9/11 13 CONSENSUS STATEMENTS OF EVIDENCE OPPOSING THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT

[Dick McManus]

13 CONSENSUS STATEMENTS OF EVIDENCE OPPOSING THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF
9/11

Point 1: A Claim Regarding Osama Bin Laden
The Official Account
Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
The Best Evidence
The FBI did not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama
bin Laden is wanted.
When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative
publicity for the FBI, stated that the FBI had no hard evidence
connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised to provide evidence of
Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed.

Point 2: A Claim about the Destruction of the Twin Towers: Impact, Jet
Fuel, and Fire Only

The Official Account
The Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts, jet fuel, and
office fires.
The Best Evidence
Experience, based on physical observation and scientific knowledge,
shows that office fires, even with the aid of jet fuel, could not have
reached temperatures greater than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000
degrees Celsius).
But multiple scientific reports show that metals in the Twin Towers
melted. These metals included steel, iron, and molybdenum – which
normally do not melt until they reach 2,700˚F (1482˚C), 2,800˚F (1538˚
C), and 4,753˚F (2,623˚C), respectively.
Point 3: A Claim about the Destruction of the Twin Towers: Impact,
Fire, and Gravity Only
The Official Account
The Twin Towers were destroyed by three and only three causes: the
impacts of the airliners, the resulting fires, and gravity.
The Best Evidence
During the destruction of the Twin Towers, huge sections of the
perimeter steel columns, weighing many tons, were ejected horizontally
as far as 500 to 600 feet, as seen in multiple photographs and maps.
These high-speed ejections of heavy structural members cannot be
explained by the fires, the pull of gravity, or the airplane impacts
(which had occurred about an hour earlier).
Human bone fragments approximately 1 cm long were found in abundance
on the roof of the Deutsche Bank following the Towers’ destruction,
which further points to the use of explosives. Pancaking or tamping of
floors from above would tend to trap bodies, not hurl splintered bones
over 500 feet horizontally.

Point 4: A Claim Excluding Explosions in the Twin Towers

The Official Account
NIST wrote as if no one – including members of the Fire Department of
New York – gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers.
The Best Evidence
Over 100 of the roughly 500 members of the FDNY who were at the site
that day reported what they described as explosions in the Twin
Towers. Similar reports were given by journalists, police officers,
and WTC employees.

Point 5: A Second Claim Excluding Explosions in the Twin Towers

The Official Account
On 9/11, the Twin Towers came down because of damage produced by the
impact of the planes combined with fires ignited by the jet fuel.
After burning for 101 and 56 minutes, respectively, the north and
south towers came down rapidly but without the aid of explosives.
The Best Evidence
The Twin Towers were built to withstand the impacts of airliners
having approximately the size and speed of those that struck them. And
office fires, even if fed by jet fuel (which is essentially kerosene),
could not have weakened the steel structure of these buildings
sufficiently to collapse as suddenly as they did.
Only the top sections of these buildings were damaged by the impacts
and the resulting fires, whereas their steel structures, much heavier
towards the base, were like pyramids in terms of strength. So the
official account, which ruled out explosives, cannot explain why these
buildings completely collapsed.

Point 6: The Claim that WTC 7 Collapsed from Fire Alone

The Official Account
NIST originally suggested that WTC 7 was brought down by structural
damage combined with a raging fire fed by diesel fuel. However, in its
Final Report (of November 2008), NIST declared that neither diesel
fuel nor structural damage played a role in this building’s collapse,
and that this building, which was not struck by a plane, was brought
down by fire alone.
The Best Evidence
Before or after 9/11, no steel-frame high-rise building had ever
collapsed due to fire. If fire were to cause such a building to
collapse, the onset would be gradual, whereas the videos show that WTC
7, after being completely stable, suddenly came down in virtual free
fall. This building’s straight-down, symmetrical collapse, with the
roofline remaining essentially horizontal, shows that all 82 of WTC
7’s support columns had been eliminated by the time the top started
down.

Point 7: The Claim in NIST’s Draft Report that WTC 7 Did
Not Come Down at Free Fall Acceleration

The Official Account
Having denied for years that WTC 7 came down at free fall
acceleration, NIST repeated this position in August 2008, when it
issued a report on WTC 7 in the form of a Draft for Public Comment.
Shyam Sunder, the head of NIST’s WTC project, said – speaking within
the framework of its claim that the building was brought down by fire
– that free fall would have been physically impossible.
The Best Evidence
Scientific analysis by mathematician David Chandler shows that WTC 7
came down in absolute free fall for a period of about 2.25 seconds.
NIST’s Draft for Public Comment had been challenged by Chandler and
Dr. Steven Jones in a public review, and NIST then re-analyzed the
fall of WTC 7.
In its Final Report, NIST provided a detailed analysis and graph that
conceded that WTC 7 came down at free-fall acceleration for over 100
feet, or about 2.25 seconds, consistent with the findings of Chandler
and Jones.

