1
01:00:07,780 --> 01:00:25,780
And can make it through the rest of the program today.
00:14.780 --> 00:15.780
Just a quick announcement.
00:15.780 --> 00:20.060
We're going to change the format a little bit for Professor Griffin because he is going
00:20.060 --> 00:22.580
to not be here tomorrow.
00:22.580 --> 00:27.040
So in order to get some questions and answers from him, we are going to have a microphone
00:27.040 --> 00:29.060
in the middle of the room.
00:29.060 --> 00:34.020
Please wait until his presentation is pretty well done before you jump up there and get
00:34.020 --> 00:35.020
in line.
00:35.020 --> 00:41.540
And just let me remind you, please ask questions relevant to his expertise and try not to
00:41.540 --> 00:45.860
make statements as much as you can.
00:45.860 --> 00:49.860
Also folks outside, there will be stacks of this Connection magazine.
00:49.860 --> 00:52.940
Please, these people have been very supportive.
00:52.940 --> 00:53.940
Local magazine.
00:53.940 --> 00:54.940
Get one.
00:54.940 --> 00:57.300
It's kind of a commemorative edition with the Deep Politics Conference.
00:57.300 --> 01:01.220
And again, my good friend Sheriff Richard Mack down here.
01:01.220 --> 01:03.220
Enlightened right, let's say.
01:03.220 --> 01:04.220
Good man.
01:04.220 --> 01:07.200
We should all have sheriffs in our counties like him.
01:07.200 --> 01:12.140
But let me get to the introduction of Professor Griffin.
01:12.140 --> 01:17.220
I was saying earlier, you know, when someone like Charlie Sheen said something about it,
01:17.220 --> 01:18.340
you peel back a layer.
01:18.340 --> 01:22.060
And then Jesse Ventura brought the wrestling crowd with us.
01:22.060 --> 01:24.340
And Willie Nelson brought the country music crowd.
01:24.980 --> 01:29.380
I remember so many people that said, oh, you think 9-11 was an inside job.
01:29.380 --> 01:31.340
You're some kind of liberal commie.
01:31.340 --> 01:33.780
And you, you know, are a godless heathen.
01:33.780 --> 01:36.900
And you, this can't be.
01:36.900 --> 01:37.900
You know, you're a Democrat.
01:37.900 --> 01:40.660
And I said, no, I pretty much used to be a Republican.
01:40.660 --> 01:42.380
I'm a conservative.
01:42.380 --> 01:43.900
And they just dismissed you out of hand.
01:43.900 --> 01:48.460
And then there was a time when we got Professor Griffin to come in.
01:48.460 --> 01:51.180
And it was a real revelation.
01:51.180 --> 01:54.220
It was suddenly, people took note.
01:55.100 --> 01:59.540
And ultimately, you know, the credibility that we got from him even just looking into
01:59.540 --> 02:02.300
the issue and commenting on it.
02:02.300 --> 02:07.420
And now, you know, the statements get stronger and stronger as we go through time.
02:07.420 --> 02:12.500
And so really one of the greatest assets we have, I believe, in working on one of the
02:12.500 --> 02:17.500
loose change films and just being there to be the sage of wisdom and to keep us in check
02:17.500 --> 02:22.700
and keep us from running off on crazy conspiracy theories and whatnot.
02:23.180 --> 02:24.620
And he's been a real stalwart for that.
02:24.620 --> 02:30.060
So Professor David Ray Griffin is a professor of philosophy and religion and theology,
02:30.060 --> 02:33.540
emeritus at Claremont School of Theology.
02:33.540 --> 02:37.540
And he's a co-director of the Center for Process Studies.
02:37.540 --> 02:39.540
He's the author of 36 different books.
02:39.540 --> 02:43.540
He's a busy man, nine of which are on 9-11.
02:43.540 --> 02:49.740
And, you know, he had the 9-11, the New Pearl Harbor, revisited, worked with Peter Dale
02:49.740 --> 02:50.740
Scott.
02:50.780 --> 02:52.780
And I'm going to let him finish all that.
02:52.780 --> 02:56.780
But, you know, again, my heart goes out to this gentleman.
02:56.780 --> 02:58.780
He has given us such a boost.
02:58.780 --> 03:03.780
He made it something that academics could talk about and without being ridiculed.
03:03.780 --> 03:05.780
So I'm not going to take any more of his time up.
03:05.780 --> 03:09.780
Please give a warm round of applause for Professor David Ray Griffin.
03:09.780 --> 03:10.780
Thank you.
03:10.820 --> 03:27.820
Well, thank you very much.
03:27.820 --> 03:33.820
And I want to thank the organizers for this really superb conference.
03:33.860 --> 03:40.860
The two lectures this morning, I would like to associate myself 100% with the comments
03:40.860 --> 03:45.860
of the previous speaker and 99% with those of Barry Zwicker.
03:45.860 --> 03:54.860
The 1% is that when he mentioned that Bertrand Russell wrote this little book called
03:54.860 --> 03:59.860
Principia Mathematica, he was the junior co-author.
03:59.900 --> 04:04.900
And Barry didn't mention that the senior co-author was my professor, Alfred North
04:04.900 --> 04:05.900
Whitehead.
04:05.900 --> 04:10.900
So next time, Barry, you'll get 100%.
04:15.900 --> 04:20.900
The title of my lecture is Building What?
04:20.900 --> 04:24.900
How Scads Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight.
04:24.940 --> 04:32.940
At 521 p.m. on 9-11, Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed even though it had
04:32.940 --> 04:39.940
not been hit by a plane, a fact that is important because of the widespread acceptance of the
04:39.940 --> 04:45.940
idea, in spite of its scientific absurdity, that the Twin Towers collapsed because of
04:45.940 --> 04:52.940
the impact of the airplanes and then the jet fuel-fed fires.
04:52.980 --> 04:59.980
The collapse of Building 7 thereby challenges the official account of the destruction of
04:59.980 --> 05:05.980
the World Trade Center, according to which it was accomplished by Al-Qaeda hijackers,
05:05.980 --> 05:13.980
even if you do accept the scientifically impossible explanation given by the government.
05:14.020 --> 05:21.020
This fact was most recently stressed in the title of a book review of my latest book,
05:26.020 --> 05:33.020
Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, by Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis,
05:34.020 --> 05:41.020
in the title of her review, Two Hit, Three Down, The Biggest Lie.
05:41.060 --> 05:48.060
The reason why Building 7 poses such a problem to the official theory is that this account
05:48.860 --> 05:55.540
entails that for the first time in the known universe, a steel-framed high-rise building
05:55.540 --> 06:02.220
had been brought down by fire, and science does not like unprecedented occurrences when
06:02.220 --> 06:06.900
dealing with physical phenomena.
06:06.900 --> 06:13.900
New York Times writer James Glantz, who himself has a PhD in physics, wrote,
06:37.900 --> 06:44.900
Eekly remarkable, besides the mere fact that the building came down was the way it came
06:45.780 --> 06:52.780
down in virtual freefall, making it appear to be an example of the type of controlled
06:52.780 --> 06:59.780
demolition known as implosion, in which explosives and or incendiaries are used to slice the
06:59.780 --> 07:04.780
building's steel support columns in such a way as to cause the building to collapse
07:04.780 --> 07:09.780
in upon itself, into its own footprint.
07:09.780 --> 07:16.780
CBS anchor Dan Rather, not one to let a remarkable fact go unremarked, said,
07:17.780 --> 07:22.780
It's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen on television where a building was
07:22.780 --> 07:27.780
deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.
07:27.780 --> 07:32.780
Dan Rather, moreover, was not the only reporter to make such a comment. Al Jones, reporter
07:32.780 --> 07:35.780
for New York City News Station, said,
07:35.780 --> 07:42.780
I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion, looked like it had been
07:42.780 --> 07:45.780
done by a demolition crew.
07:45.780 --> 07:50.780
Moreover, where Jones and Rather, being laymen in these matters, merely said that the collapse
07:50.780 --> 07:55.780
of Building 7 looked like a controlled demolition, experts said that the demolition was not
07:55.780 --> 08:01.780
a controlled demolition. Experts looking at the video could see that it was a controlled
08:01.780 --> 08:08.780
demolition. In 2006, for example, a Dutch filmmaker asked Danny Jowinko, the owner of
08:08.780 --> 08:15.780
a controlled demolition company in Holland, to comment on a video of the collapse of
08:15.780 --> 08:21.780
Building 7 without telling him what it was. Jowinko had never heard that a third building
08:21.780 --> 08:28.780
had come down that day. After viewing the film, Jowinko said, they simply blew up columns,
08:28.780 --> 08:34.780
and the rest caved in afterwards. This is controlled demolition. When asked if he was
08:34.780 --> 08:40.780
certain, Jowinko replied, absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team
08:40.780 --> 08:42.780
of experts did this.
08:42.780 --> 08:48.780
Besides the obviousness from the very appearance of the collapse, that it had been brought
08:48.780 --> 08:55.780
down by explosives. There were testimonies about explosions in World Trade Center 7.
08:56.780 --> 09:02.780
One of these was provided by Michael Hess, New York City's Corporation Council and very
09:02.780 --> 09:10.780
good friend of Mayor Rudy Giuliani. While on his way back to City Hall, Hess was stopped
09:10.780 --> 09:18.780
for an interview at 1157 that morning. During that interview, he said, I was in the emergency
09:20.780 --> 09:26.780
management center on the 23rd floor of World Trade Center 7 when all the power went out.
09:26.780 --> 09:31.780
Another gentleman and I walked down to the eighth floor, he meant the sixth, where there
09:31.780 --> 09:38.780
was an explosion and we were trapped on the eighth floor, they went back up, with smoke,
09:38.780 --> 09:43.780
thick smoke, all around us for about an hour and a half, but the New York Fire Department
09:43.780 --> 09:51.780
just came and got us out. Hess thereby reported a mid-morning explosion in Building 7.
09:52.780 --> 09:57.780
The other gentleman, Barry Jennings of the New York City Housing Authority, reported
09:57.780 --> 10:04.780
the same thing during another man on the street interview, reporting that he and Mr. Hess
10:04.780 --> 10:10.780
had been walking down the stairs when they became trapped by a big explosion.
10:10.780 --> 10:16.780
Jennings, in fact, said that explosions continued going off in the building while they were
10:16.780 --> 10:23.780
waiting to be rescued. Also, during the late afternoon, reporter Peter DeMarco of New York
10:23.780 --> 10:29.780
Daily News said, there was a rumble, the building's top row of windows popped out, then all the
10:29.780 --> 10:35.780
windows on the 38th floor, 39th floor, then the 38th floor, pop, pop, pop, was all you
10:35.780 --> 10:40.780
heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray. In addition to the visual
10:40.780 --> 10:46.780
and testimonial evidence, there was clear physical evidence that Building 7 was brought
10:46.780 --> 10:52.780
down by explosives. Within a few months of 9-11, three professors from Worcester Polytechnic
10:52.780 --> 10:58.780
Institute had issued a report about a piece of steel from this building that was described
10:58.780 --> 11:05.780
in a New York Times story by James Glantz and Eric Lipton as perhaps the deepest mystery
11:05.780 --> 11:11.780
uncovered in the investigation. Part of the mystery was the fact that the steel had become
11:11.780 --> 11:18.780
extremely thin, indicating that the steel had melted away, even though no fire in the
11:18.780 --> 11:24.780
building was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright. Describing this mysterious
11:25.780 --> 11:31.780
piece of steel more fully, an article entitled The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel in the Worcester
11:33.780 --> 11:39.780
Polytechnic Institute's Magazine said, steel, which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees
11:45.780 --> 11:51.780
Fahrenheit, may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet a
11:52.780 --> 11:58.780
one-inch column has been reduced to a half-inch thickness. Its edges, which are curled like a
11:58.780 --> 12:04.780
paper scroll, have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes, some larger than a
12:06.780 --> 12:12.780
silver dollar, let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. The Swiss cheese
12:13.780 --> 12:19.780
appearance shocked all of these firewives professors, who expected to see distortion and
12:21.780 --> 12:27.780
bending, but not holes. Indeed, the thinning in the holes suggested that the steel had been
12:29.780 --> 12:35.780
vaporized. Explaining as early as November 2001 why fire could not account for this mysterious
12:36.780 --> 12:42.780
steel, Glantz paraphrased one of these three professors as saying, it appeared to have been
12:44.780 --> 12:50.780
partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures. Another New York Times story reported
12:51.780 --> 12:57.780
that the same phenomenon was announced by Professor Obelhasen-Ostenauval of the University of
12:57.780 --> 13:03.780
California at Berkeley, who had received a National Science Foundation grant to spend two
13:06.780 --> 13:12.780
weeks at Ground Zero studying the steel. According to reporter Kenneth Chang, Professor
13:15.780 --> 13:21.780
Ostenauval, speaking of a horizontal I-beam from WTC 7, said, parts of the flat top of the I,
13:21.780 --> 13:27.780
once 5 eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized. These reports clearly showed that something other
13:33.780 --> 13:39.780
than fire had caused effects, because the fires in the building could not possibly have been hotter
13:41.780 --> 13:47.780
than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, while the boiling point of steel is roughly the same as that of
13:47.780 --> 13:53.780
iron, which is over 5000 degrees Fahrenheit. But even if the steel had simply melted, that by
13:59.780 --> 14:05.780
itself would have proved the point, because the melting point of steel is only a little less than
14:05.780 --> 14:11.780
that of iron, which is 2800 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas the fire, to repeat, could not, even under
14:11.780 --> 14:17.780
the most ideal circumstances, have been above 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, clear evidence
14:17.780 --> 14:23.780
against the official account of Building 7, according to which it was brought down by fire, existed
14:23.780 --> 14:31.780
in plain sight, in the form of memories and videos of its collapse, testimonies about
14:31.780 --> 14:39.780
explosions and physical evidence reported even in the New York Times. The reasonable inference to
14:39.780 --> 14:45.780
draw from this evidence, namely that the official account is false, because explosives were used,
14:45.780 --> 14:51.780
was reinforced by the first official report on WTC 7, which was issued in 2002 by FEMA.
