Correspondence between Carmelita McQuillan and MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.; shared with CounterPunch in the hopes it helps Robert Fisk "de-ju-ju-ize."
C Quil wrote:
I thought this might interest you. Robert Fisk says that he is constantly accosted by what he calls "ravers" at talks he gives, the preternaturally enraged conspiracy theorists who demand answers about what "really" happened to the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and Flight 93. Although he doesn’t think that Bush and Co. had anything to do with it, mainly because their supreme incompetence in everything they’ve done since precludes their being able to carry such a thing off, he does have some questions, which you must admit are pretty compelling.
As he says himself, he’s just a journalist and has his hands full trying to sort out what’s happening in the Middle East, much less Manhattan, but he does have a point.
"But–here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It’s not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93’s debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I’m not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke’s Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster–which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.
I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers–whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C–would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower–the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building)–which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering–very definitely not in the "raver" bracket–are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive"."
Here’s the link.
I’d like to make some comments on your "evaporating money" [subprime meltdown] e-mail, but I’ll do that later, lest you succumb to ocular exhaustion.
Dear C Quill,
Robert can find all his answers at:
Links for 9/11 Research
[a new mega-site, with links to many, many clear technical publications; a good place to start your research project; A+]
Fire Safety Engineering & the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires
This site(s) will reference report and on-line documentation on all these points. These include photos of "airplane parts" as well as eyewitness testimony of on-site recovery workers. Also, one can find many references to technical articles presented in engineering societies about the physical effects, for example the metallurgical tests of the WTC steel. I, myself, have seen photos of this steel at a NIST "metallurgy" web site. (Yes, I know, it *could* be a ruse by the CIA). My own article on WTC 7 is based on the *three* reports issued by NIST to date. They are called interim, but are long (30+ pages), with photos, diagrams and lengthy descriptions. These were available since 2004 and 2005, the explanation for the "delay" is 100% reasonable: the same people were doing WTC 1 and 2, and 7 just came last (the issue was funding and hiring, only so many people were available to do the job). On flight 93 parts spread over miles, not so surprising. When a big jet plows into the ground at full speed, one can expect a large explosive force that can scatter aluminum shrapnel far and wide. Also, when an airplane is overstressed (which may have happened with Flight 93, I don’t know) it might begin to break up in flight, and pieces can fall off. I have seen a landing gear door on the freeway, from a small plane, clearly recently dropped (freeway next to an airport). Two mechanical engineers out of the ocean of both professional, amateur and enthusiasts of engineering and aviation is not a very compelling consensus.
Believe me, aviation buffs and other engineering types — a huge number with no "government" (boo hiss) connection pore over all reports about such disasters and look for all manner of inconsistencies. It is from such analysis that I learned how the British bombed the small plane carrying Glenn Miller back from the Continent, over the Channel in an area that bombers jettisoned unused bombs; and it is from such enthusiasts that I learned that Carol Lombarde’s air crash was due to the blacking out of 2 of the 3 radio warning beacons on mountaintops near Las Vegas, during her USO tour in 1942; a "security" measure the government is reluctant to discuss though clearly established even then. On "footprint", just look at the diagrams and overhead (aerial) photos of the WTC site (in FEMA’s original report, easily found on the web, widely distributed and copied), and you can see that the building fell down, but debris spread out well past "its own footprint." also, you can detect a certain lean to the fall of WTC 7 and other buildings. It was not symmetrical. Just look.
Fisk’s questions are "intelligent" for a person who does not know physics and has yet to look at the most elementary facts — and finding– about the WTC events. A succinct way of putting Fisk’s "questions" in this matter is simply: "I am ignorant on the subject, I don’t know how the mechanics unfolded." if he were to apply his formidable investigative skills to this subject, then he might answer his own questions.
"It is better to remain silent and let people think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." — Oscar Wilde (from memory, could be off a bit)
What I have come to realize from my entire 9/11 experience, and also from the tepid reception of my "physics explanation" articles (like New Orleans dikes) is that the public is basically irrational. It is ultimately pointless to worry about Bush and global warming and fascism and the rest, because they will always win. It has to be this way, because people are fully in the grip of fantasies they would rather die to preserve than become aware of factual reality. Those who do have some sense use it to manipulate the public mind for the benefit of the exploitative systems. We are doomed. When I began writing for a public audience, my naive technical idea was that if people understood the facts, they would move out of superstition, and we "all" could agree on the nature of "the problem" and then it would be almost obvious what actions to take to fix it. But, people live for their superstitions. We are no better than the caricatures of natives in 1930s jungle movies, hopping about in crazed deadly frenzy because of our "ju-ju". That is what 9/11 conspiracies are, our ju-ju. As crazy a ju-ju as any of our fundamentalist religions (the non-fundamentalist ones are just clubs). So, it is pointless for me to engage in any 9/11 talk, because there is no other mind there to engage, just a ju-ju crazed being. I could make a lot more money writing ju-ju channeling flak for some neo-con outfit — but I hate those kind of people. Still, they’ll win, because ju-ju is better than sex. Global warming?, no problem, buy coal-burning SUVs to extinction; loss of Constitutional rights?, no problem we’re beating Islamofascism; no health insurance?, no problem, ESPN [sports] on plasma TVs is getting cheaper; no education? no problem, it’s free from the Army; it all doesn’t make sense? no problem, embrace the ju-ju!