Point 8: The Claim in NIST’s Final Report that WTC 7 Came
Down in Free Fall Without Explosives

The Official Account
In its Final Report on WTC 7, issued in November 2008, NIST finally
acknowledged that WTC 7 had entered into free fall for more than two
seconds. NIST continued to say, however, that WTC 7 was brought down
by fire, with no aid from explosives.
The Best Evidence
Scientific analysis shows that a free-fall collapse of a steel-framed
building could not be produced by fire, that is, without explosives (a
fact that NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder acknowledged in his
discussions of NIST’s Draft Report for Public Comment in August 2008).

Point 9: The Claim that the World Trade Center Dust
Contained no Thermitic Materials

The Official Account
Although NIST did not perform any tests to determine whether there
were incendiaries (such as thermite) or explosives (such as RDX and
nanothermite) in the WTC dust, it claimed that such materials were not
present.
The Best Evidence
Unreacted nanothermitic material, “which can be tailored to behave as
an incendiary (like ordinary thermite), or as an explosive,” was found
in four independently collected samples of the WTC dust (as reported
in a multi-author paper in a peer-reviewed journal).

Point 10: A Claim Regarding Hijacked Passenger Jets
The Official Account
The 9/11 Commission Report holds that four airplanes (American
Airlines flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 93 and 175)
were hijacked on 9/11.
The Best Evidence
Pilots are trained to “squawk” the universal hijack code (7500) on a
transponder if they receive evidence of an attempted hijacking,
thereby notifying FAA controllers on the ground. But leading
newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers
were not notified.
A CNN story said that pilots are trained to send the hijack code “if
possible.” But entering the code takes only two or three seconds,
whereas it took hijackers, according to the official story, more than
30 seconds to break into the pilots’ cabin of Flight 93.
The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required
action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story.

Point 11: The Claim that Flight 93 Crashed Near Shanksville,
Pennsylvania
The Official Account
The 9/11 Commission reported that United Flight 93, having been taken
over by an al-Qaeda pilot, was flown at a high speed and steep angle
into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
In response to claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down,
the US military and the FBI said that United 93 was not shot down.
The Best Evidence
Residents, the mayor, and journalists near Shanksville reported that
no airliner was visible at the designated crash site; that contents
were found as far as eight miles from the designated crash site; and
that parts – including a thousand-pound engine piece – were found over
a mile away.
Point 12: The Claim Regarding Hani Hanjour as Flight 77
Pilot

The Official Account
The 911 Commission Report holds that American Flight 77, a Boeing 757,
was flown by al-Qaeda pilot Hani Hanjour into the Pentagon. After
disengaging the autopilot, he executed a 330-degree downward spiral
through 7000 feet in about three minutes, then flew into Wedge 1 of
the Pentagon between the first and second floors at 530 mph.
The Best Evidence
Several former airliner pilots have stated that Hanjour could not
possibly have maneuvered a large airliner through the trajectory
allegedly taken by Flight 77 and then hit the Pentagon between the
first and second floors without touching the lawn.
Point 13: The Claim About the Time of Dick Cheney’s Entry
into the White House Bunker

The Official Account
Vice President Dick Cheney took charge of the government’s response to
the 9/11 attacks after he entered the PEOC (the Presidential Emergency
Operations Center), a.k.a. “the bunker”.
The 9/11 Commission Report said that Cheney did not enter the PEOC
until almost 10:00 AM, which was at least 20 minutes after the violent
event at the Pentagon that killed more than 100 people.
The Best Evidence
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta told the 9/11 Commission
that, after he joined Cheney and others in the bunker at approximately
9:20 AM, he listened to an ongoing conversation between Cheney and a
young man, which took place when “the airplane was coming into the
Pentagon.”
After the young man, having reported for the third time that the plane
was coming closer, asked whether “the orders still stand,” Cheney
emphatically said they did. The 9/11 Commission Report, by claiming
that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until long after the Pentagon was
damaged, implies that this exchange between Cheney and the young man –
which can most naturally be understood as Cheney’s confirmation of a
stand-down order – could not have occurred.
However, testimony that Cheney was in the PEOC by 9:20 was reported
not only by Mineta but also by Richard Clarke and White House
photographer David Bohrer. Cheney himself, speaking on “Meet the
Press” five days after 9/11, reported that he had entered the PEOC
before the Pentagon was damaged.
The 9/11 Commission’s attempt to bury the exchange between Cheney and
the young man confirms the importance of Mineta’s report of this
conversation.
http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/
http://www.consensus911.org/
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-investigative-panel-releases-13-consensus-statements-of-evidence-opposing-the-official-account-of-911-2011-09-09