14:55.780 --> 15:01.780
The scientists who wrote the report for FEMA admitted that their best hypothesis as to why the
15:01.780 --> 15:07.780
building came down had only a low probability of being a fire station.
15:09.780 --> 15:15.780
The high probability of occurrence, which is science speak for, we don't have a clue.
15:15.780 --> 15:21.780
In addition to all these facts, WTC 7 was a very big building, being 47 stories high.
15:25.780 --> 15:31.780
Although it was dwarfed by the 110 story twin towers, it would, in half of the states in our nation,
15:31.780 --> 15:37.780
been the tallest building in the state. For all of these reasons, the collapse of this building
15:37.780 --> 15:43.780
should have become one of the best known facts about 9-11, but it did not.
15:43.780 --> 15:49.780
A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 43% of the American people were still unaware that WTC 7 had
15:49.780 --> 15:55.780
collapsed. And that same year, as mentioned earlier, the building collapsed.
16:01.780 --> 16:07.780
The building owner, Danny Yowinkle of Holland, still did not know about it, even though this was his field of expertise.
16:07.780 --> 16:13.780
A dramatic example of the fact that this building's collapse has not been prominent in the public
16:13.780 --> 16:19.780
consciousness was provided in a New York City courtroom in September 2009.
16:23.780 --> 16:29.780
Judge Edward Lainer was hearing arguments about a petition sponsored by New York City CAN
16:29.780 --> 16:35.780
to allow residents to vote on whether New York City should have its own investigation
16:35.780 --> 16:41.780
of the WTC attacks. After Judge Lainer had observed that the 9-11 commission had already
16:41.780 --> 16:49.780
investigated 9-11 and had issued a report,
16:49.780 --> 16:55.780
Dennis McMahon, a lawyer for New York City CAN, said that this report had left many
16:55.780 --> 17:01.780
unanswered questions. One of the biggest questions he added is,
17:01.780 --> 17:07.780
why did Building 7 come down? At which point Judge Lainer said,
17:07.780 --> 17:13.780
Building what?
17:13.780 --> 17:19.780
McMahon replied, WTC 7. There were three buildings that came down.
17:19.780 --> 17:25.780
When the judge, continuing to illustrate his ignorance about this building, asked if it was the one
17:25.780 --> 17:31.780
owned by the Port Authority, McMahon replied, No, it was owned by Larry Silverstein.
17:35.780 --> 17:41.780
Judge Lainer, it should be emphasized, is not simply an ordinary American citizen.
17:41.780 --> 17:47.780
Besides being a judge who was presiding in New York City, he was assigned to a case
17:47.780 --> 17:53.780
involving the 9-11 attacks in this city. So his ignorance about this building
17:53.780 --> 17:59.780
was surprising, and yet it was typical. With his query, Building what?
17:59.780 --> 18:05.780
He expressed the ignorance manifested in 2006 by control
18:05.780 --> 18:11.780
demolition expert Danny Yowinko and almost half of the American people. How can we account for
18:11.780 --> 18:17.780
this widespread ignorance? In a New York Times story in November
18:17.780 --> 18:23.780
2001, James Glantz wrote that the collapse of WTC 7 was a
18:23.780 --> 18:29.780
mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of
18:29.780 --> 18:35.780
the city and the world. Clearly these were not normal circumstances.
18:35.780 --> 18:41.780
Part of the abnormality was the fact that Building 7, while huge,
18:41.780 --> 18:47.780
was overshadowed by the Twin Towers, which were over twice as tall.
18:47.780 --> 18:53.780
But this fact by itself would not account for the enormous ignorance,
18:53.780 --> 18:59.780
because as people indicated at the time, as Glantz pointed out,
18:59.780 --> 19:05.780
there were reasons why the collapse of 7 should have been an even bigger story than
19:05.780 --> 19:11.780
the collapse of the towers. Why was it not? The answer seems to be that it was a
19:11.780 --> 19:17.780
deliberately suppressed story. This conclusion is supported by the following facts.
19:17.780 --> 19:23.780
First, after 9-11 itself, our television networks played videos
19:23.780 --> 19:29.780
of the Twin Towers being hit by the planes and then collapsing over and over and over.
19:29.780 --> 19:35.780
But the collapse of Building 7 was seldom, if ever, shown again on mainstream television.
19:35.780 --> 19:41.780
Second, when the 9-11 Commission Report was issued in 2004,
19:41.780 --> 19:47.780
it did not even mention the collapse of this building. Third, after NIST,
19:47.780 --> 19:53.780
the National Institute for Standards and Technology, took over from FEMA
19:53.780 --> 19:59.780
the task of explaining the destruction of the World Trade Center,
19:59.780 --> 20:05.780
it repeatedly delayed its report on Building 7 over and over.
20:05.780 --> 20:11.780
In 2003, NIST said that this report would be issued along with its report on the Twin Towers,
20:11.780 --> 20:17.780
the draft of which was to appear in September 2004. However,
20:17.780 --> 20:23.780
even though NIST's report on the Twin Towers did not actually appear until 2005,
20:23.780 --> 20:29.780
the promised report on Building 7 was not included.
20:29.780 --> 20:35.780
NIST said it would appear in 2006, but when August of 2006 came,
20:36.780 --> 20:42.780
NIST said it is anticipated that a draft report on World Trade Center 7 will be released by early 2007,
20:45.780 --> 20:51.780
but it was not released in 2007, whether early or late.
20:51.780 --> 20:57.780
NIST instead projected that it would release draft reports on July 8, 2008,
20:57.780 --> 21:03.780
followed by final reports in August of that year.
21:03.780 --> 21:09.780
NIST said the draft report did not appear until August, and the final report
21:09.780 --> 21:15.780
not until November of 2008, when the Bush-Cheney administration was about to leave office.
21:15.780 --> 21:21.780
Moreover, in 2008, when NIST was accused of having deliberately delayed this report,
21:21.780 --> 21:27.780
it lied, saying that it had worked on this report only since 2005,
21:27.780 --> 21:33.780
and hence for only three years, the same amount of time it had worked on the report of the Twin Towers.
21:33.780 --> 21:39.780
However, NIST had filed progress reports on World Trade Center 7 in December 2002 and May 2003.
21:43.780 --> 21:49.780
In June 2004, it published an interim report, and in April 2005, it released another preliminary report.
