

[Indeed, throughout the 20th century there’s a long chain of Western governments committing mass murders and/or coverups to enable wars and various other accouterments of tyranny: from the sinking of the Lusitania, to the Reichstag Fire, to the real Pearl Harbor, to the assassination of JFK, to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, to Flight KAL 007, to the FBI massacres at Waco, to the Oklahoma City bombings… the list is virtually endless, and in every case the government orchestrates the crime and the subsequent coverup.]

Is it really so revolutionary a concept that governments lie, cheat, steal, and kill?  If you’re astonished that this government would seriously plan to inflict such horrific damage on its own citizens—heck, we know it lied for an illegal war resulting in the deaths of 4,000+ Americans (not to mention 100,000+ Iraqis)—then you’ve either been freeze-dried living in a cave, doing hard time, or BRABARed (brainwashed beyond all recognition). And I know you aren’t BRABARed, because you’re not one of those pods they just dropped off the truck… you’re my friend.  Right?  Joe, why the blank stare?  You’re sure walking funny.  Oh no!

So, in this simple man’s humble opinion: motive, means, and opportunity point toward the US government and its agencies and associates as prime movers in the crimes of 9/11.  But, again, I’m not asking you to agree with me on the US government role.  All I’m asking is that when George Bush tells you 2+2=5 (official story) and you know 2+2=4 (WTC7 (and all the other in-your-face facts)), that you bear testimony to the truth; join your courageous fellows over at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to press for a full investigation and prosecution of the crime—whoever may have committed it.

Please sign the petition. That’s all we want, and you and your descendants will have a chance to live in a restored society of constitutional liberty.[6]

Your Friend in Liberty and Reason,

Brian Wright
August 13, 2008

[1] Several highly motivated, informed lay people as well as scholars, journalists, scientists, and engineers have made the body of work for 9/11 truth an edifice as staggering as the World Trade Centers themselves.  I will point you to the two principal sites from which I’ve drawn most of my intellectual sustenance: 911truth.org and ae911truth.org.  I consider the following works (showing links to my reviews) essential for minimal understanding of 9/11 and how to deal with the awful truth psychologically:

[2] The official story is “19 Arab Muslim men, as part of a plot masterminded by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda hijacked four airplanes, flew one into WTC1, another into WTC2, another into the Pentagon, and another—intended for the White House—crashed in a Pennsylvania field… causing the vertical disintegration of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 and some damage to the Pentagon, with associated loss of life.”

As I’ve noted elsewhere per Dave McGowan: There is no “official story” in the sense of a report stating explicitly what happened on 911 and stipulating causes.  Especially with respect to the Pentagon, “what there is instead is an officially encouraged, and notably vague, group consensus—a consensus shaped and reinforced by Washington’s political and media institutions, which have carefully avoided fleshing out too many details.  This strategy is apparently intended to disarm critics, since it is much harder to point out the lies and absurdities in the official story if that official story has never been formally presented.”

[3] Please check out Richard Gage’s dvd and slide show from the site. Also the PowerPoint presentation. This is what makes it perfectly clear that steel framed buildings have never disintegrated on their own footprints as a consequence of fire.  Further, many buildings have tipped or deformed and fallen to one side or the other or collapsed in a stack of horizontal layers… none of these failure modes occurred at the World Trade Center.

[4] It should be noted that a week after this column was written, NIST decided to come forward with its official report of the destruction of WTC 7. The assessment: office fires.  That’s right, disregarding the ubiquitous residue of molten steel and other physical evidence of sequential pyrotechnic slicing of columns bringing down the building symmetrically at free fall speed, acknowledging that fires have never brought down a steel frame structure, noting that fire temperatures did not reach the level required to weaken steel beams (which were massively insulated), and disclosing none of its original data NIST confidently states that “the facts show that office fires brought down WTC 7.”  Brilliant.  This is government science at its best: make an assertion that logically contradicts all available evidence, run a computer program, release a report via a press conference.  And the people will think the assertion must be true because the government said so. BOA (blind obedience to authority) 101. Anyway, the ae911truth people are all over this atrocity on reason like white on rice: here’s the initial ae911truth press conference response.

[5] Check the chapter on the NIST Report in Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking.  These men clearly enabled power to paper over truth.  It’s understandable: especially in big corporations and big government if you don’t produce what your power-dealing superiors tell you to produce, your career is in jeopardy.  I know how it is: everyone expects you to play the game and take the perks, or face the negative consequences of rejection not only by the Man, but by your friends and family who have unconsciously adopted ‘the system’ as their means of survival and fulfillment .

[6] With new convincing charges being brought up practically every day now against the Bush Administration for war crimes, for torture, and for felonious violations of security, liberty, and the Constitution, it’s easy to see its whole fabric of lies and treason is collapsing before our eyes. Trust me, if you join the 9/11 truth movement in so small a way now, you’ll be managing to barely stay ahead of the tidal wave of justice that is beginning to spread all around these men who have betrayed our country and its values.

This post has been read 4392 times!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *