Apathy, bias and cant at the ABC

Clueless and incurious, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has not aired a single fair, balanced, impartial or objective interview with anyone who has written critically of the official explanation for the events of 9/11. The ABC has not reported on any of the numerous independent scientific studies that have been published, challenging the official theory of the destruction of three World Trade Center buildings.

The ABC has been content to merely reiterate, ad nauseam, the official narrative, while actively resisting public pressure to provide even a moment of airtime to the alternative accounts, without the sneering derision and glib disregard that typifies the treatment of any who question the official story. On the issue of 9/11, the ABC is acting more like an organ of state propaganda than an independent, informative broadcasting service.

If the ABC has any regard at all for its reputation and credibility, it should consider investigating the science and the evidence that is well known by many, but apparently none at the ABC. They could start by reading some of the books that have been published by David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed, Mike Rupert, Webster Tarpley and others, who have collectively amassed a mountain of evidence that is not even addressed by the official version of events.

Then perhaps the ABC could spare an hour or so to view the presentation by Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

There are many questions that deserve consideration; for example, why did NIST refuse to look for residues of accelerants or explosives at the WTC site? It is normally standard practice in fire investigations to test for accelerants and explosives, especially in the event of a building collapse.

Why was the steel from WTC shipped off and recycled before any investigation could examine it? The steel was evidence from the crime scene and should have been preserved for investigators to examine.

Why were no fighter jets scrambled to intercept the hijacked aircraft on the morning of 9/11? Interception has long been routine, standard operating procedure in the event of aircraft going off course and not responding to air traffic control, but not on 9/11. Hijacked planes flew around the North East air sector for 90 minutes before any fighter jets appeared in the skies over Washington, shortly after the Pentagon was struck.

And this was just five weeks after the President's Daily Brief of August 6, entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US", warned that FBI information "indicates patterns of suspicious activity consistent with preparations for hijackings". So why was the air defense so tardy on 9/11?

Why was the official explanation of 9/11, which has remained unchanged to this day, presented within hours of the supposedly surprise attack, replete with 19 Arab hijackers, box cutters, flight manuals, scorched passports, a copy of the Koran and buildings exploding into dust, "mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense" ... all known with certainty, long before any investigation of the events?

Why did the Bush administration oppose any investigation into 9/11? Why, after 15 months of intense public pressure, did the administration setup an inquiry that was poorly funded, unduly limited in time and scope, and directed by an administration insider, Phillip Zelikow?

Why did senior administration officials initially refuse to testify before the 9/11 Commission? Why did Bush and Cheney insist on appearing together, in private, before a select few of the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did they refuse to testify under oath?

Why did senior military officials deliberately mislead the 9/11 Commission? Why did the Pentagon change its version of events not once, not twice, but three times, before the 9/11 Commission?

Don't these circumstances warrant some degree of consideration? Why is the ABC so obstinately incurious about these matters?

None of these questions have been acknowledged, let alone addressed by anyone at the ABC. I challenge the ABC to prove otherwise. If the ABC is not censoring this issue, why is there no fair, unbiased coverage of the worldwide campaign and demand for a new investigation of the events of 9/11?

Why does the ABC steadfastly refuse to interview credible, published experts; architects, engineers, physicists, pilots, former intelligence professionals like Ray MacGovern and Robert Baer, former FBI officers like Colleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds, scientists and academics like Steven Jones and Frank Legge who have conducted studies and authored reports of high quality.

Can the ABC offer any reasonable explanation for diligently ignoring all the work that has been done over the last nine years by intelligent, conscientious citizens who have every reason to question the honesty and integrity of our governments, especially in light of the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the basis of fabricated fears and phoney intelligence.

The ABC does no service to society or humanity by failing to scrutinize official dogma. The woeful performance of an overly credulous, timid and co-opted media is in no small part to blame for the unlawful invasion of Iraq.

Likewise, the continuing cover up of the 9/11 crime is made possible by the media's cowardice and incompetence in the face of state criminality.

NIST versus Newton

NIST and fellow agents of the military industrial empire would like to conceal the physical principles involved in the collapse of Building 7 and the Twin Towers ... as if the buildings were somehow unique in that they lacked quantifiable characteristics of material strength, or that their material strength magically dissipated in an instant on that fateful day.

The matter is one of classical mechanics, the laws that describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and the motion of that body. These laws were discovered by Sir Isaac Newton and first published in his work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in 1687. [Wikipedia]

A free falling body does no work, and it can do no work unless or until it meets resistance. If a falling body meets resistance, the force applied by the falling body to that which is providing resistance is equal and opposite to the force applied by the resisting substance to the falling body (Newtons 3rd Law of Motion). Furthermore, the magnitude of the force is directly proportional to the rate of change in velocity of the falling body (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion).

In other words, a falling mass cannot exert any force without first impacting against something, and when it does impact, the fall will be impeded or slowed, and the more force it exerts, the greater it will be slowed. NIST claims the top floors of the Twin Towers fell onto the lower floors, causing the towers to collapse, however, the falling block would have been slowed in its fall by the impact, with the amount of slowing proportional to the force it applied to the lower block. Bear in mind, the lower part of the building was not damaged, not on fire and also much larger and stronger than the damaged, burning top block.

So if the burning, damaged, top section of the tower fell onto the lower, cold, undamaged, much larger and stronger part of the building, and if the falling block impacted the lower block with sufficient force to shatter and pulverize the top floors of the lower block, the equal and opposite force applied by the lower block to the upper falling block would be sufficient to not just slow, but also pulverize and destroy the weakened falling block, hence leaving nothing to continue the crush down. What do the videos of the event show?



We see the upper falling block was indeed destroyed as it fell, even before it reached the undamaged, lower portion of the building, but there was no observable slowing of the fall, no deceleration at all. Hence there was no impact and therefore the falling block could not have applied any force to the lower portion of the building.

So we know, the buildings could not fall at nearly freefall acceleration AND be doing the work of pulverizing concrete and breaking massive steel columns at the same time, under the force of gravity alone. If the falling mass were to do any work at all as it fell, there would be an observable slowing or halting of the collapse in the process.

In fact, nearly ALL the gravitational energy was being used to accelerate the building downward. The top of the building could not possibly accelerate down through hundreds of thousands of tons of cold, hard reinforced concrete and massive steel columns, due to the force of gravity alone. Some other force, some extra source of energy was required to pulverize those buildings.

The strength of those buildings, like any building, was a known quantity. The architects and engineers who built them understood the properties of the materials they used - they had precise, time honoured methods and calculations to ensure the buildings were strong enough to hold themselves up... they didn't have to guess how much steel and concrete was required, because they knew the strength and other properties of the materials, and they didn't scimp, those buildings were in fact designed to carry several times their own weight.

That is why over a thousand qualified, professional architects and engineers have put their signatures and their names to a petition demanding a new investigation, because they understand, those buildings did not fall due to gravity, plane impacts and/or fire alone. I just want you to know, there really is more to this story.