21:49.780 --> 21:55.780
Then, after ceasing work on this building, evidently, while finishing up the report on the Twin Towers in 2005,
21:59.780 --> 22:05.780
NIST then said the investigation of World Trade Center 7 resumed.
22:05.780 --> 22:11.780
In truth, therefore, NIST had worked on its report on Building 7 for almost six years, not merely three.
22:11.780 --> 22:17.780
So there was a good reason to suspect that it had been deliberately delayed.
22:19.780 --> 22:25.780
In any case, when the draft for public comment did finally appear in August 2008,
22:25.780 --> 22:31.780
it was announced at a press conference with much bravado.
22:31.780 --> 22:37.780
Shams Sunder, NIST lead investigator for the World Trade Center,
22:37.780 --> 22:43.780
said, our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7
22:43.780 --> 22:49.780
is no longer a mystery. World Trade Center 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings.
22:49.780 --> 22:55.780
It did not collapse from explosives.
22:55.780 --> 23:01.780
The mainstream media, for the most part, simply repeated Sunder's claims.
23:01.780 --> 23:07.780
For example, an Associated Press story entitled, Report, Fire, Not Bombs, Leveled World Trade Center 7 Building,
23:07.780 --> 23:13.780
began by saying, Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of September 11th,
23:13.780 --> 23:19.780
the collapse of World Trade Center 7 Building, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.
23:19.780 --> 23:25.780
Then, after reinforcing this message by quoting Sunder's assurance that the reason for the collapse
23:25.780 --> 23:31.780
of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,
23:31.780 --> 23:37.780
this story concluded by quoting Sunder's claim that the science behind NIST's finding
23:37.780 --> 23:43.780
is incredibly conclusive so that the public should really recognize
23:43.780 --> 23:49.780
that science is really behind what we have said.
23:49.780 --> 23:55.780
However, reporters could have easily discovered that this was not so true.
23:55.780 --> 24:01.780
They could have seen, in fact, that NIST's World Trade Center 7 Report
24:01.780 --> 24:07.780
committed scientific fraud in the technical sense, as defined by the National Science Foundation.
24:07.780 --> 24:13.780
One type of fraud is falsification,
24:13.780 --> 24:19.780
which includes omitting data.
24:19.780 --> 24:25.780
NIST, while claiming it found no evidence of a controlled demolition event,
24:25.780 --> 24:31.780
simply omitted an enormous amount of evidence that explosions had brought World Trade Center 7 down.
24:31.780 --> 24:37.780
Besides failing to mention the testimonial evidence discussed earlier,
24:37.780 --> 24:43.780
NIST's report on this building omitted various types of evidence,
24:43.780 --> 24:49.780
Take, for example, the piece of Swiss cheese steel reported by the three professors.
24:49.780 --> 24:55.780
This was included as an appendix to the 2002 FEMA report.
24:55.780 --> 25:01.780
After describing this piece of steel, the professor said,
25:01.780 --> 25:07.780
a detailed study into this matter was made.
25:07.780 --> 25:13.780
After describing this piece of steel, the professor said,
25:13.780 --> 25:19.780
a detailed study into the mechanism of this phenomenon is needed.
25:19.780 --> 25:25.780
When NIST took over from FEMA the responsibility of explaining the destruction of the World Trade Center,
25:25.780 --> 25:31.780
NIST's director promised that its reports would address all major recommendations
25:31.780 --> 25:37.780
contained in the FEMA report. However, when NIST's report on Building 7
25:37.780 --> 25:43.780
appeared in 2008, it did not even mention this mysterious piece of Swiss cheese steel.
25:43.780 --> 25:49.780
Indeed, NIST even claimed that no steel from Building 7 was identified.
25:49.780 --> 25:55.780
Indeed, NIST even claimed that no steel from Building 7 was identified.
25:55.780 --> 26:01.780
The R.J. Lee Group, a scientific research organization,
26:01.780 --> 26:07.780
which had a building close to the World Trade Center that had been contaminated with dust,
26:07.780 --> 26:13.780
hired the R.J. Lee Group, a scientific research organization,
26:13.780 --> 26:19.780
to prove to its insurance company that the dust contaminating its building
26:19.780 --> 26:25.780
The reports issued by the R.J. Lee company proved that the dust
26:25.780 --> 26:31.780
was indeed World Trade Center dust because it had its unique chemical signature.
26:31.780 --> 26:37.780
Part of this signature was spherical iron particles, and this meant,
26:37.780 --> 26:43.780
the R.J. Lee Group said, that iron had melted during the World Trade Center event,
26:43.780 --> 26:49.780
producing spherical metallic particles.
26:49.780 --> 26:55.780
The R.J. Lee Group also found that temperatures had been reached at which lead would have undergone vaporization,
26:55.780 --> 27:01.780
meaning over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit.
27:01.780 --> 27:07.780
Hence, the R.J. Lee reports, which were issued in 2003 and 2004,
27:07.780 --> 27:13.780
provided additional evidence that temperatures had been reached that significantly exceeded
27:13.780 --> 27:17.780
those that could have been produced by fire.
27:17.780 --> 27:23.780
These reports, which were made known in an article published in January 2008
27:23.780 --> 27:29.780
by a group of scientists led by physicist Stephen Jones, were simply ignored by NIST.
27:29.780 --> 27:35.780
Another study was carried out by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, which is a government agency.
27:35.780 --> 27:41.780
Besides all false finding iron particles, these scientists found that something had melted molybdenum,
27:41.780 --> 27:47.780
which has an extremely high melting point, almost 5000 degrees Fahrenheit.
27:47.780 --> 27:53.780
Although these scientists failed to mention this discovery in the published version of their report,
27:53.780 --> 27:59.780
the Stephen Jones Group, having obtained their data through a FOIA report,
27:59.780 --> 28:05.780
pointed out that these U.S. Geological Survey scientists had devoted considerable study
28:15.780 --> 28:21.780
to this particle of molybdenum, so they didn't just overlook it.
28:21.780 --> 28:27.780
They had suppressed this information.
28:27.780 --> 28:33.780
The scientists failed to mention this discovery, even though it was by another federal agency.
28:33.780 --> 28:37.780
Still another example.
28:37.780 --> 28:43.780
A report by Stephen Jones and several other scientists, including University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Herret,
28:43.780 --> 28:49.780
showed that the World Trade Center dust contained an unreacted nanothermite.
28:49.780 --> 28:55.780
Unlike ordinary thermite, which is an incendiary, nanothermite is a high explosive.
28:55.780 --> 29:01.780
This report by Herret Jones and their colleagues did not appear until 2009,
29:01.780 --> 29:05.780
so NIST in 2008 could not have mentioned it.
29:05.780 --> 29:11.780
However, given the standard guidelines for investigating fires,
29:11.780 --> 29:17.780
they definitely should have checked the dust for evidence of thermite
29:17.780 --> 29:23.780
and its various forms, including thermate and nanothermite.
