Strategic Treaty Trinity: Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA)


, ,

TISABelow are the secret documents from the ongoing Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) negotiations which cover the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan & Israel — which together comprise two-thirds of global GDP. “Services” now account for nearly 80 per cent of the US and EU economies and even in developing countries like Pakistan account for 53 per cent of the economy. While the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has become well known in recent months in the United States, the TISA is the larger component of the strategic TPP-TISA-TTIP ‘T-treaty trinity.’ All parts of the trinity notably exclude the ‘BRICS‘ countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

The Agreement is meant to “liberalize” trade in services amongst the world’s largest services providers, and it is being negotiated outside of the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework.

Countries that have liberalized both FDI and foreign portfolio investment have been more likely to encounter financial crises than economic growth.

TISA members hold the largest services markets worldwide, with a combined GDP of over two-thirds of the world economy. This text was drafted just before the 6th round of TISA negotiations held from 28 April – 2 May in Geneva, Switzerland. The next round of negotiations held 23-27 June in Geneva.

TISA Financial Services Text:

This Document Contains TISA- U.S.CONFIDENTIAL Information
Annex [X]: Financial Services

TiSA Texts
Chapters and Annexes of the TiSA text under negotiation.
Document Document Date WikiLeaks Publication Date
TiSA Annex on Air Transport Services February 9, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Competitive Delivery Services April 16, 2014 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Domestic Regulation February 20, 2014 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Electronic Commerce February 20, 2013 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on International Maritime Transport Services February 10, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Movement of Natural Persons February 13, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Professional Services February 13, 2015 June 3, 2015
TISA Annex on Telecommunications Services February 20, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Financial Services February 23, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Transparency January 23, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Transparency April 16, 2014 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Financial Services April 14, 2014 June 19, 2014
TiSA Market Analyses
Market Access Negotiations documents are requests for a schedule of commitments from one of the negotiating Parties to another.
Document Document Date WikiLeaks Publication Date
TiSA Market Access – Israel January 25, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Market Access – Turkey January 25, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Related Documents
Other documents related to the TiSA negotiation process.
Document Document Date WikiLeaks Publication Date
TiSA Cover Note TPC (EU reservations) February 19, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Japan Analysis of Committed Related Provisions February 9, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Japan Separate From And Accountable February 16, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Japan UPU Clarification on USO November 28, 2014 June 3, 2015

Reason: 1.4(b)
Declassify on: Five years from entry into force of the TISA agreement or, if no
agreement enters into force, five years from the close of the negotiations.

* This document must be protected from unauthorized disclosure, but may be mailed or transmitted over unclassified e-mail or fax, discussed over unsecured phone lines, and stored on unclassified computer systems. It must be stored in a locked or secured building, room, or container.

*Working consolidated draft is without prejudice to further proposals or positions of the proponents.

Article X.1: Scope
1. This section/Annex applies to measures affecting the supply of financial services [TR: subject to any conditions, reservations and qualifications inscribed in its Schedule of specific commitments.]
2. For the purposes of sub-paragraph 3(b) of Article I-1 of the Agreement, “services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority” means the following:

(a) activities conducted by a central bank or monetary authority or by any other
public entity in pursuit of monetary or exchange rate policies;
(b) activities forming part of a statutory system of social security or public
retirement plans; and
(c) other activities conducted by a public entity for the account or with the
guarantee or using the financial resources of the Party or its public entities.

3. For the purposes of sub-paragraph 3(b) of Article I-1 of the Agreement, if a Party allows any of the activities referred to in sub-paragraphs (b) or (c) of paragraph 2 of this Article to be conducted by its financial service suppliers in competition with a public entity or a financial service supplier, “services” shall include such activities.

4. Sub-paragraph 3(c) of Article I-1 of the Agreement shall not apply to services
covered by this Annex.

Article X.2: Definitions

For purposes of this Annex/section:

(a) A financial service is any service of a financial nature offered by a financial
service supplier of a Party. Financial services include all insurance and insurance-related services and all banking and other financial services (excluding insurance). Financial services include the following activities:

Insurance and insurance-related services

(i) direct insurance (including co-insurance):
A. life;
B. non-life;
(ii) reinsurance and retro-cession;
(iii) insurance intermediation, such as brokerage and agency;

(iv) services auxiliary to insurance, such as consultancy, actuarial, risk
assessment and claim settlement services;
Banking and other financial services (excluding insurance)
(v) acceptance of deposits and other repayable funds from the public;
(vi) lending of all types, including consumer credit, mortgage credit,
factoring and financing of commercial transaction;
(vii) financial leasing;
(viii) all payment and money transmission services, including credit,
charge and debit cards, travelers checks and bankers drafts;
(ix) guarantees and commitments;
(x) trading for own account or for account of customers, whether on an
exchange, in an over-the-counter market or otherwise, the following:
(A)money market instruments (including checks, bills, certificates
of deposits);
(B) foreign exchange;
(C) derivative products including, but not limited to, futures and
(D)exchange rate and interest rate instruments, including products
such as swaps, forward rate agreements;
(E) transferable securities;
(F) other negotiable instruments and financial assets, including

(xi) participation in issues of all kinds of securities, including
underwriting and placement as agent (whether publicly or privately)
and provision of services related to such issues;
(xii) money broking;
(xiii) asset management, such as cash or portfolio management, all
forms of collective investment management, pension fund
management, custodial, depositary and trust services;
(xiv) settlement and clearing services for financial assets, including
securities, derivative products and other negotiable instruments;
(xv) provision and transfer of financial information, and financial data
processing and related software by suppliers of other financial
(xvi) advisory, intermediation and other auxiliary financial services on
all the activities listed in sub-paragraphs (v) through (xv), including
credit reference and analysis, investment and portfolio research and
advice, advice on acquisitions and on corporate restructuring and

(b) A “financial service supplier” means any natural or juridical person of a
Party wishing to supply or supplying financial services, but the term “financial
service supplier” does not include a public entity.
(c) “public entity” means:

(i) a government, a central bank or a monetary authority, of a Party, or an
entity owned or controlled by a Party, that is principally engaged in
carrying out governmental functions or activities for governmental
purposes, not including an entity principally engaged in supplying
financial services on commercial terms; or
(ii) a private entity performing functions normally performed by a central
bank or monetary authority, when exercising those functions.

(d) “commercial presence” means an enterprise within a Party’s territory for the supply of financial services and includes wholly or partly owned subsidiaries,
joint ventures, partnerships, sole proprietorships, franchising operations,
branches, agencies, representative offices or other organizations;
(e) [PA: “financial institution” means a financial intermediary or other
commercial presence that is authorized to do business and regulated or
supervised as a financial institution under the domestic law of the Party in
whose territory it is located;]
(f) A “new financial service” is a service of a financial nature, including
services related to existing and new products or the manner in which a product
is delivered, that is not supplied by any financial service supplier in the
territory of a Party but which is supplied in the territory of [PA: another
(g) [PA: “self-regulatory organization” means a non-governmental body that exercises its own or delegated regulatory or supervisory authority over
financial service suppliers or financial institutions, including a securities or
futures exchange or market, clearing agency, or other organization or
(h) [EU, US: A “non-resident supplier of financial services” is a financial
service supplier of a Party which supplies a financial service into the territory
of another Party from an establishment located in the territory of another
Party, regardless of whether such a financial services supplier has or has not a
commercial presence in the territory of the Party in which the financial service
is supplied.]

[US: Article X.3: Scheduling Financial Services Commitments

Market Access

1. Each Party shall [HKC: subject to any conditions, reservations, and qualifications inscribed in the Schedule] inscribe in its Schedule, pursuant to Article I-3 of the Agreement, a commitment with respect to

(a) the supply of financial services through commercial presence; and
(b) the supply of financial services listed in Article X.8 [cross-border trade]
with respect to the supply of a financial service from the territory of one
Party into the territory of any other Party, or in the territory of one Party to
the service consumer of any other Party.

National Treatment

2. With respect to the supply of a financial service from the territory of one Party
into the territory of any other Party, or in the territory of one Party to the service consumer of any other Party,
(a) Article I-4 (National Treatment) of the Agreement shall apply to only the
supply of financial services listed in Article X.8 [cross-border trade],
unless a Party otherwise specifies in its Schedule; and
(b) paragraph 3 of Article II-2 of the Agreement shall not apply.]
[EU, US: Article X.4: Standstill
[EU, US: Any conditions, limitations and qualifications to the commitments] [EU:
according to Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 (Financial services purchased by public entities, commercial presence, cross-border Trade, Temporary Entry of Personnel)] [US: in Articles 6, 7 and 8 (Financial services purchased by public entities, commercial presence, cross-border trade)] [EU, US: shall be limited to existing non-conforming measures.]

[AU: The conditions and qualifications on commitments [EU: according to Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9] [US: in Articles 6, 7 and 8] shall be limited to measures that a Party maintains on the date this Agreement takes effect, or the continuation or prompt renewal of such measures.]

Article X.5: Monopoly Rights
[EU, US: In addition to (Article XX/monopolies and exclusive service suppliers) of the Agreement, the following shall apply:

Each Party shall list in its Schedule pertaining to financial services existing monopoly rights and shall endeavor to eliminate them or reduce their scope. Notwithstanding paragraph 2 of Article 1 of this Annex/section, this paragraph applies to the activities referred to in paragraph 2(c) of Article 1 of this Annex/section.]

Article X.6: Financial Services Purchased by Public Entities

[EU, US: Notwithstanding [Section/Article X] of the Agreement [on government
procurement] and subject to any conditions, limitations and qualifications that a Party shall set out in its Schedule in accordance with Article X.4 (Standstill), each Party shall ensure that financial service suppliers of any other Party established in its territory are accorded most-favored-nation treatment and national treatment as regards the purchase or acquisition of financial services by public entities of the Party in its territory.]

Article X.7: Commercial Presence

1. [EU, US: Subject to any conditions, limitations and qualifications that a Party
shall set out in its Schedule in accordance with Article X.4 (Standstill),] [AU:
Subject to any terms limitations, conditions, and qualifications that the Party shall
set out in its Schedule,] [E][e]ach Party shall grant financial service suppliers of
any other Party the right to establish or expand within its territory, including
through the acquisition of existing enterprises, [PA: and without the imposition of
numerical restrictions,1] a commercial presence.

1bis. A Party may impose terms, conditions and procedures for authorization of the establishment and expansion of a commercial presence in so far as they do not circumvent the Party’s obligation under paragraph 1 and they are consistent with the other obligations of this Agreement [PA: in particular:
(a) impose a term or condition on the establishment of additional commercial
presences and determine the institutional and juridical form to be used to
supply a specified financial service or to carry out of a specified activity;
(b) prohibit a particular financial service or activity. Such a prohibition may not
apply to all financial services or to a complete financial services sub-sector
such as banking; or
(c) require that a financial service supplier of another Party be engaged in the
business of providing financial services in the territory of that other Party,
without prejudice to other forms of prudential regulation.]
2. [PA: Each Party shall permit financial service suppliers of any other Party that
owns or controls a financial institution in the Party’s territory to establish in that
territory as many additional commercial presences as may be necessary for the
supply of the full range of financial services allowed under the domestic law of
the Party at the time of establishment of the additional commercial presences.]

Article X.8: Cross-Border Trade
1. [EU, US: Subject to any conditions, limitations and qualifications that a Party
shall set out in its Schedule in accordance with Article X.4 (Standstill),] [AU:
Subject to any terms limitations, conditions and qualifications that the Party shall
set out in its Schedule,] [e][E]ach Party shall permit non-resident suppliers of
financial services to supply, as a principal, through an intermediary or as an
1 For the purpose of this Article, “numerical restrictions” means limitations
imposed either on the basis of a regional subdivision or on the basis of the entire territory of a Party, on the number of financial institutions whether in the form of a numerical quota, a monopoly, an exclusive service supplier or the requirements of an economic needs test.

Limited intermediary, [PA, EU, Norway: and under terms and conditions that accord national treatment,]: the following services:
(a) insurance of risks relating to:
(i) maritime shipping and commercial aviation and space launching
and freight (including satellites), with such insurance to cover any
or all of the following: the [Norway: passengers and] goods being
transported, the vehicle transporting the [Norway: passengers and]
goods and any liability arising therefrom;

(ii) [Norway: ocean-going fishing vessels];
(iii)[Norway: exploration, development, production activities, and
properties in the offshore energy sector by large customers2]; and
(iv) goods in international transit];
(b) reinsurance and retro-cession;
(c) services auxiliary to insurance as referred to in sub-paragraph (a)(iv) of

Article 2 of the Annex;
(d) provision and transfer of financial information and financial data
processing [US: and related software] as referred to in sub-paragraph

(a) (xv) and advisory and other auxiliary services, excluding intermediation,
relating to banking and other financial services as referred to in
sub-paragraph (a)(xvi), both of Article 2 of the Annex.
(e) [US, CA, CH: investment advice to a collective investment scheme
located in the Party’s territory;]
(f) [US, CH: portfolio management services to a collective investment
scheme located in the Party’s territory, excluding
(i) trustee services;
(ii) custodial services and execution services that are not related to
managing a collective investment scheme.3]

2  [Norway: with an activity of at least 10 man-years or annual sales of above
USD 10 million]
3 Custodial services are included in paragraph (e) only with respect to investments for which the primary market is outside of the territory of the Party.

(g) [US: electronic payment services for payment card transactions4 into its
territory from the territory of another Party by a person of that Party. For
the purposes of this subsection:
(i) a “payment card” includes a credit card, charge card, debit card,
check card, automated teller machine (“ATM”) card, prepaid card,
and other similar card or access device, and the unique account
number associated with that card or access device; and
(ii) “electronic payment services for payment card transactions” does
not include the transfer of funds to and from transactors’ accounts.
Furthermore, “electronic payment services for payment card
transactions” includes only those payment network services that
use proprietary networks to process payment transactions.]

2. [PA: Each Party shall permit a person located in its territory, and its nationals
wherever located, to purchase a financial service from a cross-border financial
service supplier of another Party located in the territory of another Party.]
[US, EU: Subject to any conditions, limitations and qualifications that a Party shall set out in its Schedule in accordance with Article X.4 (Standstill),] [EU, Norway, US: [e]
[E]ach Party shall permit its residents to purchase in the territory of any other Party the financial services indicated in:
(a) paragraph 1(a);
(b) paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c); and
(c) sub-paragraphs (a)(v) to (xvi) of Article X.2.]
3. [PA: Without prejudice to other means of prudential regulation of cross-border
trade in financial services, a Party may require the registration of cross-border
financial service suppliers of another Party and of financial instruments.]

[EU: Article X.9: Temporary Entry of Personnel (to be adapted to horizontal M4
1. Subject to any conditions, reservations and qualifications that a Party shall set out in its Schedule in accordance with Article X.4 (Standstill), [AU: Subject to any
terms limitations, conditions and qualifications that the Party shall set out in its
4 For great certainty, the electronic payment services for payment card
transactions referred to in this commitment fall within subparagraph (h) of the definition of “financial service” in Article 2, and within subcategory 71593 of the United Nations Central Product Classification, Version 2.0, and include only the processing of financial transactions such as verification of financial balances, authorization of transactions, notification of banks (or credit card issuers) of individual transactions and provision of daily summaries and instructions
regarding the net financial position of relevant institutions for authorized transactions. Schedule,] each Party shall permit temporary entry into its territory of the following personnel of a financial service supplier of any other Party that is
establishing or has established a commercial presence in the territory of the Party:

(i) senior managerial personnel possessing proprietary information
essential to the establishment, control and operation of the services
of the financial service supplier; and

(ii) specialists in the operation of the financial service supplier.
2. Subject to conditions, reservations and qualifications that a Party shall set out in its Schedule in accordance with Article X.4 (Standstill), [AU: Subject to any
terms limitations, conditions and qualifications that the Party shall set out in its
Schedule,] each Party shall permit, subject to the availability of qualified
personnel in its territory, temporary entry into its territory of the following
personnel associated with a commercial presence of a financial service supplier of
any other Party:

(i) specialists in computer services, telecommunication services and
accounts of the financial service supplier; and
(ii) actuarial and legal specialists.]

Article X.10: New Financial Services
Each Party shall permit financial service suppliers of any other Party established in its territory to [PA, US: supply any new financial service that the Party would permit its own like financial services supplier to supply without adopting a law or modifying an existing law.5]

[EU: to offer in its territory any new financial service.]
[PA, EU: A Party may determine the juridical form through which the service may be provided and may require authorization for the provision of the service. Where such authorization is required, a decision shall be made within a reasonable time and the authorization may only be refused for prudential reasons.]
[US: Notwithstanding (Market Access, paragraph on juridical form), a Party may determine the institutional and juridical form through which the new financial service may be supplied, and may require authorization for the supply of the service. Where a Party requires a financial service supplier to obtain authorization to supply a new financial service, the Party shall decide within a reasonable time whether to issue the authorization and the authorization may only be refused for prudential reasons.]

5 For greater certainty, a Party may issue a new regulation or other subordinate
measure in permitting the supply of the new financial service.

 Article X.11: [PA: Data Processing and Treatment of Certain Information] [EU: Transfers of Information and Processing of Information] [US: Transfer of Information]

1. [PA, EU: No Party shall take measures that prevent transfers of information or the processing of financial information, including transfers of data by electronic
means, into and out of its territory, for data processing or that, subject to
importation rules consistent with international agreements, prevent transfers of
equipment, where such transfers of information, processing of financial
information or transfers of equipment are necessary for the conduct of the
ordinary business of a financial service supplier. Nothing in this paragraph
restricts the right of a Party to protect personal data, personal privacy and the
confidentiality of individual records and accounts so long as such right is not used
to circumvent the provisions of this Agreement.]

2. [PA: Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a Party is not required to furnish or allow access to:

(a) information related to the financial affairs and accounts of an individual
customer of a financial institution or a cross-border financial service
supplier; or
(b) confidential information which if disclosed would impede law
enforcement or otherwise contrary to the public interest or prejudice
legitimate commercial interests of a particular commercial presence.]
[US: Each Party shall allow a financial service supplier of another Party to transfer
information in electronic or other form, into and out of its territory, for data processing where such processing is required in the financial service supplier’s ordinary course of business.]
[KR: The scope of financial information will be defined by each Party’s domestic laws and regulations.]

Article X.12: Payment and Clearing Systems
Under terms and conditions that accord national treatment, each Party shall grant to financial service suppliers of any other Party established in its territory access to payment and clearing systems operated by public entities, and to official funding and refinancing facilities available in the normal course of ordinary business. This paragraph is not intended to confer access to the Party’s lender of last resort facilities.

Article X.13: Self-Regulatory Organizations
[PA, EU: When membership or participation in, or access to, any self-regulatory body, securities or futures exchange or market, clearing agency, or any other organization or association, is required by a Party in order for financial service suppliers of any other Party to supply financial services on an equal basis with financial service suppliers of the Party, or when a Party provides directly or indirectly such entities, privileges or advantages in supplying financial services, the Party shall ensure that such entities accord national treatment to financial service suppliers of any other Party resident in the territory of the Party.]

[PA: subject to any conditions and qualifications set out in its Schedule.]

[US: Where a Party requires a financial service supplier of another Party to be a Party of, participate in, or have access to, a self-regulatory organization to provide a financial service in or into the territory of that Party, the Party shall ensure observance of the obligations of Articles [I-4] (National Treatment) and

[xx] (Most Favored Nation Treatment) by such self-regulatory organization.]
1. [PA: For purposes of the national treatment obligations in Article X.7
(Cross-Border Trade), a Party shall accord to a cross-border financial service
supplier of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own financial service suppliers, in like circumstances, with respect to the supply of the relevant service.]

2. [PA: Differences in market share, profitability or size do not in themselves
establish a breach of the obligations under this Article.]

PA: Article X.14: Senior Management and Boards of Directors
1. [PA: A Party may not require a financial institution of another Party to engage
natural persons of any particular nationality as senior managerial or other
essential personnel.]

2. [PA: A Party may not require that more than a simple majority of the board of
directors of a financial institution of another Party be composed of nationals of
the Party or natural persons residing in the territory of the Party.]

Article X.15 Non-discriminatory measures
1. Each Party shall endeavor to remove or to limit any significant adverse effects on financial service suppliers of any other Party of:

(a) non-discriminatory measures that prevent financial service suppliers from
offering in the Party’s territory, in the form determined by the Party, all the
financial services permitted by the Party;
(b) non-discriminatory measures that limit the expansion of the activities of
financial service suppliers into the entire territory of the Party;
(c) measures of a Party, when such a Party applies the same measures to the
supply of both banking and securities services, and a financial service
supplier of any other Party concentrates its activities in the provision of
securities services; and
(d) other measures that, although respecting the provisions of the Agreement,
affect adversely the ability of financial service suppliers of any other Party
to operate, complete or enter the Party’s market;
provided that any action taken under this paragraph would not unfairly discriminate against financial service suppliers of the Party taking such action.

2. With respect to the non-discriminatory measures referred to in [sub-paragraphs [x(a) and (b) (immediately above)]] a Party shall endeavor not to limit or restrict the present degree of market opportunities, nor the benefits already enjoyed by financial service suppliers of another Party as a class in the territory of the Party, provided that this commitment does not result in unfair discrimination against financial service suppliers of the Party applying such measures.

[PA: Article X.16: Transparent Regulations

1. The Parties recognize that transparent regulations and policies governing the
activities of financial institutions and financial service suppliers are important in
facilitating access of financial institutions and financial suppliers to, and their
operations in, each others markets.
2. Each Party shall make available to interested persons domestic requirements and applicable procedures for completing applications relating to the supply of
financial services. Upon request of an applicant, the Party concerned shall inform
the applicant of the status of its application. If the Party concerned requires
additional information from the applicant, it shall notify the applicant without
undue delay.
3. Where a license or an authorization is required for the supply of a financial
service, the competent authorities of a Party shall make the requirements for such a license or authorization publicly available. The period of time normally required to reach a decision concerning an application for a license or an authorization shall:

(a) be made available to the applicant upon request;
(b) be made publicly available; or
(c) be made available by a combination of both.]

[EU, TR: Article X.16 Effective and Transparent Regulation
1. Each Party shall, to the extent practicable, provide in advance to all interested
persons any measure of general application that the Party proposes to adopt in
order to allow an opportunity for such persons to comment on the measure. Such measure shall be provided:

(a) by means of an official publication; or
(b) in other written or electronic form.

2. Each Party shall make available to interested persons its requirements for
completing applications relating to the supply of financial services.
On the request of an applicant, the concerned Party shall inform the applicant of the status of its application. If the concerned Party requires additional information from the applicant, it shall notify the applicant without undue delay. [para. 2 may need to be adapted to DR chapter]

3. [EU: Each Party shall make its best endeavors to ensure that] [TR: Parties are encouraged to ensure that/ Parties shall take into consideration, where appropriate, that/ Special regard shall be given that] internationally agreed standard for regulation and supervision in the financial services sector and for the fight against tax evasion and avoidance are implemented and applied in its territory. Such internationally agreed standards are, inter alia, those adopted by the G20, the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The Parties [EU: also take note of the] [TR: shall, whenever appropriate draw guidance from the] “Ten Key Principles for Information Exchange” promulgated by the G7, and will take all steps necessary to try to apply them in their bilateral contacts.]

[US: Article X.16: Transparency

1. Articles [XX] of Annex [XX] (Domestic Regulations and/or Transparency) shall not apply to measures within the scope of this Annex.

2. The Parties recognize that transparent regulations and policies governing the
activities of financial service suppliers are important in facilitating their ability to
gain access to and operate in each others market. Each Party commits to promote regulatory transparency in trade in financial services.

3. Each Party shall ensure that all measure of general application to which this
Annex applies are administered in a reasonable, objective, and impartial manner.

4. Each Party shall, to the extent practicable,

(a) publish in advance any regulations of general application relating to the
subject matter of this Annex that it proposes to adopt and the purpose of
the regulation; and
(b) provide interested persons and Parties a reasonable opportunity to
comment on such proposed regulations.

5. At the time it adopts a final regulation, a Party should, to the extent practicable, address in writing substantive comments received from interested persons with respect to the proposed regulation.

6. Each Party should, to the extent practicable, allow reasonable time between
publication of a final regulation of general application and its effective date.

7. Each Party shall ensure that a rule of general application adopted or maintained by self-regulatory organizations of the Party is promptly published or otherwise made available in such a manner as to enable interested persons to become acquainted with it.

8. Each Party shall maintain or establish appropriate mechanisms for responding to inquires from interested persons regarding a measure of general application
covered by this Annex.

9. Each Party’s regulatory authorities shall make publicly available to interested
persons the requirements, including any documentation required, for completing
an application relating to the supply of financial services.

10.On the request of an applicant, a Party’s regulatory authority shall inform the
applicant of the status of its application. If the authority requires additional
information from the applicant, it shall notify the applicant without undue delay.

11. A Party’s regulatory authority shall make an administrative decision on a
completed application of a financial service supplier of another Party relating to
the supply of a financial service within 120 days, and shall promptly notify the
applicant of the decision. An application shall not be considered complete until all
relevant hearing are held and all necessary information is received. Where it is not practicable for a decision to be made within 120 days, the regulatory authority shall notify the applicant without undue delay and shall endeavor to make the decision within a reasonable time thereafter.

12.On the request of an unsuccessful applicant, a regulatory authority that has denied an application shall, to the extent practicable, inform the applicant of the reasons for denial of the application.]

Article X.17: Prudential Measures
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, a Party shall not be
prevented from [PA, EU: taking] [US: adopting or maintaining] measures for
prudential reasons, including for:

(a) the protection of investors, depositors, [PA, US financial market users],
policy-holders or persons to whom a fiduciary duty is owed by a financial
service supplier; or
(b) to ensure the integrity and stability of a Party’s financial system.

2. Where such measures do not conform with the provisions of this Agreement, they shall not be used as a means of avoiding the Party’s commitments or obligations under the Agreement.

[US, EU Article X.18: Treatment of Information

Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require a Party to disclose
information relating to the affairs and accounts of individual consumers or any
confidential or proprietary information in the possession of public entities.]

[EU, US: Article X.19: Recognition

1. A Party may recognize a prudential measure of any other country in determining how the Party’s measure relating to financial services shall be applied. Such recognition, which may be achieved through harmonization or otherwise, may be based upon an agreement or arrangement with the country concerned or may be accorded autonomously.
2. A Party that is a party to such an agreement or arrangement referred to in
paragraph [1], whether future or existing, shall afford adequate opportunity for
other interested Parties to negotiate their accession to such agreements or
arrangements, or to negotiate comparable ones with it, under circumstances in
which there would be equivalent regulation, oversight, implementation of such
regulation, and, if appropriate, procedures concerning the sharing of information
between the Parties to the agreement or arrangement. Where a Party accords
recognition autonomously, it shall afford adequate opportunity for any other
Party to demonstrate that such circumstances exist.]

[EU, US: Article X.20: Dispute Settlement [EU: may need to be adapted to DS section]]

1. [EU, US: A Panel for disputes on prudential issues and other financial matters
shall have the necessary expertise relevant to the specific financial service under
2. [US: Where a [Panel] finds a measure to be inconsistent with this Agreement and the measure affects:

(a) only a sector other than the financial services sector, the complaining
Party may not suspend benefits in the financial services sector; or
(b) the financial services sector and any other sector, the complaining Party
may suspend benefits in the financial services sector that have an effect
equivalent to the effect of the measure in the Party’s financial services

[US: Article X.21: Expedited Availability of Insurance
The Parties recognize the importance of maintaining and developing regulatory
procedures to expedite the offering of insurance services by licensed suppliers. These procedures may include allowing introduction of products unless those products are disapproved within a reasonable time; not requiring product approval or authorization of insurance lines for insurance other than insurance sold to individuals or compulsory insurance; and not imposing limitations on the number or frequency of product introductions. If a Party maintains regulatory product approval procedures related to the offering of products within the scope of an insurance license, the Party shall endeavor to
maintain or improve these existing procedures.]

[US: Article X.22: Supply of Insurance by Postal Insurance Entities

1. The disciplines set out in this section apply where a Party allows its postal
insurance entity to underwrite and supply direct insurance services to the general
public. The services covered by this paragraph do not include the supply of insurance related to the collection, transport and delivery of letters or packages
by a Party’s postal insurance entity.

2. No Party [KR: to the extent possible] adopt or maintain a measure that creates conditions of competition that are more favorable to a postal insurance entity with respect to the supply of insurance services described in paragraph 1 as compared to a private supplier of like insurance services in its market, including by:

(a) imposing more onerous conditions on a private supplier’s license to
supply insurance services than the conditions the Party imposes on a
postal insurance entity to supply like services; or
(b) making a distribution channel for the sale of insurance services available
to a postal insurance entity under terms and conditions more favorable
than those it applies to private suppliers of like services.

3. With respect to the supply of insurance services described in paragraph 1 by a
postal insurance entity, a Party shall apply the same [KR: level of] regulations
and enforcement activities as apply to the supply of like insurance services by
private suppliers.
4. In implementing its obligations under paragraph 3, a Party shall require a postal insurance entity that supplies insurance services described in paragraph 1 to publish an annual financial statement with respect to the supply of such services.

The statement shall provide the level of detail and meet the auditing standards
required under the generally accepted accounting and auditing principles, or
equivalent rules, applied in the Party’s territory with respect to publicly traded
private enterprises supplying like services.
[KR: The statement shall provide the level of detail and meet the auditing standards required under the generally accepted accounting and auditing principles, or equivalent rules, applied in the Party’s territory with respect to publicly traded private enterprises supplying like services.]
5. If a Panel under [Dispute Settlement] finds that a Party is maintaining a measure inconsistent with any of the commitments in paragraphs 2 through 4, the Party shall notify the complaining Party or Parties and provide an opportunity for consultations prior to allowing the postal insurance entity to:

(a) issue a new insurance product, or modify an existing product in a manner
equivalent to the creation of a new product, in competition with like
insurance products supplied by a private supplier in the Party’s market; or
(b) increase any limitation on the value of insurance, either in total or with
regard to any type of insurance product, that the entity may sell to a single

[KR: If a Panel under [Dispute Settlement] finds that a Party is maintaining a measure inconsistent with any of the commitments in paragraphs 2 through 4, the Party shall notify the complaining Party or Parties and provide an opportunity for consultations prior to allowing the postal insurance entity to:

(a) issue a new insurance product, or modify an existing product in a manner
equivalent to the creation of a new product, in competition with like
insurance products supplied by a private supplier in the Party’s market; or
(b) increase any limitation on the value of insurance, either in total or with
regard to any type of insurance product, that the entity may sell to a single

6. This section does not apply to a postal insurance entity in the territory of a Party:

(a) that the Party neither owns nor controls, directly or indirectly, as long as
the Party does not maintain any advantage that modifies the conditions of
competition in favor of the postal insurance entity in the supply of insurance services as compared to a private supplier of like insurance
services in its market; or
(b) if neither the sale of direct life nor non-life insurance underwritten by the
postal insurance entity accounts for more than ten percent of total annual
premium income in the relevant segment of the Party’s market as of

7. If a postal insurance entity in the territory of a Party exceeds the percentage
threshold referred to in paragraph 6(b) after the date the Party signs the
Agreement, the Party shall [KR: to the extent practicable,] ensure that the postal
insurance entity is:

(a) regulated by and subject to the enforcement of the same authorities that
regulate and conduct enforcement activities with respect to the supply of
insurance services by private suppliers; and
(b) subject to the financial reporting requirements applying to financial
services supplies supplying insurance services.

8. For purposes of this section, postal insurance entity means an entity that
underwrites and sells insurance to the general public and is owned or controlled,
directly or indirectly by a postal entity of the Party.]
[US: Additional proposal on sectoral cooperatives selling insurance under




Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial …

Financial Globalization – National Bureau of Economic …

WikiLeaks – Trade in Services Agreement

World Trade Center Building 7 Performance Study


, , , ,


The investigation team found that the damage of WTC 7 could NOT explain the collapse.

What did the government do to investigate the unprecedented collapse of a steel-framed building from fires? It gave FEMA the sole discretion to investigate the collapse, even though FEMA is not an investigative agency.

FEMA assembled a team of volunteer engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), to write the World Trade Center Building Performance Study. The engineers were not granted access to the site of the catastrophe. Rather, they were allowed to pick through some pieces of metal that arrived at the Fresh Kills Landfill.

Fresh Kill LandfillMost of the steel was never seen by the part-time investigators. It had been sold to scrap metal vendors, and was being shipped out to overseas ports as quickly as the newly constructed infrastructure could handle.

Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center

The BPAT lacked subpoena power, hence was unable to obtain access to important documents such as engineering drawings of the buildings. 2

The FEMA/ASCE investigation was not funded by an act of Congress, and given a paltry $600,000 by FEMA. 1  A March 2002 hearing transcript revealed that, just two month before publishing its final report the BPAT still had not been able to see blueprints for WTC 7 or the Twin Towers since they lacked subpoena power. 2  

NIST_WTC_Investigation WTC 7 Reports-861610That investigation was taken over by the the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in late 2001 amid complaints that the ASCE investigation was being hampered.

In addition, the concurrent criminal investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a separate investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board further frustrated the building performance investigators.


The investigation has been hampered by a number of issues, including:

    · No clear authority and the absence of an effective protocol for how the building performance investigators should conduct and coordinate their investigation with the concurrent search and rescue efforts, as well as any criminal investigation: Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort.

    · Difficulty obtaining documents essential to the investigation, including blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records: The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of “liability concerns.” The documents are necessary to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models that can explain why the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future.

Fresh Kills sorting area    · Uncertainty as a result of the confidential nature of the BPAT study: The confidential nature of the BPAT study prevented the timely discovery of potential gaps in the investigation, which was never filled and now that important and valuable data has been lost.

The confidentiality agreement that FEMA requires its BPAT members to sign has frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse, who are unsure if their work is complementary to, or duplicative of, that of the BPAT team. In addition, the agreement has prevented the sharing of research results and the ordinary scientific give-and-take that otherwise allows scientists and engineers to winnow ideas and strengthen results.

    · Uncertainty as to the strategy for completing the investigation and applying the Lessons Learned: The BPAT team could not plan, nor did it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Nor could examine other important issues, such as building evacuation mechanisms. Instead, FEMA had asked the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to take over the investigation.

FEMA’s BPAT, the only official organization that reported on Building 7’s collapse within two years of the attack, published their Final Report in May of 2002, just after the last building remains had been scrubbed from Ground Zero. The Report was completely indecisive about the cause of Building 7’s collapse.

NIST’s Investigation

Later, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was charged with investigating the collapses of the World Trade Center skyscrapers by the National Construction Safety Team Act (H.R. 4687), enacted on Oct. 1, 2002.  3 Unlike FEMA, NIST chose to separate their analysis of the Twin Towers and Building 7 into two separate reports. Although they initially promised to release their final report on Building 7 in mid-2005, they delayed the publication date multiple times.

The BPAT apparently didn’t rate admission to Ground Zero.

BPAT members have coffee
Members of the BPAT examine some of the few pieces of steel that the people running the “cleanup operation” sent their way at Fresh Kill Landfill.

The World Trade Center Building Performance Study,  Chapter 5. WTC 7 report makes unsubstantiated claims and uses a variety of deceptive techniques to make the total collapse of Building 7 due to fires seem less implausible than it is.

The Report is inconclusive about the cause of Building 7’s collapse, stating:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain “unknown at this time.” Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the “best hypothesis” has only a low probability of occurrence. “Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”

WTC Building 7 Collapse – 23 angles

FEMA played a central role in the “cleanup” of Ground Zero, which led to the destruction of nearly all of the body of evidence any thorough investigation would need.

By the time the Report was published, calling for further research, investigation, and analyses, nearly all of the structural steel had been recycled.

World Trade Center Building 7 Performance StudyInvestigation Team

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D, Senior Vice President of Construction Technologies Laboratory in Skokie, IL, served as principal investigator. Corley was also the principal investigator for FEMA’s study of the 1995 Murrah Federal Office Building attack. The BPAT’s investigation was funded by $600,000 from FEMA and $500,000 in ASCE in-kind contributions. 1 By December of 2001 $100,000 had been spent on the investigation.

FEMA’s Report

It is important to note that not all of these pieces from the WTC were kept for further study. This is because:

  • once a piece was taken, the full piece was discarded; and
  • pieces were accidentally processed in salvage yard operations before they were removed from the yards for further study.

WTC 7 column tree with beams attached to two floors.

Comments are marked up in red exposing many of these deceptions.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction (with comment)
Chapter 2 WTC 1 and WTC 2 (with comment)
Chapter 3 WTC 3
Chapter 4 WTC 4, 5, and 6
Chapter 5 WTC 7 (with comment)
Chapter 6 Bankers Trust Building
Chapter 7 Peripheral Buildings
Appendix A Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings (with comment)
Appendix B Structural Steel and Steel Connections (with comment)
Appendix D WTC Steel Data Collection (with comment)

Appendix C Limited Metallurgical Examination

Report Description

The Report is illustrated with cartoon like drawings, such as one explaining FEMA’s postulated floor collapse mechanism. It seems crafted to mislead the casual reader into thinking that the Towers had no core structures.

Despite its distortions, FEMA’s Report provides a substantial amount of data about the event not documented elsewhere, and conspicuously absent from NIST’s reports. For example, Appendix C describes observations, interesting from a forensic standpoint, that steel members were severely corroded by sulfidative attack.

FEMA 403 — Chapter 5 – Federal Emergency Management Study


World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. On the contrary, it appears the collapse was primarily due to a controlled demolition. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.

On September 11, WTC 7 collapsed totally. It is suggested below that this collapse was exclusively due to fire. No significant evidence is offered to back up this suggestion (after all it is only a suggestion). It should be emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of debris from the collapse of the twin towers. It is also widely claimed that WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed mainly due to fire. I emphasize, that before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

As you can see the collapse of WTC 7 certainly has the appearance of a controlled demolition.

wtc7-demolitionThis shows that all the supports for the structure failed at the same time. Some coincidence eh? This video evidence is so compelling that no other evidence is really necessary.

The structural design and construction features of this building, potential fuel loads, fire damage, and the observed sequence of collapse are presented to (convince the uninformed reader that fires, rather than a controlled demolition, bought down the building) provide a better understanding of what may have happened. However, confirmation will require additional study and analysis. Information about the structural design and construction features and the observed sequence of events is based upon a review of structural drawings, photographs, videos, eyewitness reports, and a 1986 article about the construction features of WTC 7 (Salvarinas 1986). In addition, the following information and data were obtained from the indicated sources:

  • Annotated floor plans and riser diagrams of the emergency generators and related diesel oil tanks and distribution systems (Silverstein Properties 2002)
  • Engineering explanation of the emergency generators and related diesel oil tanks and distribution systems (Flack and Kurtz, Inc. 2002)
  • Information on the continuity of power to WTC 7 (Davidowitz 2002)
  • Summary of diesel oil recovery and spillage (Rommel 2002)
  • Information on WTC 7 fireproofing (Lombardi 2002)
  • Information on the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) tanks at WTC 7 (Odermatt 2002)

Conspicuously missing are important items such as the actual building blueprints. Note the wealth of items concerning the back up generators and fuel tanks and some almost irrelevant items, such as the tenant list. These items are meant to convince the reader that fire bought down WTC 7 even though no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire and even though there is no evidence that the fires were anything other than small and localized.

The 47-story office building had 1,868,000 square feet of office space. The top 40 stories of the building (floors 8 to 47) were office type occupancies. Table 5.1 lists the larger tenants of WTC 7. WTC 7 was completed in 1987 by a development team composed of the following parties:

  • Owner/Developer: Seven World Trade Company, Silverstein Development Corporation, General Partner
  • Construction Manager: Tishman Construction Corporation of New York
  • Design Architect: Emery Roth & Sons, P.C.
  • Structural Consultant: The Office of Irwin G. Cantor, P.C.
  • Mechanical/Electrical Consultant: Syska & Hennessy, P.C.
  • Structural Consultant (Con Ed Substation): Leslie E. Robertson Associates

Table 5.1 WTC 7 Tenants

Floor Tenant
46-47 Mechanical floors
28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
26-27 Standard Chartered Bank
25 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
25 Department of Defense (DOD)
25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
24 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
21 First State Management Group
19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International
7 OEM generators and day tank
6 Switchgear, storage
5 Switchgear, generators, transformers
4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear
3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, manage
2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear
1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear

As shown in Figure 1-1 (WTC site map in Chapter 1), WTC 7 was located north of the main WTC complex, across Vesey Street, and was linked to the WTC Plaza by two pedestrian bridges: the large Plaza bridge and a smaller, glass-enclosed pedestrian bridge. The bridges spanned 95 feet across Vesey Street, connecting the Plaza and the 3rd floor of WTC 7. In addition to the office occupancies, WTC 7 also contained an electrical substation, and the WTC Complex shipping ramp, as shown in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1 Foundation plan – WTC 7.

The substation and shipping ramp occupied major portions of the WTC 7 site. The substation was built prior to the office tower, supplied electrical power to lower Manhattan, and covered approximately half the site. The shipping ramp (5,200 square feet in area, approximately 10 percent of the WTC 7 site) was used by the entire WTC complex.

5.2 Structural Description

5.2.1 Foundations

With the development of an office tower in mind, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereafter referred to as the Port Authority) installed caissons intended for future construction. However, Seven World Trade Company, Silverstein Development Corporation, General Partner, decided to construct a building much larger in both height and floor area. This statement appears to be wrong. Assuming, figure 5-1 is drawn to scale, the floor area of the “original footprint” (green caissons) of WTC 7 is actually larger than the “final footprint” (blue caissons). The designers combined the existing caissons inside the substation with new caissons inside and outside the substation to create the foundation for WTC 7. Figure 5-1 shows the location of pre-existing caissons built when the Con Ed substation was constructed along with new caissons that were installed for the support of the building. The discrepancy in the column locations between the substation and the office tower required transfers to carry loads from the office tower to the substation and finally into the foundation. Old and new caissons, as well as old and new columns, also can be seen in the foundation plan shown in Figure 5-1.

5.2.2 Structural Framing

The typical floor framing shown in Figure 5-2 was used for the 8th through the 45th floors. The gravity framing consisted of composite beams (typically W16x26 and W24x55) that spanned from the core to the perimeter.

The beams that spanned from the north perimeter wall to the central core of WTC Seven, were about 53 feet in length. The trusses that supposedly spanned from the perimeter wall to the central core in the Twin Towers, were 60 feet long. One has to question why solid beams were used in WTC Seven and only flimsy trusses in WTC’s One and Two. Of course the answer is that flimsy trusses were not used in WTC’s One and Two, we have only been told that they were. We have been lied to.

Figure 5-2 Plan view of typical floor framing for the 8th through 45th floors.

For those not familiar with the standard designations for I-beams (i.e., labels like W16x26 and W24x55), click here, for the dimensions of some commonly used beams.

The floor slab was an electrified composite 3-inch metal deck with 2-1/2-inch normal-weight concrete fill spanning between the steel beams. Below the 8th floor, floors generally consisted of formed slabs with some limited areas of concrete-filled metal decks. There were numerous gravity column transfers, the more significant of these being three interior gravity column transfers between floors 5 to 7 and eight cantilever column transfers in the north elevation at the 7th floor. The column transfers in the exterior walls are shown in the bracing elevations (Figure 5-3).

Figure 5-3 Elevations of building and core area.

The lateral load resisting system consisted of four perimeter moment frames, one at each exterior wall, augmented by two-story belt trusses between the 5th and 7th floors and between the 22nd and 24th floors. There were additional trusses at the east and west elevations below the 7th floor. An interior braced core extended from the foundation to the 7th floor. The horizontal shear was transferred into the core at the 5th and the 7th floors. The 5th floor diaphragm (plan shown in Figure 5-4) consisted of a reinforced concrete 14-inch-thick slab with embedded steel T-sections. The 7th floor was an 8-inch-thick reinforced concrete slab.

Note that the concrete slab on the 5th floor was 14-inch-thick and had embedded steel T-sections. The 7th floor was similar, but with 8-inch-thick concrete. The 5th and 7th floors were so robustly built as they were meant to transfer much of the horizontal shear (lateral loading) to the core. Strange that according to the “official lie” the twin towers had no need for such heavily reinforced concrete slabs to transfer lateral forces to the core, indeed, it seem that we are meant to believe that lightweight trusses sufficed. Strange, indeed. 

Figure 5-4 Fifth floor diaphragm plan showing T-sections embedded in 14-inch slab.

The 5th and 7th floors contained the diaphragm floors, belt trusses, and transfer girders. A 3-D rendering of Truss 1, Truss 2, Truss 3, and several cantilever transfer girders is shown in Figure 5-5.

Figure 5-5 3-D diagram showing relation of trusses and transfer girders.

5.2.3 Transfer Trusses and Girders

The transfer trusses and girders, shown in Figure 5-6, were located between the 5th and 7th floors. The function and design of each transfer system are described below.

Figure 5-6 Seventh floor plan showing locations of transfer trusses and girders.

Truss 1 was situated in the northeast sector of the core, and spanned in the east-west direction. As shown in Figure 5-7, this truss was a two-story double transfer structure that provided load transfers between non-concentric columns above the 7th floor to an existing column and girder at the 5th floor. The girder then provided a second load transfer to an additional two columns. The 7th floor column supported 41 floors and part of the east mechanical penthouse. Its load was transferred through the triangular truss into a column located above an existing substation column and girder at the 5th floor. The 36.5-ton built-up double web girder spanned in the north-south direction between two new columns that started at the foundation and terminated at the 7th floor. The truss diagonals were W14 shapes and the horizontal tie was a 22-ton, builtup shape.

Figure 5-7 Truss 1 detail. (BPM = built-up plate member.)

A system of such triangular trusses was used in the south tower (WTC 2) to transfer the column load from those columns rising directly above the subway. These columns rose some 114 floors above the subway line. Consequently, these trusses carried a far more substantial load than those described here. This system of trusses can be clearly seen in this construction photo.

Truss 2 was a single transfer located south of Truss 1. As shown in Figure 5-8, Truss 2 transferred the column load from the 7th floor through a triangular truss into two existing columns at the 5th floor. Large gusset plates were provided at the connection between the diagonals, the columns, and the horizontal tie. The diagonals and the built-up horizontal tie were field-welded.

Figure 5-8 Truss 2 detail. (BPM = built-up plate member.)
Truss 3 was a cantilevered two-story transfer structure in the north-south direction between the 5th and 7th floors at the western end of the core area. As shown in Figure 5-9, Truss 3 transferred the loads between columns. The upper columns carried 41 floors of load and were cantilevered to the north of the column that went from the foundation to the 7th floor.

Figure 5-9 Truss 3 detail.

The cantilever transfer girders, shown in Figure 5-10, spanned between the core and the north elevation at the 7th floor. There were eight transfer girders to redirect the load of the building above the 7th floor into the columns that went through the Con Ed substation. These girders cantilevered 6 feet 9 inches between the substation and the north facade of the building above. The girders extended an additional 46 feet to the core. The two transfer girders at the east end of the building were connected to Truss 1, creating a double transfer. The girders varied in depth from 9 feet at the north end, to a tapered portion in the middle, and to 4 feet 6 inches at the southern section closest to the core. Each transfer girder weighed approximately 52 tons. At the north wall, between the 7th and 5th floors, transferred columns were also part of the belt truss that circled the building as part of the lateral-load-resisting system and acted as a transfer for the columns above the shipping ramp.

Figure 5-10 Cantilever transfer girder detail.

The original graphic is particularly misleading and has been altered. 

5.2.4 Connections

A variety of framing connections were used. Seated beam connections were used between the exterior columns and the floor beams. Single-plate shear connections were generally used at beam-to-beam connections. Double-angle connections were provided between some beam and end-plate connections at beam-to-interior columns. Floor-framing connections used 7/8-inch-diameter ASTM A325 bolts; connections for bracing, moment frames, and column splices used 1-inch diameter ASTM A490 bolts.

Along the east and west elevations, center-to-center column spacing was typically less than 10 feet. Column trees were used at these locations. A column tree is a shop-fabricated column assembly with beam stubs shop-welded to the column flanges. The field connections were made at the end of the stubs at the center of the span between columns. One-sided lap plates were used for both flange and web connections.

Along the north and south elevations, and within the core up to the 7th floor, the spans were approximately 28 feet. At these locations, traditional moment frame construction was used. Top and bottom flange plates, as well as one-sided web shear plates, were shop-welded to column flanges. The beams were then field-bolted into the connection.

The majority of column splices were bolted according to American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) details. They were located 3 feet 6 inches above the floor and were not designed to accommodate tensile forces. Columns below the 7th floor were often “jumbo” shapes (W14x455 to W14x730) or built-up jumbo box shapes with plates up to 10 inches thick welded from flange to flange, parallel to the web, to provide the necessary section properties. For these massive columns, either the upper shaft was beveled to be field-welded or side plates were shop-welded to the lower shaft and field-welded to the upper shaft once the column was erected and plumb.

The majority of the bracing members were two channels or two T-sections connected to the structure by a welded gusset plate. A single wide flange cross-section was also used. These members were connected with web and flange plates, similar to those used in the moment frames. Some of the bracing members on the east and west sides of the building were as large as the jumbo column sections. Large connection plates were sandwiched to each side of these large braces, beams, and columns at their junctions. Bolts attached all the components to each other at these joints.

The granite facade panels were manufactured off site and were supported by individual trusses. Each panel had a single vertical/gravity connection and top and bottom lateral/wind connections to transmit these forces back to the base building. Horizontal panel adjustments could be accommodated within the panel itself. The building columns had welded angles and channels that provided horizontal and lateral support. The top of the panel was connected to the angle, and the bottom of the panel was connected to the channel. These steel-panel connections had vertically slotted holes for vertical adjustment.

5.3 Fire Protection Systems

5.3.1 Egress Systems

There were two main exit stairways in WTC 7. Stairway 1 was located on the west side, and Stairway 2 was located on the east side within the central core. Both exit stairways discharged directly to the exterior at ground level and were approximately 4 feet 10 inches wide. The stairways were built of fire-rated construction using gypsum wallboard. Subsequent to the 1993 bombing incident at the WTC, battery operated emergency lighting was provided in the stairways and photo-luminescent paint was placed on the edge of the stair treads to facilitate emergency egress. In addition to the battery-powered lighting, the stairs also had emergency system lighting powered by the generators.

Twenty-eight passenger elevators and three service elevators served the various levels of WTC 7. Occupants using the elevators would typically discharge at the third level and either exit through the Lobby to bridges bringing them over to the WTC Plaza, or proceed down the escalators to grade level.

5.3.2 Detection and Alarm

Smoke detectors were located in telecommunications, electrical, and communications closets, as well as inside the HVAC system ducts, in the mechanical rooms, and in all elevator lobbies. Manual pull stations were provided at the entrances to stairways and at each of the exits. Speakers for voice evacuation announcements were located throughout the building and were activated manually at the Fire Control Center (FCC). Strobes were provided and were activated automatically upon detection of smoke, water flow, or initiation of a manual pull station. Monitoring of the fire-alarm control panel for WTC 7 was provided independently at a central station. In addition to the emergency generators, the existing uninterruptible power supply (UPS) provided 4 hours of full operation for the fire-alarm system and 12 hours of standby operation. The floor contained a combination of area smoke and heat detectors.

5.3.3 Compartmentalization

Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.

Figure 5-11 Compartmentalization provided by concrete floor slabs.

A zoned smoke control system was present in WTC 7. This system was designed to pressurize the floors above and below the floor of alarm, and exhaust the floor of alarm to limit smoke and heat spread.

The fireproofing material used to protect the structural members has been identified by Silverstein Properties as “Monokote.” The Port Authority informed the BPS Team that New York City Building Code Construction Classification 1B (2-hour rating for beams, girders, trusses, and 3-hour rating for columns) was specified for WTC 7 in accordance with the architectural specifications on the construction notes drawing PA-O. According to the Port Authority, the construction notes on drawing PA-O also specified the following:

  • Exterior wall columns (columns engaged in masonry walls) shall be fireproofed on the exterior side with 2-inch solid gypsum, 3-inch hollow gypsum, 2-inch concrete or spray-on fireproofing.
  • Interior columns shall be fireproofed with materials and have rating conforming with Section C26-313.3 (27-269 current section).
  • Beams and girders shall be fireproofed with 2-inch grade Portland cement concrete, Gritcrete, or spray-on fireproofing or other materials rendering a 2-hour fire rating.

The Port Authority stated that it believed the thickness of the spray-on fireproofing was determined by the fireproofing trade for the specific structural sections used, based on the Underwriters Laboratories formula for modifications, which were reviewed by the Architect/Engineer of Record during the shop drawing submittal. Spray-on fireproofing, as required by the code, was also listed on the drawing as an item subject to controlled inspections, in accordance with Section C26-106.3 (27-132 current section). The Architect/Engineer of Record was responsible for ensuring that the proper thickness was applied. The Port Authority had extended its fireproofing inspection program to this building.

5.3.4 Suppression Systems

The primary water supply appears to have been provided by a dedicated fire yard main that looped around most of the complex. This yard main was supplied directly from the municipal water supply. Fire department connections were located on the south and west sides.

WTC 7 was a sprinklered building. However, on the 5th floor, only the core spaces were sprinkler protected, and none of the electrical equipment rooms in the building were sprinkler protected. The sprinkler protection was of “light hazard” design. The sprinkler system on most floors was a looped system fed by a riser located in Stairway 2. The loading dock was protected with a dry-pipe sprinkler system. The area of the fuel tank for OEM had a special fire detection and suppression system.

