9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

Written by Wayne Coste

With assistance provided by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Remember Building 7 campaign and NYC CAN organized Occupy Building 7, a two-day protest designed to raise awareness about the destruction of Building 7, the third World Trade Center skyscraper to fall on 9/11. On November 19 and 20, the marches and vigils were held from Zuccotti Park in the Wall Street District of Manhattan along the sidewalks for several blocks to the site of the rebuilt WTC Building 7.

“ I was told afterward that some of the police quietly asked us for information about the 9/11 evidence ”

Zuccotti Park, which is the heart of the Occupy Wall Street movement, lies in the figurative shadow of the Twin Towers and in the literal shadow of their replacement tower that is currently under construction and now reaches over 20 stories into the air.

Over the last two months, AE911Truth supporters and others have provided “occupiers” across the country with information about the explosive 9/11 evidence. The occupiers are becoming informed about the logical and scientific fallacies in the official accounts that make those versions not just implausible, but impossible.

Link to the rest of the article Occupy Building 7 March Impacts Manhattan: Police, OWS Protestors Informed About Explosive 9/11 Evidence

This May 10, 2011 interview of Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, was conducted by Michael Rudin of the BBC.

Interview of Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, on the faulty NIST investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses, the evidence of controlled demolition, and where the demand for a new investigation stands.

Written by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Monday, 19 December 2011
AE911Truth.org

Editor’s Note: Dr. Lynn Margulis appears quite courageously in AE911Truth’s new DVD documentary, “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out”, in which she notes:

You can’t do science when you are deprived of the evidence, and when your hypothesis is the least valid, instead of the most likely.

The most likely hypothesis, in the case of Building 7, wasn’t even mentioned. This is not science. So the claim is that it’s something else? It’s trying to prove preconceived ideas.

AE911Truth is honored by its important relationship with Dr. Margulis and will be dedicating the Final Edition of “Experts Speak Out” to her memory.

The family of Lynn Margulis announced that she died at home on Tuesday, November 22, at the age of 73. She had suffered a serious hemorrhagic stroke on Friday, November 18 – so serious that there was no chance of recovery.

Having authored dozens of books and scientific papers, Margulis was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1999.

In 2004, she began looking into the evidence against the official account of 9/11. She not only accepted it, but also – always known for her courage – announced her views, writing in 2007:

“Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork.

Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization. I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

In early 2010, she wrote an article on WTC 7 entitled “Two Hit, Three Down – The Biggest Lie”. Asking: “Why did three World Trade Center buildings (#1, #2 and #7) collapse on 9/11, after two (and only two) of them were hit by ‘hijacked airplanes’?,” she gave the scientific answer:

“Because . . . the steel columns were selectively melted in a brilliantly-timed controlled demolition. Two 110-story buildings (towers 1 & 2), plus one 47-floor building (WTC 7), were induced to collapse at gravitationally accelerated rates in an operation planned and carried out by insiders. The apparent hijacking of airliners and the crashing of them into the Twin Towers were intrinsic parts of the operation, which together provided a basis for claiming that the buildings were brought down by Muslim terrorists. The buildings’ steel columns, which would have provided irrefutable physical evidence of the use of explosives, were quickly removed from the scene of the crime.”

But much more difficult than the scientific question, she said, is the “science-education problem”:

“The persistent problem is how to wake up public awareness, especially in the global scientifically literate public, of the overwhelming evidence that the three buildings collapsed by controlled demolition. . . . We, on the basis of hard evidence, must conclude that the petroleum fires related to the aircraft crashes were irrelevant (except perhaps as a cover story).”

The scientific world, including the 9/11 Truth Community – she was a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth – has lost one of our noblest, most courageous fighters for the Earth and the Truth.

Site Administrator’s note: United Flight 175 was supposed to have hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York at 9:03 am. However research by Pilots for 9/11 Truth shows that flight 175 was still airborne after the crash.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

From Pilots for 9/11 Truth

UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) – Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this “texting” system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it’s location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of “Woody Box”, who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

These are the ‘text’ (ACARS) messages in question -

The format for these messages is pretty straight forward. To limit the technical details, we will explain the most important parts of the messages, however, for full Message Block Format Code standards, click here. The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft, the time and date in which the message is sent (111259, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1259Z or 0859 Eastern), the flight number (UA175), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N612UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM
.SFOLMUA 111259/JER
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
– QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL
IS NORMAL….THX 777SAM
SFOLM JERRY TSEN

;09111259 108575 0543

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA 111303/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
– QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
– MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
HOW IS THE RIDE. ANY THING DISPATCH CAN DO FOR YOU…
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111303 108575 0545

This message was also sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIYR CH158R
.CHIYRUA 111303/AD
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
– QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
– MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
NY APROACH LOOKIN FOR YA ON 127.4
CHIDD AD ROGERS

;09111303 108575 0546

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20 minutes after the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the PIT remote ground station (Pittsburgh International Airport).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
– QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
– MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS…
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574

If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a “Technical Acknowledgement” section should be present in ACARS messages. What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent ‘text’ messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received. Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received. An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages. However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the “Technical Acknowledgement” from the airplane that the message has been received -

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.