29:23.780 --> 29:29.780
And when they did, NIST said no.
29:29.780 --> 29:35.780
When reporter Jennifer Abel of the Hartford Advocate asked NIST spokesman Michael Newman why not,
29:35.780 --> 29:41.780
he replied, because there was no evidence of that.
29:41.780 --> 29:47.780
When she asked the obvious follow-up question, how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first,
29:47.780 --> 29:53.780
and then you're wasting your time and the taxpayers' money.
29:53.780 --> 29:59.780
Besides omitting evidence,
29:59.780 --> 30:05.780
when I made that statement in Cambridge the other night,
30:05.780 --> 30:09.780
Lynn Margulis was in the audience and she piped up,
30:09.780 --> 30:15.780
this is the first time they've ever shown any concern about wasting the taxpayers' money.
30:15.780 --> 30:21.780
Besides omitting evidence, partly by simply refusing to look for it,
30:21.780 --> 30:25.780
NIST also committed the type of scientific fraud called fabrication,
30:25.780 --> 30:29.780
which means simply making up results.
30:29.780 --> 30:35.780
For example, in offering its explanation as to how fire caused building 7 to collapse,
30:35.780 --> 30:39.780
NIST said that the culprit was thermal expansion,
30:39.780 --> 30:43.780
which means simply that the fire heated up the steel and it expanded.
30:43.780 --> 30:47.780
The failure of the columns on the 13th floor, NIST claims,
30:47.780 --> 30:53.780
caused the steel girder connecting columns 44 and 79 to break loose.
30:53.780 --> 30:57.780
Having lost its support, column 79 failed,
30:57.780 --> 31:03.780
starting a chain reaction that led all 81 other columns to fail.
31:03.780 --> 31:07.780
Now ignoring the question of whether that's even remotely possible,
31:07.780 --> 31:11.780
let's just focus on the issue, why did that girder fail?
31:11.780 --> 31:15.780
NIST's answer was, in World Trade Center 7,
31:15.780 --> 31:19.780
no studs were installed on the girders.
31:19.780 --> 31:23.780
These are shear studs, big thanks.
31:23.780 --> 31:27.780
In another passage, NIST said floor beams had shear studs,
31:27.780 --> 31:31.780
but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs.
31:31.780 --> 31:37.780
However, NIST entered a report on World Trade Center 7,
31:37.780 --> 31:43.780
which was issued back in 2004, before it had developed this girder failure theory,
31:43.780 --> 31:51.780
had said that shear studs were used to anchor most of the beams and girders,
31:51.780 --> 31:55.780
including the particular girder in question.
31:55.780 --> 32:00.780
Another example of fabrication, although in its 2004 interim report,
32:00.780 --> 32:04.780
NIST had said that by 4.45 p.m. that day,
32:04.780 --> 32:08.780
the fire on floor 12 was burned out.
32:08.780 --> 32:14.780
It claimed in its 2008 report that 15 minutes later, 5 o'clock,
32:14.780 --> 32:21.780
just 21 minutes before the building collapsed, this fire was still going strong.
32:21.780 --> 32:29.780
Both of these examples of fabrication, incidentally,
32:29.780 --> 32:33.780
were discovered by Chris Sarnes, who is here today.
32:33.780 --> 32:37.780
Chris, where are you? Stand up. You deserve applause for that.
32:37.780 --> 32:45.780
Besides omitting and fabricating evidence,
32:45.780 --> 32:52.780
NIST affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of a basic law of physics.
32:52.780 --> 32:57.780
This issue was treated in a cartoon many of you have seen.
32:57.780 --> 33:00.780
There are professors up on the board writing formula,
33:00.780 --> 33:03.780
x times y equals this and this.
33:03.780 --> 33:10.780
But one of the lines simply says, then a miracle happens.
33:10.780 --> 33:15.780
And this is funny because that's one thing you absolutely cannot do
33:15.780 --> 33:19.780
in a scientific report, is affirm a miracle.
33:19.780 --> 33:22.780
And yet, this is what NIST does. I'll explain.
33:22.780 --> 33:26.780
Members of the 9-11 Truth Movement had from very early on,
33:26.780 --> 33:30.780
you've seen the video saying, that building's coming down in freefall,
33:30.780 --> 33:32.780
or at least very close to it.
33:32.780 --> 33:35.780
But NIST constantly denied this.
33:35.780 --> 33:42.780
In its draft report of August 2008, NIST said that the time it took the upper floors,
33:42.780 --> 33:46.780
meaning the only ones you could see on the video,
33:46.780 --> 33:53.780
to come down was approximately 40% longer than the computed freefall time
33:53.780 --> 33:57.780
and was consistent with physical principles.
33:57.780 --> 34:02.780
As this statement implies, any assertion that the building did come down in freefall
34:02.780 --> 34:07.780
would not be consistent with physical principles, meaning the law of the physics.
34:07.780 --> 34:11.780
Explaining why not, Shams Sunder himself said,
34:11.780 --> 34:18.780
a freefall time would be the fall time of an object that had no structural components below it.
34:18.780 --> 34:24.780
The time it took for those 17 floors to disappear was roughly 40% longer than freefall,
34:24.780 --> 34:30.780
and that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided,
34:30.780 --> 34:33.780
all that steel and concrete.
34:33.780 --> 34:36.780
And you had a sequence of structural failures.
34:36.780 --> 34:39.780
Remember, 79 then causes all those other columns to fall.
34:39.780 --> 34:43.780
You had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place.
34:43.780 --> 34:46.780
Everything was not instantaneous.
34:46.780 --> 34:51.780
In saying this, Sunder was of course presupposing NIST's rejection of controlled demolition,
34:51.780 --> 34:59.780
which could have produced a freefall collapse by causing all 82 columns to fail simultaneously,
34:59.780 --> 35:07.780
in favor of NIST's fire theory, which of course necessitated a theory of progressive collapse.
35:07.780 --> 35:14.780
In response, high school physics teacher David Chandler challenged Sunder's denial of freefall,
35:14.780 --> 35:22.780
pointing out that Sunder's 40% claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.
35:22.780 --> 35:30.780
Chandler then placed a video on the internet showing that by measuring this publicly visible quantity,
35:30.780 --> 35:37.780
anyone knowing elementary physics, dig, dig, anyone knowing elementary physics
35:38.780 --> 35:42.780
could see that for about two and a half seconds,
35:42.780 --> 35:47.780
the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.
35:47.780 --> 35:57.780
Amazingly, in NIST's final report, which came out in November 2008, it admitted freefall.
35:57.780 --> 36:00.780
Dividing the building's descent into three stages,
36:00.780 --> 36:06.780
NIST described the second phase as a freefall descent over approximately eight stories
36:06.780 --> 36:14.780
at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds.
36:14.780 --> 36:19.780
So they just quibbled about a quarter of a second.