The Fire Pump Room was located on the ground floor in the southwest corner of the building and contained an automatic (as well as a manual) fire pump. There were two Fire Department of New York connections in the southwest quadrant – one on the south facade and one on the west facade.

Each stairway had standpipes in it. At each floor in each stairway, there was a 2-1/2-inch outlet with a 1-1/2-inch hose (with a 3/4-inch nozzle). In addition, the east side of each floor also had a supplemental fire hose cabinet. Primary water supply to the standpipe system came from a yard main, which was fed from the municipal water supply.

5.3.5 Power

Power to WTC 7 entered at 13,800 volts (V), was stepped down to 480/277 V by silicone oil-filled transformers in individual masonry vaults on the 5th floor, and was distributed throughout the building. On each floor, one of the 277 legs was tapped and stepped down to supply single-phase 120-V branch circuits. The main system had ground fault protection. Emergency power generators were located on various levels and provided a secondary power supply to tenants. This equipment supplied backup power for communications equipment, elevators, emergency lighting in corridors and stairwells, and fire pumps. Emergency lighting units in the exit stairways, elevator lobbies, and elevator cabs were equipped with individual backup batteries.

The tanks that provided fuel for the emergency generators were located in the building. The Silverstein and Salomon Smith Barney (SSB) fuel tanks were underground below the loading dock. The OEM tank was on the ground floor on a fire-rated steel platform within a 4-hour fire-rated enclosure. SSB had supply and return piping to the emergency generators made from a 2-1/2-inch double-wall steel pipe with a 4-inch outside diameter. The SSB fuel oil riser was single-wall pipe with a masonry shaft. This means that the oil riser pipe was encased in a solid concrete shaft. On the 5th floor, only the horizontal piping was a double-wall pipe within a pipe. The pumps located at the ground floor could supply 75 gallons per minute (gpm). A 3-gpm fuel supply rate was needed for each of the nine 1,725-kilowatt (kW) generators located on the 5th floor. One gallon would be consumed and the other 2 gallons would continue to circulate through the system. This is odd. Why pump 3 gallons when only 1 is needed? The SSB fuel oil pumps were provided with UPS power supported by both base building emergency power and SSB standby power. The volume between the inner and outer pipes was designed to contain a leak from the inner pressurized pipe and direct that fuel oil to a containment vessel. Upon detection of fuel oil in the containment vessel, the fuel oil pumps automatically de-energized. This sounds unlikely, as it is much easier to detect leakage by the drop in pressure in the inner pipe. A drop in pressure would trip a switch, deactivating the pump. The SSB fuel oil pumps and distribution piping were dedicated to the SSB generator plant. The base building life safety generators and OEM generators had their own dedicated fuel oil pumps and piping. The Silverstein generators consisted of two 900-kW units, which were also located on the 5th floor, and supplied by a 275-gallon day tank. Other characteristics of the design or controls for the fuel system for the generators are unknown.

5.4 Building Loads

The degree of impact damage to the south facade could not be documented. However, damage was evident from review of photographs and video records. So, there were photographs and videos of the impact damage to the south facade, but the damage could not be documented. Why? Surely, the photographs and videos were “documented” evidence in their own right. The number of fires observed after the collapse of WTC 1 also makes it likely that debris impact damage occurred in a number of locations. One could equally validly claim that: The number of fires observed after the collapse of WTC 1 makes it likely that fires were deliberately set.

An array of fuels typically associated with offices was distributed throughout much of the building. In addition, WTC 7 contained 10 transformers at street level, 12 transformers on the 5th floor, and 2 dry transformers on the 7th floor. The Con Ed substation contained (outside the building footprint) eight 30-foot-wide transformers that supplied 13-kilovolt ampere (kVA) power to the 6th floor of the building. Fuel oil (ranging from diesel to #4) was provided for the generators serving OEM, SSB, Silverstein Properties, and the U.S. Secret Service. Table 5.2 shows where the generators, fuel tanks, pumps, and risers were located for the various occupants. There was also a Con Ed 4-inch-diameter gas line with 0.25 pounds per square inch (psi) (low) pressure going into WTC 7 for cooking purposes. Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building; however, this proved not to be true.

As described in Section 5.6.2, the sequence of the WTC 7 collapse is consistent with an initial failure that occurred internally in the lower floors on the east side of the building. No it isn’t. It is consistent with failure of all weight supporting columns simultaneously. The interest in fuel oil is therefore directed at the parts of the fuel oil distribution system having the potential of supporting a fire in the lower floors on the east side of the building. The risers for the fuel distribution system were in one of the two utility shafts in the west end of the building. One exception was the American Express Corporation, which had a generator with a 275-gallon tank on the west end of the 8th floor. This tank was the sole supply for the American Express generator and was not connected to any other fuel oil source. The 275-gallon tank was filled by bringing containers of fuel oil to the tank and transferring the oil into the tank. Except for the part of the diesel oil distribution system serving the SSB generators, all of the generators were located at the west end, with relatively short horizontal distribution piping.

The SSB system involved three separate generator locations on the 5th floor: three generator sets in the southwest corner of the building, two in the northwest section, and four in the northeast section. The distribution pipe was double-wall welded black iron with leak detection between the pipes. The outer pipe was at least 4 inches in diameter and the inner pipe at least 2-1/2 inches. The pipe traversed most of the length of the 5th floor immediately north of a concrete masonry wall running most of the length of the floor in an east-west direction. At the east end of the 5th floor and to the south of the wall was a 1- to 2-story mechanical equipment room. Transfer Trusses 1 and 2 were located in this room. The east end of Truss 1 was supported by a truss element that ran perpendicular (i.e., north-south) to the main east-west portions of the truss. There was a set of double doors opening from the mechanical room to the area containing the four generator sets previously mentioned. The fuel oil distribution pipe ran above this door several feet to the north of the masonry wall. The type, quality, and hardware on the door set are unknown. The position of the door (i.e., open or closed) at the time of the incident is also unknown. Also, no information was available in regard to the size of the undercut on the door.

The mechanical room containing the four generator sets is outlined in pink in the upper right corner. The mechanical equipment room containing trusses 1 and 2 has also been outlined in pink. Both rooms have been assumed smaller than they actually were in order to later calculate a maximum temperature that trusses 1 and 2 might have obtained in any fire as described by the “5th Floor Scenario” presented below. To this end we calculate the area of the 2 rooms to be a minimum of 8175 square feet. The concrete masonry wall has also been marked in pink. The fuel oil distribution pipe has been marked in blue.

Note that it was next to impossible for the debris from World Trade Centers One and Two to breach the nominated fuel oil distribution pipe, as it was in the northern half of the building and was protected to the south by a concrete masonry wall and the outer perimeter wall. Since the debris from the towers would have hit WTC 7 from the south, it would have had to breach at least two walls and smash its way through more than half the building.

Storage Pumps Riser Day Tank Generators
Office of Emergency Management Used Silverstein to fill day tanks Ground floor: 33.3 gpm Located in shaft in west elevator bank 275-gallon tank on 7th floor: one 6,000-gallon tank located between low-rise elevators in east elevator shaft between 2nd and 3rd floors Three 500-kW on 7th floor on south side
Salomon Smith Barney Two 6,000-gallon tanks under loading dock on ground level In Fire Pump Room on ground floor: 75 gpm Located in shaft on south west corner of building None; pressurized recirculating loop with 2.5-inch inside diameter double wall supply and return steel pipe on 5th floor Nine 1,725-kW on 5th floor on north side, three in south west corner
Silverstein Properties Two 12,000-gallon tanks under loading dock on ground level Between elevator shafts on west side of ground floor; 4.4 gpm Located in shaft in west elevator bank 275-gallon tank on 5th floor Two 900-kW on 5th floor in south west corner
US Secret Service Used Silverstein pumps Used Silverstein pumps Located in shaft in west elevator bank Approximately 50-100 gallon tank under generator on the 9th floor 9th floor
American Express Day tank only None None 275-gallon tank on 8th floor on west side next to exterior wall 8th floor

Table 5.2 WTC 7 Fuel Distribution Systems

The fuel oil pumps were powered from the generator sets. Note that the pumps where powered by electricity. Fuel oil would have been pumped from the tanks when the emergency power system sensed a power interruption. The pump then operated in response to the pressure difference between the supply and return, and the pump would circulate oil as long as such a difference existed. Upon sensing a power interruption, the system would automatically switch to emergency mode. This would have been done with a transfer switch that monitored the building power supply and transferred to the emergency power system if the power from the Con Ed source was interrupted. It was also possible for the transfer to be made manually. Relative to continuity of power to the building, Con Ed reported that “the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m.” It is believed that the emergency generators came on line immediately. It is also believed that some of them may have stopped operating because of the contamination of the intake air flowing into the carburetors and radiators. Except for the SSB system, where it is understood that a UPS system provided backup power to the 75-gpm pump, the flow of oil would stop and, as soon as the day tanks were empty, the involved generator set would stop running.

The SSB generators did not use day tanks. Instead there was a pressurized loop system that served all nine generators. As long as the 75-gpm pump continued to operate, a break in the line could, under some conditions, (Pity, the article does not mention the conditions that might cause the double pipe safety mechanism to fail (just an “unimportant” detail I guess)) have a full or partial break that would not cause the system to shut down and could discharge up to the 75-gpm capacity of this positive displacement pump. It is understood that the SSB pump was supplied power from both the SSB generators and from the UPS.

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: “In addition to Con Ed’s oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC.” To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

Note that the size of a 12,000 gallon tank would be a little less than 12 feet by 12 feet by 12 feet (if built as a cube).

Based on the listings in Table 5.2, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons that were recovered were from the Silverstein Properties’ emergency power system. The data obtained from Silverstein indicate that the pumping rate from their tanks was 4.4 gpm. If the Silverstein pump had started pumping at 10 a.m., when Con Ed shut down power to the building immediately following the collapse of WTC 2, and continued pumping until the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 p.m., less than 2,000 gallons would have been used. The residual 20,000 gallons found in the two 12,000-gallon tanks, therefore, can not be used as an indicator of whether or not the Silverstein generator sets were on line and running.

Similarly, the SSB pump, which had a pumping rate of 75 gpm, would have drained the two 6,000 gallon tanks serving that system in less than 3 hours. This could have accounted for the lost 12,000 gallons reported by EPA or the tanks could have been ruptured and the oil spilled into the debris pile.

This is very dishonest. The figure of 12,000 gallons was the maximum quantity of fuel oil that could possibly be missing. This figure would include, for example, the difference between the actual quantity of fuel oil in the tanks at the time (which would not necessarily be known) and the maximum quantity that the tanks could hold. Consequently, this estimate of 12,000 gallons would include a provision for fuel oil that never existed.

Again, this is not a valid indicator of whether or not the SSB generator sets came on line. The NY State EPA indicates that the SSB tanks will be pulled from the debris in the near future.

Have the results of this been released, or were the results not favorable to the absurd “the fire did it theory?”

This may or may not give some indication of the amount of oil still in the tanks when they were crushed. If there is evidence that the majority of diesel fuel was still in the tanks, it can be concluded that the SSB system did not discharge diesel oil as hypothesized in Section 5.6.1. Conversely, evidence that indicates that the tanks were low on oil at the time of rupture, and that they were full at the start of the September 11 incident, would lend support to the hypothesis that the SSB system was operating and pumping oil from these tanks.

Currently, there is no data available on the post-collapse condition of the OEM 6,000 gallon tank located between the 2nd and 3rd floors. The OEM system also included a 275-gallon day tank located on the 7th floor. The OEM system had a fuel supply system with the capability of transferring fuel from the Silverstein tanks to the 6,000 gallon OEM tank. The OEM generator sets were located in the southwest portion of the 7th floor. OEM also had an 11,000 gallon potable water tank on the south side of the 7th floor.

The Secret Service diesel distribution system, like the OEM system, was designed to refurbish its supply from the Silverstein tanks. This appears to have been pumped directly to a day tank having an estimated capacity of 50 to 100 gallons located near the northwest corner of the 9th floor. The generator set was also in the same location.

The 275-gallon tank associated with the American Express generator was located at the west end of the 8th floor. If full, the 275 gallons represent a potential of about 600 MegaJoules , which would be enough to cause a serious fire that could spread to other fuels (in truth, one gallon of fuel oil would be enough to cause a serious fire that could spread to other fuels) but not felt to be enough to threaten the stability of the building’s structural elements.

5.5 Timeline of Events Affecting WTC 7 on September 11, 2001

The effects of the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2, the ensuing fires in WTC 7, and the collapse of WTC 7 are discussed below. Figure 5-12 shows the vantage points of the photographs taken illustrating these effects, as well as the extent of the debris generated by each of the collapses.

5.5.1 Collapse of WTC 2

At 9:59 a.m., WTC 2 (the south tower) collapsed. The approximate extent of its debris is shown in Figure 5-12(A). It appears that the collapse of WTC 2 did not significantly affect the roof, or the east, west, and north elevations of WTC 7. It is unknown if there was any damage to the south elevation after WTC 2 collapsed, but both the covered, tubular pedestrian bridge (see Figure 5-13) and the Plaza bridge were still standing after the collapse of WTC 2.

Figure 5-13 Pedestrian bridge (bottom center) still standing after WTC 2 has collapsed, sending substantial dust and debris onto the street, but before WTC 1 (top center) has collapsed.

5.5.2 Collapse of WTC 1

At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed, sending its debris into the streets below. The extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7 are currently unknown. However, from photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts discussed below, it was assumed that the south side of the building was damaged to some degree and that fires in WTC 7 started at approximately this time. Figure 5-14 is an aerial photograph that shows the debris clouds spreading around WTC 7 just after the collapse of WTC 1.