The 9/11 Commission has claimed which messages have been received by the aircraft. According to a another Memorandum For The Record (MFR), four ACARS messages were sent between 8:59AM and 9:03AM on the morning of Sept 11, to United Flight 175. The MFR reads as follows(3) -

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged stating “I heard of a reported incident.”
1259:29 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1259:30 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft

The first message at 1259:19Z, as stated, was received by the aircraft, but not crew acknowledged, which is not required as technical acknowledgements are automatic. This is referring to the message noted above sent through MDT by Jerry TSEN (First coded ACARS message at top). The second (1259:29Z) and third messages (1259:30Z) referenced in the MFR were not provided through the FOIA. The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission. However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp. The coded Rogers initiated ACARS message is included above, third from the top. Of course, the 9/11 Commission cannot admit if the last message was received by the airplane as that would immediately indicate to anyone that the airplane did not crash into the South Tower at 09:03am.

It is interesting to note that the Commission ignores the 9:03am ACARS message sent by Ed Ballinger routed through MDT (second ACARS message printed above), yet claims the 9:03am message sent by Rogers as not being received. Based on sequential numbers of the messages themselves, it is clear Ballinger’s 9:03 message was sent before the Rogers message (0545 for Ballinger message, 0546 for Rogers, printed on bottom of the message), yet the Commission ignores Ballinger’s message. Why would they ignore Ballinger’s message, yet acknowledge Rogers? Is it because Ballinger’s message was received by the airplane and they realized that an aircraft cannot receive an ACARS message at that distance and such low altitude? This message is more evidence the aircraft was in the vicinity of Harrisburg, and not NY. At least 3 ACARS messages were routed through MDT between 8:59 and 9:03am, and received by the airplane, according to the technical acknowledgement time stamps at the bottom of the messages.

The last message sent at 9:23AM, routed through Pittsburgh, has been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission as well. Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not.

ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards for communications in the United States. ARINC is a provider of the communication protocol for ACARS networking. As ACARS networks are to Cell Phones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon or AT&T. When a message is sent from the aircraft, or the ground, the message needs to be routed through remote ground stations as described above. Many remote ground stations (RGS) are located throughout the world. Here is a diagram of some of the stations located in the Northeast USA.

Link to the rest of the article 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Well After Crash

United Flight 93 was also airborne well after its supposed crash in Shanksville United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash – According To ATC/Radar

Source: AE911truth

Question:

What caused the “squibs”? Could they have been just puffs of dust being pushed out of the Towers by falling floors? Are they visual evidence of explosive charges?

Answer:

The isolated ejections 20-60 stories below the demolition front appear to be composed of pulverized building materials, including concrete. There was no known mechanism by which pulverized building materials being created up at the zone of destruction could have been transported so far down through the building and to the exterior. Air conditioning vents would not have tolerated such pressures, and there was no other “channel” in the building to deliver “compressed air”.

There is no reason, on the “dust puff” theory, for such blasts to be as isolated as they were. Massive air pressure which would delivered by the (missing) “pile driver” down through the elevator hoist ways and out through a given floor would have broken most or all windows on that floor – not created the highly focalized pin-point ejections that are seen on the videos. The breakage of one or two windows on a given floor would not have relieved enough pressure across an entire floor area to prevent the breakage of many other windows nearby.

Another problem with the “dust puff” theory is that the pulverized building materials would not have been transported so quickly. Air would have been pushed ahead of such materials, resulting in transparent puffs of air flowing through the freshly broken windows.

Physicist David Chandler has also shown that some of these ejections came from the corners of the buildings. Since there are no windows on the corners, these ejections could not have been the result of air pressure.

Furthermore, calculations performed by Dr. Crockett Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the floor and debris descent speeds that are allegedly responsible for them. As Kevin Ryan has shown, the ejection speed of the squibs from the Towers also matches the speeds recorded for ejections caused by explosives.

As to these ejections appearing only after the collapse initiation, it should be noted that the North Tower’s antenna dropped before any other building movement is seen, which is evidence that demolition devices were working on the core before any squibs were seen emerging out of the perimeter walls. There is also video showing that some of these ejections occurred even before the collapses began. See “Visible Explosion at World Trade Center” and “WTC1 collapse initiation – visible signs.”

Written by Perla Trevizo,
Chattanooga Times Free Press
Tuesday, 06 December 2011
Reposted at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Editor’s Note: The “The Science of 9/11 Truth” symposium at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga drew over 300 attendees and the support of many University faculty. Journalist Perla Trevizo provided an unbiased and accurate report of the event for the Times Free Press for covering this important news story in a fair and balanced manner, and we encourage other mainstream news outlets to follow their lead.

Questions should be asked about the science behind the falling of the World Trade Center buildings 10 years ago, panelists agreed Tuesday night.

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga hosted the event, “The Science of 9/11,” which began with a moment of silence for the families who lost loved ones.

The discussion “is an opportunity to illustrate the application of the scientific method to a real life event that most Americans remember exactly where they were,” said UTC professor of anthropology Lyn Miles, one of the event’s coordinators.

There are also more than 1,500 architects and engineers who have raised scientific questions over the collapse of the World Trade Center and are calling for a full investigation of 9/11, and it’s worthwhile to discuss why, she added.

The school showed the documentary “Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth,” also the name of the nonprofit that says the collapse of the buildings was not caused by the impact of the planes but by explosives or controlled demolition.

Link to the rest of the article Seminar on science of Trade Center disasters raises questions