36:19.780 --> 36:27.780
So after presenting over 600 pages of descriptions, photographs, testimonies, graphs, analyses,
36:27.780 --> 36:34.780
explanations, and mathematical formula, NIST says in effect, then a miracle happens.
36:34.780 --> 36:41.780
Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who I also think is here today.
36:41.780 --> 36:44.780
David Chandler, stand up, another hero.
36:44.780 --> 36:56.780
The one guy in the world, I believe, who made NIST change something between the first report and the second one.
36:56.780 --> 37:07.780
David Chandler said, freefall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.
37:07.780 --> 37:11.780
In other words, the upper portion of building is freefall.
37:11.780 --> 37:16.780
In other words, the upper portion of building seven could have come down in freefall
37:16.780 --> 37:22.780
only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part,
37:22.780 --> 37:25.780
which would have otherwise provided some resistance.
37:25.780 --> 37:33.780
If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in freefall anyway,
37:33.780 --> 37:42.780
even if only for a quarter of a second, that would have been a miracle, meaning a violation of basic laws of physics.
37:42.780 --> 37:46.780
That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August,
37:46.780 --> 37:54.780
saying that a freefalling object would be one that has no structural components below it to offer resistance.
37:54.780 --> 38:00.780
But then in November, while still defending the fire theory of the collapse,
38:00.780 --> 38:05.780
NIST agreed that as an empirical fact, freefall happened.
38:05.780 --> 38:09.780
For a period of two and a quarter seconds, NIST admitted,
38:09.780 --> 38:16.780
the descent of World Trade Center 7 was characterized by gravitational acceleration freefall.
38:16.780 --> 38:24.780
Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics.
38:25.780 --> 38:31.780
In its August draft, in which it said that the collapse occurred 40% slower than freefall,
38:31.780 --> 38:37.780
NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis was consistent with physical principles.
38:37.780 --> 38:46.780
Readers encountered this phrase time and time again, but in the final draft, every instance of this phrase had been removed.
38:46.780 --> 38:54.780
In the final report, NIST therefore almost explicitly admitted that its report on World Trade Center 7
38:54.780 --> 39:04.780
by admitting freefall while continuing to deny that explosives were used is not consistent with the laws of physics.
39:04.780 --> 39:10.780
NIST thereby implicitly admitted that explosives were used to bring down Building 7.
39:11.780 --> 39:17.780
With that implicit admission, NIST implicitly admitted that the same about the Twin Towers,
39:17.780 --> 39:25.780
the collapses of which manifested many of the same telltale signs of controlled demolition,
39:25.780 --> 39:35.780
plus some additional ones such as the horizontal ejection of steel beams outward some 500-600 feet.
39:36.780 --> 39:44.780
With this implicit admission that explosives were used, NIST undermined the Al Qaeda theory of 9-11. Why?
39:44.780 --> 39:50.780
For one thing, the straight-down nature of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7
39:50.780 --> 39:56.780
means that the buildings were subjected to that type of controlled demolition known as implosion,
39:56.780 --> 40:04.780
which in the words of a controlled demolition website is by far the trickiest type of explosive project
40:04.780 --> 40:11.780
which only a handful of companies in the world possess enough experience to perform.
40:11.780 --> 40:15.780
Al Qaeda terrorists would not have had the expertise.
40:15.780 --> 40:24.780
Second, the only reason to go to the trouble of bringing the building straight down is to avoid damaging nearby buildings.
40:24.780 --> 40:32.780
Had the World Trade Center buildings toppled over sideways, they would have caused massive destruction in lower Manhattan,
40:32.780 --> 40:36.780
killing many tens of thousands of people.
40:36.780 --> 40:44.780
Does anyone believe that if even Al Qaeda operators had had the expertise to bring the building straight down,
40:44.780 --> 40:47.780
they would have had the courtesy?
40:49.780 --> 40:55.780
A third problem is that foreign terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings
40:55.780 --> 40:59.780
for all the hours it would have taken to plant explosives.
40:59.780 --> 41:05.780
If only insiders, domestic terrorists, could have done this.
41:05.780 --> 41:14.780
NIST's admission that Building 7 came down in freefall for over two seconds should therefore have been front page news.
41:14.780 --> 41:19.780
The same is true, moreover, of the various other things I've reported.
41:19.780 --> 41:24.780
NIST fabrications, NIST omission and distortion of testimonial evidence,
41:24.780 --> 41:35.780
NIST omission of physical evidence such as the Swiss cheese steel and the particles showing that iron and molybdenum had been melted,
41:35.780 --> 41:40.780
and the later discovery of nanothermite particles in the World Trade Center dust.
41:40.780 --> 41:46.780
Especially given the fact that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 had been declared a mystery from the outset,
41:47.780 --> 41:55.780
the world should have been waiting with bated breath for every new clue as to why this 47-story building had come down.
41:55.780 --> 42:04.780
Upon hearing Building 7 mentioned, nobody in the world with access to CNN should have replied,
42:04.780 --> 42:11.780
Building what? How do we explain the fact that five and even nine years after 9-11,
42:11.780 --> 42:20.780
the mysterious collapse of this building was still a matter of widespread ignorance, the very fact that it had collapsed.
42:20.780 --> 42:25.780
To begin answering this question, let us turn to James Glantz's statement
42:26.780 --> 42:35.780
that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was a mystery that under normal circumstances would have captured the attention of the city and the world.
42:35.780 --> 42:43.780
As I stated before, the abnormality seems to have been such that the fact of this building's collapse,
42:43.780 --> 42:49.780
and specifically the videos of this collapse, were deliberately suppressed.
42:49.780 --> 42:52.780
What was this abnormality?
42:53.780 --> 43:02.780
A symposium in the February 2010 issue of American Behavioral Scientist, one of our leading social science journals,
43:02.780 --> 43:12.780
argues that social scientists need to develop a scientific approach to studying an increasingly important type of criminality,
43:12.780 --> 43:18.780
state crimes against democracy, abbreviated SCADs.
43:18.780 --> 43:25.780
These SCADs are considered as concerted actions by government insiders intended to manipulate democratic processes
43:25.780 --> 43:29.780
and undermine popular sovereignty.
43:29.780 --> 43:41.780
Having the potential to subvert political institutions and entire governments, SCADs are high crimes that attack democracy itself.
43:41.780 --> 43:50.780
Distinguishing between SCADs that have been officially proven, such as the water break-ins and cover-up,
43:50.780 --> 43:58.780
the secret wars in Laos and Cambodia, illegal arms sales and covert operations in Iran-Contra,
43:58.780 --> 44:04.780
and the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson by revealing his wife's status as an intelligence agent,
44:04.780 --> 44:12.780
and suspected SCADs, distinguishing those from suspected SCADs for which there is good evidence.