Figure 5-14 View from the north of the WTC 1 collapse and spread of debris around WTC 7. Note the two mechanical penthouses of WTC 7 are intact. Figure 5-15 is a photograph of WTC 1 debris between the west elevation of WTC 7 and the Verizon building.

Figure 5-15 Debris from the collapse of WTC 1 located between WTC 7 (left) and the Verizon building (right).

Figure 5-12(B) shows a plan-view diagram approximating the extent of this debris just after the collapse of WTC 1. It does not appear that the collapse of WTC 1 affected the roof, or the east, west, and north elevations of WTC 7 in any significant way. However, there was damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7 at approximately floors 8 to 20, 24, 25, and 39 to 46, as shown in Figure 5-16, a photograph taken from West Street.

Figure 5-12 Sequence of debris generated by collapses of WTC 2, 1, and 7. There is a nice piece of misdirection here. Note that in the above graphic, World Trade Center Six is labeled the “WTC Complex”, rather than WTC 6. Although this is not incorrect, it hides the fact that debris from WTC One had to fall across WTC 6 (and across Vesey Street, altogether a considerable distance) before it could impact WTC 7. Another nice touch, is the addition of the debris field from the collapse of WTC 7, which on a quick glance gives the impression that the debris from the collapse of the towers completely engulfed WTC 7.

Figure 5-16 Damage to southwest corner of WTC 7 (see box), looking from West Street. Figure 5-17, a photograph taken across from the World Financial Center (WFC), shows the west elevation and indicates damage at the southwest corner of WTC 7 at the 24th, 25th, and 39th through 46th floors.

Figure 5-17 Building damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume from south face of WTC 7, looking from the World Financial Plaza. Note damage to WFC 3 in the foreground.

Figure 5-17 is a very strange photograph. It has a number of features which immediately stand out as wrong.

  • Firstly, we are told that there were fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28, but the photo seems to have smoke pouring out of the windows on almost every floor.
  • Secondly, the corner offices (except for the 27th and 28th floors) show no indication of fire on the west face of the building, but these very same corner offices appear to belch smoke from their south face windows.
  • Thirdly, the north side of WTC 7 has few (if any) visible signs of fire at this time (for example, see Figure 5-20 below) so it seems quite impossible that the south side should be ablaze to the extent that the above photo would indicate.

All, in all, I think it quite clear that either this photo has been faked, or it is actually a picture of the dust cloud from the collapse of WTC 1. I think the second option is more probable, as it fits all the facts and allows the “oh, it looks like we made a mistake, so sorry” excuse. The dust cloud has been given its peculiar shape by the breeze channeling through the gap between the Verizon building and WTC 7.

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters’ eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation.

5.5.3 Fires at WTC 7

Currently, there is limited information about the ignition and development of fires at WTC 7, as well as about the specific fuels that may have been involved during the course of the fire. It is likely that fires started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

According to fire service personnel, fires were initially seen to be present on non-contiguous floors on the south side of WTC 7 at approximately floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19.

A quote from above: “Evaluation of fires on the 3rd to 6th floors is complicated by the fact that these floors were windowless with louvers, generally in a plenum space separating any direct line of sight between the open floor space and the louvers. None of the photographic records found so far show fires on these floors.” So floor 6 had a fire that could not be seen, but was seen by fire-fighters. I guess such inaccuracy is why the authors had to use the word “approximately.”

The presence of fire and smoke on lower floors is also confirmed by the early television news coverage of WTC 7, which indicated light-colored smoke rising from the lower floors of WTC 7.

Video footage indicated that the majority of the smoke appeared to be coming from the south side of the building at that time as opposed to the other sides of the building. Playing with words again. The smoke was indeed coming from the south side of WTC 7, it was in fact coming from the blazing pile of debris from the twin towers (which were to the south of WTC 7). This is corroborated by Figure 5-17, a photograph taken at 3:36 p.m that shows the south face of WTC 7 covered with a thick cloud of smoke, and only small amounts of smoke emanating from the 27th and 28th floors of the west face of WTC 7.

News coverage after 1:30 p.m. showed light-colored smoke flowing out of openings on the upper floors of the south side of the building. Another photograph (Figure 5-18) of the skyline at 3:25 p.m., taken from the southwest, shows a large volume of dark smoke coming from all but the lowest levels of WTC 7, where white smoke is emanating.

Figure 5-18 WTC 7, with a large volume of dark smoke rising from it, just visible behind WFC 1 (left). A much smaller volume of white smoke is seen rising from the base of WTC 7. Note that the lower, lighter-colored smoke (to right) is thought to be from the two collapsed towers

This photo amply demonstrates the dishonesty of the authors of this article (and of the FEMA report generally). It must have taken them some time to find a photo as misleading as this one. But since deception is the name of the game the effort to find such pictures was made.

What is so deceitful about the use of this photo, you ask?

Note that the corners of various buildings in the photo line up (WFC 1 and WTC 7 line up as do the Bankers Trust building and the apartment building in the center of the photo). These corners have been marked by red dots in the aerial photograph of Manhattan below. Draw lines through these dots and where they cross is where the photo was snapped. So we see that the above photo was taken from a boat on the Hudson and that in order to see the smoke from WTC 7 we have to look through the thick smoke from the ruins of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Very deceitful indeed.

The mode of fire and smoke spread was unclear; however, it may have been propagated through interior shafts, between floors along the south facade that may have been damaged, or other internal openings, as well as the floor slab/exterior facade connections.

It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. This is an outright lie. This is Manhattan, more fire hydrants per square meter than any other place on earth. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. Crap, there was plenty of water. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. The people who told the firefighters not to put out the small localized fires in WTC 7 should be held liable and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That the decision was made because of damage to WTC 7 is a joke. The extent and severity of the damage to WTC 7 was so slight that it is still unknown to this day. If there had been major damage the authors of this article would have provided evidence of it. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.

A review of photos and videos indicates that there were limited fires on the north, east, and west faces of the building. One eyewitness who saw the building from a 30th floor apartment approximately 4 blocks away to the northwest noted that fires in the building were not visible from that perspective. On some of the lower floors, where the firefighters saw fires for extended periods of time from the south side, there appeared to be walls running in an east to west direction, at least on floors 5 and 6, that would have compartmentalized the north side from the south side. There were also air plenums along the east and west walls and partially along the north walls of these floors instead of windows that may have further limited fires from extending out of these floors and, therefore, were not visible from sides other than the south.

As the day progressed, fires were observed on the east face of the 11th, 12th, and 28th floors (see Figure 5-19). The Securities and Exchange Commission occupied floors 11 through 13. Prior to collapse, fire was seen to have broken out windows on at least the north and east faces of WTC 7 on some of the lower levels.

Figure 5-19 Fires on the 11th and 12th floors of the east face of WTC 7.

On the north face, photographs and videos show that the fires were located on approximately the 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, and 13th floors. American Express Bank International occupied the 7th and 8th floors. The 7th floor also held the OEM generators and day tank. Photographs of the west face show fire and smoke on the 29th and 30th floors.

It is important to note that floors 5 through 7 contained structural elements that were important to supporting the structure of the overall building. The 5th and 7th floors were diaphragm floors that contained transfer girders and trusses. These floors transferred loads from the upper floors to the structural members and foundation system that was built prior to the WTC 7 office tower. Fire damage in the 5th to 7th floors of the building could, maybe, possibly, perhaps, therefore, have damaged essential structural elements.

With the limited information currently available, fire development in this building needs additional study. Fires were observed to be located on some of the lower levels about the 10th floor for the majority of the time from the collapse of WTC 1 to the collapse of WTC 7. It appears that the sprinklers may not have been but may have been (apparently the authors are not too sure) effective due to the limited water on site or their function being sabotaged in some way, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

Available information indicates that fires spread horizontally and vertically throughout the building during the course of the day. The mode of spread was most likely either along the south facade that was damaged, or internally through shafts or the gap between the floor slab and the exterior wall. It is currently unclear what fuel may have been present to permit the fires to burn on these lower floors for approximately 7 hours.

Now get this: the fire burnt for about 7 hours. During this seven hours, the fire never managed to reach the northern side of the building. Apparently, it was trapped in the southern side of the building. Yet this fire raged so furiously that it warped the steel in the southern side of the building to the point where the whole building collapsed. To explain this, we have been told that two floors (floors 5 and 6), on which there were no known fires, had a dividing wall that ran across the building. This is such a transparent lie, it is impossible that a reasonable person believe it. And, in any event, if the steel on only one side of the building warped, leading to collapse, then the building would have fallen like a tree and would not have collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition.

The change in the color and buoyancy of the smoke as the day progressed may indicate a change in the behavior of the fires. The darker color may be indicative of different fuels becoming involved, such as fuel oil, or the fire becoming ventilation limited. The increased buoyancy of the fires suggests that the heat release rate (or “fire size”) may have also increased.

The mechanisms behind these apparent changes in behavior are currently unknown and therefore various scenarios need to be investigated further. These include gathering additional information regarding storage of materials on various levels, the quantity and combustibility of materials, and the presence of dense storage, including file rooms, tape vaults, etc. In addition, further analysis is needed on the specific locations of the fuel tanks, supply lines, fuel pumps, and generators to determine whether it may have been possible for a fuel line to be severed by the falling debris, allowing the pumps to run and pump fuel out of the broken pipes. No further analysis is needed. It is amazingly obvious that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished.

5.5.4 Sequence of WTC 7 Collapse

Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC 7, the building collapsed. The start of a timed collapse sequence was based on 17:20:33, the time registered by seismic recordings described in Table 1.1 (in Chapter 1). The time difference between each of the figures was approximated from time given on the videotape. Figures 5-20 to 5-25 illustrate the observed sequence of events related to the collapse.

~5:20:33 p.m. WTC 7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.

~5:21:03 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to “disappear” completely.

~5:21:08 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.

~5:21:09 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south “kink” or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).

~5:21:10 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25). The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall.

Figure 5-20 View from the north of WTC 7 with both mechanical penthouses intact.

Figure 5-23 View from the north of the “kink” or fault developing in WTC 7.

These two photos were taken within minutes of each other (this can be established by looking at the shadows (note that the street lighting is on in both pictures)). Note that the building has maintained is general shape in the second photo, even though the building is now some 15 floors “shorter”. What are the thin clouds of dust in the second photo. They are not in the first photo. The large dust cloud that accompanied the collapse (just like the Twin Tower dust clouds) seems to be emanating from the east side of the building only. Is there a reason for this?

Note that our “lucky” photographer seems to have been ready and waiting for the collapse, as were a number of other photographers who managed to “accidentally” snap various of the events of 9-11.

The debris generated by the collapse of WTC 7 spread mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south. The debris significantly damaged 30 West Broadway to the north, but did not appear to have structurally damaged the Irving Trust building at 101 Barclay Street to the north or the Post Office at 90 Church Street to the east. The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. This indicates a successful controlled demolition. Figures 5-12(C) and 5-26 show an approximation of the extent of the debris after the collapse of WTC 7.

5.6 Potential Collapse Mechanism

5.6.1 Very Improbable Collapse Initiation Events

WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, (lack of water, what a joke, this is Manhattan, more fire hydrants per square meter than any other place on earth) no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.

Section 5.5.4 describes the sequence of the WTC 7 collapse. The described sequence is consistent with building collapse resulting from an initial (triggering) failure that occurred internally in the east portion of a lower floor in the building. There is no clear evidence of exactly where or on which floor the initiating failure occurred. Possibilities can be divided into three potential scenarios based on floor. In each case, the concern is the failure of either a truss or one or more columns in the lower floors of the east portion of the building. Each of the scenarios is a hypothesis based on the facts known and the unknown conditions that would be required for the hypothesis to be valid. The cases are presented not as conclusions, but as a basis for further investigation. Really!?!?

Figure 5-21 East mechanical penthouse collapsed. (From video.)
Figure 5-22 East and now west mechanical penthouses gone. (From video.)

Most of the smoke in these pictures is from the ruins of the towers.

4th Floor Scenarios.

The bottom cords of the transfer trusses were part of the support of the 5th floor slab and, as such, were located below the slab and above the ceiling of the 4th floor in a position exposed to fire from below. The bottom cord members were massive members weighing slightly over 1,000 pounds per foot. Such members are slow to heat up in a fire. It was reported that these bottom cords were fireproofed. The space below was the cafeteria dining room. The best information available indicates that the dining room was furnished with tables and chairs. The intensity and duration of a fire involving these furnishings would not be expected to sufficiently weaken either the trusses or the columns supporting the trusses. Member collapse as a result of a fire on the 4th floor would require either that there was significant additional fuel or that the fireproofing on the trusses or columns was defective. Fuel oil leakage from the 5th floor is also a possibility; however, no evidence of leakage paths in the east end of the second floor was reported. And, last but not least, there was absolutely no evidence of any fire on the 4th floor.

Figure 5-24 Areas of potential transfer truss failure.

Figure 5-25 Debris cloud from collapse of WTC 7.

5th Floor Scenarios.

From a structural standpoint, the most likely event would have been the collapse of Truss 1 and/or Truss 2 located in the east end of the 5th and 6th floors. These floors are believed to have contained little if any fuel other than the diesel fuel for the emergency generators, making diesel oil a potential source of fire. As noted in Section 5.4, the fuel distribution system for the emergency generators pumped oil from tanks on the lower floors to the generators through a pipe distribution system. The SSB fuel oil system was a more likely source of fire around the transfer trusses. The SSB pump is reported as a positive displacement pump having a capacity of 75 gpm at 50 psi. Fuel oil was distributed through the 5th floor in a double-wall iron pipe. A portion of the piping ran in close proximity to Truss 1. However, there is no physical, photographic, or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system. And maybe one should mention there was absolutely no evidence of any fire on the 5th floor.