44:12.780 --> 44:23.780
The symposium authors include in the latter category the fabricated attacks on US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964,
44:23.780 --> 44:34.780
the October surprises in the presidential elections of 1968 and 1980, and the assassinations of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy,
44:34.780 --> 44:45.780
the election breakdowns in 2004, the numerous defense failures of September 11, 2001,
44:45.780 --> 44:51.780
and the misrepresentation of intelligence to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
44:51.780 --> 45:00.780
Moreover, besides regarding the 9-11 attacks as one of the suspected SCADs for which there is good evidence,
45:00.780 --> 45:06.780
this symposium treats it, in fact, as its primary example.
45:06.780 --> 45:13.780
The abstract for the introductory essay begins by asserting the ellipses of due diligence
45:13.780 --> 45:22.780
riddling the official account of the 9-11 incidents continue being ignored by scholars of policy and public administration.
45:22.780 --> 45:31.780
The symposium's final essay, criticizing the majority of the academic world for its blithe dismissal of more than one law
45:31.780 --> 45:37.780
of thermodynamics that is violated by the official theory of the World Trade Center collapses,
45:37.780 --> 45:47.780
also criticizes the Academy for its failure to protest when Professor Stephen Jones found himself forced out of a tenured position
45:47.780 --> 45:59.780
for merely reminding the world that physical laws about which there is no dissent whatsoever contradict the official theory of the World Trade Center towers collapse.
45:59.780 --> 46:11.780
Now, if 9-11 was a SCAD, then we would understand the full extent to which the destruction of the World Trade Center occurred under abnormal circumstances.
46:11.780 --> 46:15.780
And we would thereby be in position to understand why the collapse of Building 7,
46:15.780 --> 46:23.780
which under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world, did not do so.
46:23.780 --> 46:30.780
It was not allowed to become well known for reasons mentioned earlier. Unlike the Twin Towers, it was not hit by a plane.
46:30.780 --> 46:36.780
Because of this, there was no jet fuel to spread big fires to many floors and its collapse.
46:36.780 --> 46:43.780
Unlike that, each of the Twin Towers looked exactly like a classic implosion in which the collapse begins from the bottom
46:43.780 --> 46:50.780
and the building folds in upon itself, ending up in a tidy pile in its own footprint.
46:50.780 --> 46:56.780
The fact that Building 7 was brought down by explosives was therefore much more obvious.
46:56.780 --> 47:01.780
This greater obviousness is illustrated not only by Danny Uwinkel's responses,
47:01.780 --> 47:12.780
but also by many engineers and scientists who joined the 9-11 Truth Movement only after seeing a video of this building's collapse.
47:12.780 --> 47:17.780
For example, Daniel Hoffnung, an engineer in Paris, wrote,
47:17.780 --> 47:25.780
In the years after the 9-11 events, I thought that all I read in professional reviews and French newspapers was true.
47:25.780 --> 47:32.780
The first time I understand that it was impossible was when I saw a film about the collapse of WTC 7.
47:32.780 --> 47:37.780
Civil engineer Chester Gearhart of Kansas City wrote,
47:37.780 --> 47:44.780
I have watched the construction of many large buildings and have also personally witnessed five controlled demolitions in Kansas City.
47:44.780 --> 47:52.780
When I saw the towers fall on 9-11, I knew something was wrong and my first instinct was that it was impossible.
47:52.780 --> 47:57.780
When I saw Building 7 fall, I knew it was controlled demolition.
47:57.780 --> 48:06.780
This video was even decisive for University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Heret, who later became the first author of the nanothermite paper.
48:06.780 --> 48:10.780
When asked how he became involved with these issues, he replied,
48:10.780 --> 48:15.780
It all started when I saw the collapse of Building 7, the third skyscraper.
48:15.780 --> 48:18.780
It collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.
48:18.780 --> 48:21.780
And there were only two airplanes.
48:21.780 --> 48:32.780
When you see a 47-story building, 186 meters tall, collapse in six and a half seconds, and you are a scientist, you think, what?
48:32.780 --> 48:35.780
I had to watch it again and again.
48:35.780 --> 48:40.780
I hit the button ten times and my jaw dropped lower and lower.
48:40.780 --> 48:44.780
Firstly, I had never heard of that building before.
48:44.780 --> 48:52.780
And there was no visible reason why it should collapse in such a way, straight down in six and a half seconds.
48:52.780 --> 48:55.780
I've had no rest since that day.
48:55.780 --> 49:05.780
Given these reactions, it is obvious why, if 9-11 was a state crime against democracy, the fact of Building 7's collapse,
49:05.780 --> 49:11.780
and especially the video of this collapse, had to be suppressed as much as possible.
49:11.780 --> 49:16.780
Having made this point, I need to respond to an obvious objection.
49:16.780 --> 49:23.780
If those who were responsible for bringing down Building 7 were responsible for bringing down Building 7,
49:24.780 --> 49:34.780
or going to need to suppress the video of its collapse, why did they wait until late in the day when the air was clean
49:34.780 --> 49:40.780
and cameras would be focused on this building to bring it down?
49:40.780 --> 49:50.780
So that we have these perfectly clear videos from many angles of the building coming down in free fall.
49:51.780 --> 49:56.780
Why did they not bring it down in the morning, shortly after one of the towers had collapsed,
49:56.780 --> 50:03.780
when the air was filled with dust, so photos and videos were impossible?
50:03.780 --> 50:14.780
For example, they could have brought it down at 1045, which would have been about 17 minutes after the collapse of the North Tower,
50:14.780 --> 50:25.780
and the air was still so dense with dust and smoke that all the cameramen had to run away,
50:25.780 --> 50:30.780
and according to NIST, did not start returning until 11 o'clock.
50:30.780 --> 50:32.780
Why didn't they bring it down then?
50:32.780 --> 50:42.780
Well, as I've reported in an appendix to the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, it looks like that's what they meant to do.
50:42.780 --> 50:51.780
I won't give the evidence here, but it appears that Building 7 was, as one researcher put it, a dud.
50:51.780 --> 51:00.780
The explosions started going off and at some point they quit, and the building, as he put it, defiantly stood there.
51:01.780 --> 51:10.780
As a result, agents had to be sent into the building, this is speculative, that's why it's in the appendix,
51:10.780 --> 51:16.780
so that the cover story could be that fires had brought the building down.
51:16.780 --> 51:24.780
This hypothesis would explain why, although the fires in Building 7 allegedly were started at 1028,
51:24.780 --> 51:31.780
when the North Tower collapsed and sent flaming debris all that distance,
51:31.780 --> 51:37.780
fires did not start to become visible until afternoon.
51:37.780 --> 51:40.780
NIST itself admits that.
51:40.780 --> 51:50.780
In any case, had the demolition system worked, as intended, this building's collapse would still have been a big mystery,
51:50.780 --> 51:59.780
but there would have been no video showing that it had come straight down and for over two sockets in absolute freefall,
51:59.780 --> 52:03.780
and you would have never heard of David Chandler.
52:03.780 --> 52:07.780
I emphasize this likelihood.
52:07.780 --> 52:17.780
The destruction of WTC 7 was a botched operation, because if true, it provides the clearest possible illustration of the theme of this lecture,
52:17.780 --> 52:22.780
namely that scads can be hidden in plain sight.
52:22.780 --> 52:30.780
There are literally dozens of contradictions in the official account of 9-11 that show it to have been an inside job,
52:30.780 --> 52:40.780
but the clearest proof of this is provided by the video of this enormous building coming straight down in absolute freefall,
52:40.780 --> 52:46.780
and yet even though this proof has existed in plain sight for all these years,
52:46.780 --> 52:53.780
the fact that 9-11 was an inside job and hence a state crime against democracy has remained a hidden fact,
52:53.780 --> 52:58.780
at least in the sense that it is not part of the public conversation.
52:58.780 --> 53:01.780
How has this hiding been achieved?
53:01.780 --> 53:10.780
Peter Dale Scott discussing the erosion of the Constitution and laws of the open or public state by the American deep state
53:11.780 --> 53:21.780
suggests that this erosion has been achieved in part through a series of important deep events in post-World War II American history,
53:21.780 --> 53:27.780
events, aspects of which will be ignored or suppressed in the mainstream media.
53:27.780 --> 53:36.780
Indeed, Scott adds, mainstream U.S. media have become so implicated in past protective lives
53:36.780 --> 53:45.780
that they, as well as the government, have now demonstrated interest in preventing the truth of any of these events from coming out.
53:45.780 --> 53:53.780
This means that the current threat to constitutional rights does not derive from the deep state alone.
53:53.780 --> 54:03.780
The problem is a global dominance mindset that prevails not only inside the Washington Beltway, but also in the mainstream media.
54:03.780 --> 54:14.780
One which has come to accept recent inroads to constitutional liberties and stigmatizes, or at least responds with silence to, those who are alarmed by them.
54:14.780 --> 54:24.780
Acceptance of this mindset's notion of decorum has increasingly become a condition for participating in mainstream public life.
54:25.780 --> 54:31.780
Referring thereby to events such as the JFK assassination, the Tonkin Gulf hoax, and 9-11,
54:31.780 --> 54:42.780
Scott by deep events means the same types of events called scads by the authors of the symposium in American behavioral scientists.
54:42.780 --> 54:52.780
Indeed, one of these authors explicitly cites Scott's writings, treating his deep state events as examples of scads.
54:52.780 --> 54:59.780
And quoting his statements about the complicity of the mainstream media in covering up the truth of these events.
54:59.780 --> 55:03.780
These authors also make the same point themselves.
55:03.780 --> 55:09.780
Remarking that the US government's account of 9-11 is parroted by the mainstream media.
55:09.780 --> 55:23.780
And commenting upon the profound disavowal of still burning molten questions originating at 9-11 ground zero, gone begging by the American media.
55:23.780 --> 55:33.780
Besides parroting the government's account of 9-11 and stigmatizing those who provide alternative accounts with a discrediting label conspiracy theorist,
55:33.780 --> 55:43.780
How has America's mainstream media kept the truth about WTC7 hidden from the majority of the American people and the world?
55:43.780 --> 55:56.780
Through various means. First, by never replaying the statements by Dan Rather and other reporters about how the collapse of WTC7 looked exactly like, a controlled demolition.
55:56.780 --> 56:00.780
Second, by seldom if ever replaying the video of this building's collapse.
56:00.780 --> 56:05.780
Third, by never mentioning credible critiques of the official account.
56:05.780 --> 56:17.780
For example, my book, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC7, subtitled, Why the Final Official Report about 9-11 is Unscientific and False,
56:17.780 --> 56:26.780
Which has been endorsed by prestigious scientists and engineers, has never been reviewed in the mainstream media.
56:26.780 --> 56:36.780
Or even mentioned. Even though my previous 9-11 book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, was a Publishers Weekly Pick of the Week in November 2008.
56:36.780 --> 56:42.780
Fourth, by never mentioning, except for one story in the Washington Times that evidently slipped through,
56:42.780 --> 56:47.780
The existence of an organization called Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth,
56:48.780 --> 56:59.780
Which now has 1,200 licensed members calling for a new investigation, i.e. a real investigation of WTC7, as well as the Twin Towers.
56:59.780 --> 57:11.780
Fifth, by never reporting scientific evidence contradicting the official account of this building, such as the reported discovery of nanothermite in the dust.
57:11.780 --> 57:21.780
Sixth, by overlooking the fact that NIST report on WTC7 omitted an enormous amount of evidence showing that explosives must have been used.
57:21.780 --> 57:31.780
For example, after calling that piece of Swiss cheese steel recovered from Building 7, the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,
57:31.780 --> 57:45.780
The New York Times did not issue a peep when NIST's 2008 report did not mention this mysterious piece of steel and even denied that any steel from this building had been recovered.
57:46.780 --> 58:02.780
Seventh, by reporting NIST's August press conference announcing the draft for public comment in which Sunder announced with great bravado that the mystery of WTC7 had been solved,
58:02.780 --> 58:18.780
And that science is really behind what we have said, but then not reporting on the final report and the fact that NIST in it almost explicitly admitted that science does not stand behind its theory of this building's collapse.
58:18.780 --> 58:31.780
Through these unrelated means, the American deep state and its controlled media have hidden the truth about the collapse of Building 7, even though it has existed in plain sight for all these years.
58:31.780 --> 58:43.780
They have even to a great extent hidden the fact of the collapse itself, so that in 2006, over 40% of the American people still did not know that it had occurred,
58:43.780 --> 58:49.780
And in 2009, a judge in New York City upon hearing its name could reply,
58:49.780 --> 59:00.780
I offer this lecture as a case study in the power of the deep state and its controlled media to hide things that exist in plain sight,
59:00.780 --> 59:10.780
Because if they can hide the straight down freefall collapse of the 47-story building captured on video in broad daylight, they can hide anything.
59:10.780 --> 59:17.780
I say this, however, not to instill despair, but to point to the seriousness of the problem we face,
59:17.780 --> 59:29.780
And also to pave the way for making a proposal in the spirit of Peter Dale Scott's important essay, 9-11, Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics,
59:29.780 --> 59:40.780
Recognizing the high correlation between those who are aware of the collapse of Building 7 and those who believe a new, that is, a real investigation is needed,
59:40.780 --> 59:53.780
I propose that we initiate, and this was suggested by the New York City CAN lawyers, a building what campaign?
59:53.780 --> 01:00:07.780
And I in particular propose that we initiate it with all, hopefully all the 9-11 groups in America and around the world participating,
01:00:07.780 --> 01:00:25.780
That we initiate it this September with the goal of making as many people on the planet as possible aware of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 by the 10th anniversary of 9-11.
01:00:25.780 --> 01:00:33.780
And let us ensure that this building is never again known as Building What. Thank you very much.