The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential (actually, an hypothesis based on myth, describes it better) rather than demonstrated fact. Assume that the distribution piping was severed and discharged up to 75 gpm onto the 5th floor in the vicinity of Truss 1. Seventy-five gpm of diesel fuel have the potential of approximately 160 megawatts (MW) of energy. If this burning diesel fuel formed pools around Truss 1, it could have subjected members of that truss to temperatures significantly in excess of those experienced in standard fire resistance test furnaces (see Appendix A). If the supply tanks were full at the start of the discharge, there was enough fuel to sustain this flow for approximately 3 hours. If the assumed pipe rupture were incomplete and the flow less, the potential burning rate of the discharged oil would be less, but the duration would be longer. At even a 30-gpm flow rate (about 60 MW potential), the exposed members in the truss could still be subjected to high temperatures that would progressively weaken the steel. For the above reasons, it is felt that burning of discharged diesel fuel oil in a pool encompassing Truss 1 and/or Truss 2 needs to be further evaluated as a possible cause of the building collapse.

Figure 5-26 Debris generated after collapse of WTC 7.

In evaluating the potential that a fire fed by fuel oil caused the collapse, it is necessary to determine whether the following events occurred:

  1. The SSB generators called for fuel. This would occur once the generators came on line.
  2. The pumps came on, sending fuel through the distribution piping.
  3. There was a breach in the fuel distribution piping and fuel oil was discharged from the distribution system.
    Although there is no physical evidence available, this hypothesis assumes that it is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed, presumably by debris from the collapse of WTC 1. Depending on ventilation sources for air, this is sufficient to flashover the space along the north wall of this floor. The temperature of the fire gases would be governed to a large extent by the availability of air for combustion. The hot gases generated would be blocked from impacting Trusses 1 and 2 by the masonry wall separating the generation area from the mechanical equipment room, assuming that this wall was still intact after collapse of the tower and there were no other significant penetrations of walls.
  4. The discharged fuel must be ignited. For diesel oil to be ignited, there must be both an ignition source and the oil must be raised to its flash point temperature of about 60 degrees Centigrade (140 degrees Fahrenheit). Because there were fires on other floors of WTC 7, an assumption of ignition at this level in the building is reasonable, but without proof.
  5. There is sufficient air for combustion of the discharged fuel oil.
    The air required for combustion of 75-gpm (160 MW potential) diesel fuel is approximately 100,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm). If less air is available for combustion, the burning rate will decrease proportionally. As the engine generator sets come on line, automatic louvers open and 80,000 cfm are provided for each of the nine SSB engines. A portion is used as combustion air for the drive engines; the rest is for cooling, but could supply air to an accidental fire. Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air, it is, therefore, probable that a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion.
  6. The hot fire gases reach and heat the critical member(s).
    For this to happen, the fire must have propagated either fuel or hot gases to the members in the truss in the mechanical equipment room. If the double door to the mechanical equipment room was either open or fell from its frame at some point, or if the door was undercut, the spilled fuel oil might have flowed into the mechanical equipment room, enveloping truss members in the main (hottest) portion of the flame. Such a situation could produce an exposure possibly exceeding that in the standard furnace test producing localized heat fluxes approaching the 200 kW/m2 used by Underwriters Laboratories to simulate a hydrocarbon pool fire, with exposure temperatures in the range of 1,200 degrees Centigrade (2,200 degrees Fahrenheit). If such intense exposure existed, the steel would be weakened more rapidly than normally expected. If the door was of superior construction (as with a fire door), it is unlikely that the fire would have reached the trusses in the mechanical equipment room until such time that the door failed.

So we have been presented with the following absurd story:

  1. Power to the Twin Towers was wired from the substation in WTC 7 through two separate systems. The first provided power throughout each building; the second provided power only to the emergency systems. In the event of fire, power would only be provided to the emergency systems. This was to prevent arcing electric lines igniting new fires and to reduce the risk of firefighters being electrocuted. There were also six 1,200 kW emergency power generators located in the sixth basement (B-6) level of the towers, which provided a backup power supply. These also had normal and emergency subsystems.
  2. Previous to the collapse of the South Tower, the power to the towers was switched to the emergency subsystem to provide power for communications equipment, elevators, emergency lighting in corridors and stairwells, and fire pumps and safety for firefighters. At this time power was still provided by the WTC 7 substation.
  3. Con Ed reported that “the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m.”. This was due to the South Tower collapse which occurred at the same time.
  4. Unfortunately, even though the main power system for the towers was switched off and WTC 7 had been evacuated, a design flaw allowed generators (designed to supply backup power for the WTC complex) to start up and resume an unnecessary and unwanted power supply.
  5. Unfortunately, debris from the collapse of the north tower (the closest tower) fell across the building known as World Trade Center Six, and then across Vesey Street, and then impacted WTC 7 which is (at closest) 355 feet away from the north tower.
  6. Unfortunately, some of this debris penetrated the outer wall of WTC 7, smashed half way through the building, demolishing a concrete masonry wall (in the north half of the building) and then breached a fuel oil pipe that ran across the building just to the north of the masonry wall.
  7. Unfortunately, though most of the falling debris was cold, it manages to start numerous fires in WTC 7.
  8. Unfortunately, even with the outbreak of numerous fires in the building, no decision was made to turn off the generators now supplying electricity to WTC 7. Fortunately, for the firefighters, someone did make the decision not to fight and contain the fires while they were still small, but to wait until the fires were large and out of control. Otherwise, many firefighters may have been electrocuted while fighting the fires.
  9. Unfortunately, the safety mechanism that should have shut down the fuel oil pumps (which were powered by electricity) upon the breaching of the fuel line, failed to work and fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the Salomon Smith Barney tanks on the ground floor onto the 5th floor where it ignited. The pumps eventually emptied the tanks, pumping some 12,000 gallons in all.
  10. Unfortunately, the sprinkler system of WTC 7 malfunctioned and did not extinguish the fires.
  11. Unfortunately, the burning diesel heated trusses one and two to the point that they lost their structural integrity.
  12. Unfortunately, this then (somehow) caused the whole building to collapse, even though before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.

You must agree, it is absurd, isn’t it?

A further hypothesis that would help explain the long time lapse between the collapse of WTC 1 and the collapse of WTC 7 would be that the masonry wall and door resisted the fire for a number of hours, but eventually failed. The new opening then allowed the fire (still supplied with a continuous discharge of fuel oil) to flow into the mechanical equipment room, envelope elements of the fireproofed trusses, and eventually cause a buckling collapse of one or both of them. For the fire to last long enough for this to occur, the flow rate would have to be around 30 gpm. At a rate of 30 gpm, the fuel would last for about 7 hours and would produce a fire of about 60 MW. The possibility that such a scenario could occur would be dependent on the specific construction details of the wall, the door, and the fireproofing on the truss.

Another hypothesis that has been advanced is that the pipe was penetrated by debris at a point near the southwest corner where there was more damage caused by debris from the collapse of the towers. This would have resulted in fuel oil spilling onto the 5th floor, but not being immediately ignited. However, a major portion of the 12,000 gallons in the SSB tanks would pump out onto the 5th floor, forming a large pool. At some point, this would have ignited and produced the required fire. This “hypothesis” has the advantage of assuming a pipe break in the area most severely impacted by the tower debris and accounts for the long delay from the initial incident to the collapse of WTC 7. The principal challenge is that such a fire would have more severely exposed Truss 3. If Truss 3 had been the point of collapse initiation, it is not expected that the first apparent sign of collapse would be the subsidence of the east penthouse.

Evaluation of fires on the 3rd to 6th floors is complicated by the fact that these floors were windowless with louvers, generally in a plenum space separating any direct line of sight between the open floor space and the louvers. None of the photographic records found so far show fires on these floors.

Further investigation is required to determine whether the preceding scenarios did or could have actually occurred.

Other Involved Floors Scenarios. Fire was known to have occurred on other floors. If a fire on one of these floors involved a large concentration of combustible material encasing several columns in the east portion of the floor, it might have been of sufficient severity to cause the structural members to weaken. Such fuel concentrations might have been computer media vaults, archives and records storage, stock or storage rooms, or other collections. It is possible that the failure of at least two or possibly more columns on the same floor would have been enough to cause collapse. (proven untrue/impossible!)

5.6.2 Very Improbable Collapse Sequence

The collapse of WTC 7 appears to have initiated on the east side of the building on the interior, as indicated by the disappearance of the east penthouse into the building. This was followed by the disappearance of the west penthouse, and the development of a fault or “kink” on the east half of WTC 7 (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24). The collapse then began at the lower floor levels, and the building completely collapsed to the ground. From this sequence, it appears that the collapse initiated at the lower levels on the inside and progressed up, as seen by the extension of the fault from the lower levels to the top.

WTC 7During the course of the day, fires may have exposed various structural elements to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of causing collapse. The structural elements most likely to have initiated the observed collapse are the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7, located on lower floors under the east mechanical penthouse close to the fault/kink location.

If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building “imploded,” producing a limited debris field as the exterior walls were pulled downward. The collapse “may have” then spread to the west. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building. The cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the beams and columns at the building perimeter may have become overloaded after the collapse of the transfer trusses and caused the interior collapse to propagate to the whole floor and to the exterior frame. The structural system between floors 5 and 7 appears to be critical to the structural performance of the entire building.

An alternative scenario was considered in which the collapse started at horizontal or inclined members. The horizontal members include truss tension ties and the transfer girder of the T-1 truss at the east side of the 5th floor. Inclined members spanned between the 5th and 7th floors and were located in a two-story open mechanical room. The horizontal haunched back span of the eastern cantilever transfer girders, located roughly along the kink, rested on a horizontal girder at the 7th floor supported by the T-1 transfer truss. Even if the cantilever transfer girder had initiated the collapse sequence, the back span failure would most likely have not caused the observed submergence of the east mechanical penthouse.

The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially “peeled” outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion.

To confirm proposed failure mechanisms, structural analysis and fire modeling of fuels and anticipated temperatures and durations will need to be performed. Further study of the interaction of the fire and steel, particularly on the lower levels (i.e., 1st-12th floors) should be undertaken to determine specific fuel loads, location, potential for impact from falling debris, etc. Further research is needed into location of storage and file room combustible materials and fuel lines, and the probability of pumps feeding fuel to severed lines.

5.7 Observations and Findings

This office building was built over an electrical substation and a power plant, comparable in size to that operated by a small commercial utility. It also stored a significant amount of diesel oil and had a structural system with numerous horizontal transfers for gravity and lateral loads.

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the “loss of structural integrity” in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the “best hypothesis” has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to “resolve this issue.”

The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2. The towers showered debris in a wide radius as their external frames essentially “peeled” outward and fell from the top to the bottom. In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the facade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse. Review of video footage indicates that the collapse began at the lower floors on the east side. Studies of WTC 7 indicate that the collapse began in the lower stories, either through failure of major load transfer members located above an electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure. Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded, with collapse initiating at an interior location. The collapse may have then spread to the west, causing interior members to continue collapsing. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building, including the cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the interior beams and columns at the building perimeter.

5.8 Recommendations

Certain issues should be explored before final conclusions are reached and additional studies of the performance of WTC 7, and related building performance issues “should be conducted.” These include the following:

  • Additional data should be collected to confirm the extent of the damage to the south face of the building caused by falling debris.
  • Determination of the specific fuel loads, especially at the lower levels, is important to identify possible fuel supplied to sustain the fires for a substantial duration. Areas of interest include storage rooms, file rooms, spaces with high-density combustible materials, and locations of fuel lines. The control and operation of the emergency power system, including generators and storage tanks, needs to be thoroughly understood. Specifically, the ability of the diesel fuel pumps to continue to operate and send fuel to the upper floors after a fuel line is severed should be confirmed.
  • Modeling and analysis of the interaction between the fires and structural members are important. Specifically, the anticipated temperatures and duration of the fires and the effects of the fires on the structure need to be examined, with an emphasis on the behavior of transfer systems and their connections.
  • Suggested mechanisms for a progressive collapse should be studied and confirmed. How the collapse of an unknown number of gravity columns brought down the whole building must be explained.
  • The role of the axial capacity between the beam-column connection and the relatively strong structural diaphragms may have had in the progressive collapse should be explained.
  • The level of fire resistance and the ratio of capacity-to-demand required for structural members and connections deemed to be critical to the performance of the building should be studied. The collapse of some structural members and connections may be more detrimental to the overall performance of the building than other structural members. The adequacy of current design provisions for members whose failure could result in large-scale collapse should also be studied.

5.9 References

Davidowitz, David (Consolidated Edison). 2002. Personal communication on the continuity of power to WTC 7. April.

Flack and Kurtz, Inc. 2002. Oral communication providing engineering explanation of the emergency generators and related diesel oil tanks and distribution systems. April.

Lombardi, Francis J. (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). 2002. Letter concerning WTC 7 fireproofing. April 25.

Odermatt, John T. (New York City Office of Emergency Management). 2002. Letter regarding OEM tanks at WTC 7.

Rommel, Jennifer (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2002. Oral communication regarding a November 12, 2001, letter about diesel oil recovery and spillage. April.

Salvarinas, John J. 1986. “Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects,” Canadian Structural Engineering Conference.

Silverstein Properties. 2002. Annotated floor plans and riser diagrams of the emergency generators and related diesel oil tanks and distribution systems. March.


 5.1 Introduction 5-1
 5.2 Structural Description 5-3
      5.2.1 Foundations 5-3
      5.2.2 Structural Framing 5-4
      5.2.3 Transfer Trusses and Girders 5-4
      5.2.4 Connections 5-8
 5.3 Fire Protection Systems 5-10
      5.3.1 Egress Systems 5-10
      5.3.2 Detection and Alarm 5-10
      5.3.3 Compartmentalization 5-11
      5.3.4 Suppression Systems 5-12
      5.3.5 Power 5-13
 5.4 Building Loads 5-13
 5.5 Timeline of Events Affecting WTC 7 on September 11, 2001 5-16
      5.5.1 Collapse of WTC 2 5-16
      5.5.2 Collapse of WTC 1 5-16
      5.5.3 Fires at WTC 7 5-20
      5.5.4 Sequence of WTC 7 Collapse 5-23
 5.6 Potential Collapse Mechanism 5-24
      5.6.1 Probable Collapse Initiation Events 5-24
      5.6.2 Probable Collapse Sequence 5-30
 5.7 Observations and Findings 5-31
 5.8 Recommendations 5-32
 5.9 References 5-32
 Figure 5-1 Foundation plan – WTC 7. 5-3
 Figure 5-2 Plan view of typical floor framing. 5-4
 Figure 5-3 Elevations of building and core area. 5-5
 Figure 5-4 Fifth floor diaphragm plan showing T-sections. 5-6
 Figure 5-5 3-D diagram showing relations of trusses and transfer girders. 5-6
 Figure 5-6 Seventh floor plan showing locations of transfer trusses and girders. 5-7
 Figure 5-7 Truss 1 detail. 5-8
 Figure 5-8 Truss 2 detail. 5-9
 Figure 5-9 Truss 3 detail. 5-10
 Figure 5-10 Cantilever transfer girder detail. 5-11
 Figure 5-11 Compartmentalization provided by concrete floor slabs. 5-12
 Figure 5-12 Sequence of debris generated by collapses of WTC 2, 1, and 7. 5-17
 Figure 5-13 Pedestrian bridge. 5-18
 Figure 5-14 Spread of debris around WTC 7. 5-18
 Figure 5-15 Debris from the collapse of WTC 1. 5-19
 Figure 5-16 Damage to the southeast corner of WTC 7. 5-19
 Figure 5-17 Building damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7. 5-20
 Figure 5-18 WTC 7, with a large volume of dark smoke rising from it. 5-21
 Figure 5-19 Fires on the 11th and 12th floors of the east face of WTC 7. 5-22
 Figure 5-20 View of WTC 7 with both mechanical penthouses intact. 5-24
 Figure 5-21 East mechanical penthouse collapsed. 5-25
 Figure 5-22 East and now west mechanical penthouses gone. 5-25
 Figure 5-23 View from the north of the “kink” or fault developing in WTC 7. 5-26
 Figure 5-24 Areas of potential transfer truss failure. 5-27
 Figure 5-25 Debris cloud from collapse of WTC 7. 5-27
 Figure 5-26 Debris generated after collapse of WTC 7. 5-28


 Let us not forget…

BBC videos announcing WTC 7’s collapse at 4:54 p.m [Details]

Two live 9/11 BBC broadcasts have emerged which announced the collapse of WTC 7 at 4:54 p.m – 26 minutes before the collapse actually occurred. The collapse was supposedly a spontaneous event, so how did the BBC foretell it? Needless to say, the BBC went to great lengths to get these videos removed from the internet.


9/11 CNN Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens

Fox also announced WTC 7 collapse BEFORE IT FELL ON 9/11

9/11 WCBS Announces WTC 7 Might Have Collapsed Seconds Before It Collapses Live 5:21 pm



1. HEARING CHARTER: Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center,, 3/6/02
2. HEARING: Learing From 9/11 — Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center,, 3/6/2002 [cached]
3. AWG E-MAIL NEWS 2002-29,, [cached]

The World Trade Center.

The World Trade Center Demolition.740 KB
Evidence of Explosives In The South Tower Collapse. 300 KB
Chapter 1 of the FEMA WTC Report: Introduction (with comment). 850 KB
Chapter 2 of the FEMA WTC Report: The Twin Towers (with comment). 1.9 MB
Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: World Trade Center Seven (with comment).1.3 MB
Microsoft Software used to simulate the crash of a Boeing 747 into the World Trade Center.
University of California, Berkeley Professor, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl Testifies.
Table Of Contents for the FEMA World Trade Center Report.
Chapter 3 of the WTC Report: WTC 3.
Chapter 6 of the WTC Report: Bankers Trust Building.
Appendix B of the WTC-Report: Structural Steel and Steel Connections.
Appendix D of the WTC-Report: WTC Steel Data Collection.
The World Trade Center 7 Explosion Myth.
Photographic Evidence that they Lied About the Trusses.
Proof the Twin Towers were Deliberately Demolished.

The Pentagon.

A Detailed Analysis of whether or not a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. 1.4 MB
Photos of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon are a Complete and Utter Fabrication.
The Bijlmer Crash – Joe Vialls – Caught in a Lie.
Carol A. Valentine Article Completely Wrong.
The Strange Case of the Sports Utility Vehicle at the Pentagon.
How the size of the plane in the “explosion” photo was calculated.
The Essence of the Problem.

>The Response, Or Rather, Lack Of It.

Air National Guard Mission And Vision Statement.
An example of Air National Guard efficency.
Where was NORAD on September Eleven?

HI-RESOLUTION VIDEOS OF THE 9/11 HOAX.Video of the (obvious) demolition of World Trade Center Seven together with video of the (less obvious) demolition of North Tower. Hi-resolution video of the first plane hitting the North tower is also presented (this is footage taken by the Naudet brothers ( one of whom quite clearly knew the first aircraft was about to hit the North Tower )).HI-RESOLUTION VIDEO Here hi-resolution video means video recorded with the DivX3.11a codec with the (variable) bitrate set to 6000 and crispness/smoothness set to 100. The hi-resolution videos are much larger files than necessary for good viewing. They are meant to convey as much of the original detail as possible.You can download the hi-resolution videos of the 9/11 hoax from these links.The First Plane Hitting The North Tower (13 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408)
The Second Plane Hitting The South Tower (10 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472)
The North Tower Demolition(2 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 492×408)
The North Tower Demolition (longer version) (13 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472)
The WTC Building Seven Demolition(0.9 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408)
The WTC Building Seven Demolition (another view) (0.8 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408)
The WTC Building Seven Demolition (yet another view) (9.5 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408)
Premature Detonations in North Tower Demolition (4.8 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472)
More Premature Detonations in North Tower Demolition(6.1 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 696×472)
Woman Waving From WTC North Tower Impact Hole. (1.2 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356) The woman is in the lower righthand corner and why this is of interest. For those interested, here is an article on the Premature Detonations. Here are some hi-resolution videos of the second plane hitting the South Tower. View from north-east (4.9 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 716×480)
View from north (13 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472)
View from east (1.2 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356)
Close view from east (includes the “911 In Plane Site” flash)(1.3 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356)
Another view from north(0.8 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356)
Short view from north-east(1.2 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 696×472)
Longer view from north-east (2.8 MB hi-resolution Codec: DivX3.11a 716×480)If you are using windows you need the DivX3.11a codec plug-in for Windows Media Player (many non-Microsoft movie players come standard with the codecs necessary to play DivX movies (eg Mplayer (for Linux))). If you do not already have it, you can find it here: files from are bit for bit the same (I checked) as those I have had on my system for years (with no harmful effects). You unzip the files and double click on Register_DivX.exeIf you wish to learn about DivX movies, in particular, why they sometimes play upside-down, read this thread: VIDEOPainful Deceptions by Eric Hufschmid (windows media player comes with the necessary codec to play these).Painful Deceptions. Part 1 (39 MB Codec: WMV1 360×240)
Painful Deceptions. Part 2 (42 MB Codec: WMV1 360×240)
Painful Deceptions. Part 3(35 MB Codec: WMV1 360×240)
Painful Deceptions. Part 4 (28 MB Codec: WMV1 360×240)9-11 In Plane Site Debunked and also here (25 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 360×240)
9/11 In Plane Site. (104 MB Codec: DivX5 352×240)
911 In Plane Site. (129 MB Codec: Quicktime MOV 352×240)
Premature Detonations in North Tower Demolition. (1.1 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472, premature detonation marked, 3fps). – WTC 7 – Building 7 Demolition Videos

– surviving TV & amateur footage from 5:20 pm on 9/11 –

UPDATE 2015: High quality downloads and documentary investigations now at



Comparisons of the wall damage and plane images,
Photoshop overlay of the wall damage vs the FEMA report.
Other pics of the wall and damage…
The FEMA report shows little damage to the structures of the WTC
This page shows stills from 2 videos. One shows the 2nd impact from a side view. 
North tower photos of debris, several different angles and closeups of the engine.
all debris photos i could find 
Some pics that appear to be charges going off in the WTC’s
Pics of the helicopters that were around the WTC that day. Extreme closeups.

The 9/11 Mystery Helicopter?


Stranger Than Fiction (
Evidence that the Arabs are Not to blame for the WTC attack.
Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at the WTC.
Seismic Observations During the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack.
Sixty State Street: A Case Study.
Suspicious Stock Option Movements prior to September 11.
Many 9-11 “Hijackers” are Still Alive and Well.
Israelis arrested on suspicion of 9-11 involvement.
Sept 11th – Unanswered Questions By MalcontentX.
Collection of Eric Hufschmid’s early articles.


FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study …

Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster

The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse …

The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World …

Complete 911 Timeline: World Trade Center Investigation

May 1st 2002 FEMA World Trade Center Building

The Collapse of Twin Towers: Causes and Effects The … – M

Download – MIT

9-11 Research: FEMA’s Investigation

FEMA’s WTC Building Performance Study –

Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investiga

9/11 as sequel to Iran-Contra: Armitage, Carlucci and friends

911: Professional experts says it was staged – Conspiracies …

The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse …

Full text of “World Trade Center Building Performance Study”

Lessons Learned

Protective Security Coordination Division – Homeland Security

Research Supposedly Supporting the OCT Studies often …

‘WTC 7 Collapsed At 4:54 pm’ Videos – What Really Happened

Download – KeyChests

Nerdcities/Guardian – articles and videos – 911review

History of Military Simulation War Games



Military simulations, also known informally as war games, are simulations in which theories of warfare can be tested and refined without the need for actual hostilities. Many professional analysts object to the term wargames as this is generally taken to be referring to the civilian hobby, thus the preference for the term simulation.

Simulations exist in many different forms, with varying degrees of realism. In recent times, the scope of simulations has widened to include not only military but also political and social factors, which are seen as inextricably entwined in a realistic warfare model.

Whilst many governments make use of simulation, both individually and collaboratively, little is known about it outside professional circles. Yet modelling is often the means by which governments test and refine their military and political policies. Military simulations are seen as a useful way to develop tactical, strategical and doctrinal solutions, but critics argue that the conclusions drawn from such models are inherently flawed, due to the approximate nature of the models used.

The simulation spectrum

The term military simulation can cover a wide spectrum of activities, ranging from full-scale field-exercises, to abstract computerized models that can proceed with little or no human involvement – such as the Rand Strategy Assessment Center (RSAC).

War Games

Military Simulations range from field exercises through computer simulations to analytical models; the realism of live manoeuvres is countered by the economy of abstract simulations.

As a general scientific principle, the most reliable data comes from actual observation and the most reliable theories depend on it. This also holds true in military analysis, where analysts look towards live field-exercises and trials as providing data likely to be realistic (depending on the realism of the exercise) and verifiable (it has been gathered by actual observation). One can readily discover, for example, how long it takes to construct a pontoon bridge under given conditions with given manpower, and this data can then generate norms for expected performance under similar conditions in the future, or serve to refine the bridge-building process. Any form of training can be regarded as a “simulation” in the strictest sense of the word (inasmuch as it simulates an operational environment); however, many if not most exercises take place not to test new ideas or models, but to provide the participants with the skills to operate within existing ones.

Full-scale military exercises, or even smaller-scale ones, are not always feasible or even desirable. Availability of resources, including money, is a significant factor — it costs a lot to release troops and materiel from any standing commitments, to transport them to a suitable location, and then to cover additional expenses such as petroleum, oil and lubricants (POL) usage, equipment maintenance, supplies and consumables replenishment and other items. In addition, certain warfare models do not lend themselves to verification using this realistic method. It might, for example, prove counter-productive to accurately test an attrition scenario by killing one’s own troops.

Moving away from the field exercise, it is often more convenient to test a theory by reducing the level of personnel involvement. Map exercises can be conducted involving senior officers and planners, but without the need to physically move around any troops. These retain some human input, and thus can still reflect to some extent the human imponderables that make warfare so challenging to model, with the advantage of reduced costs and increased accessibility. A map exercise can also be conducted with far less forward planning than a full-scale deployment, making it an attractive option for more minor simulations that would not merit anything larger, as well as for very major operations where cost, or secrecy, is an issue. (This was true in the planning of OPERATION AI.)

Increasing the level of abstraction still further, simulation moves towards an environment readily recognised by civilian wargamers. This type of simulation can be manual, implying no (or very little) computer involvement, computer-assisted, or fully computerised.

Kriegsspiel (wargame)

Kriegsspiel (wargame).

Manual simulations have probably been in use in some form since mankind first went to war. Chess can be regarded as a form of military simulation (although its precise origins are debated).  In more recent times, the forerunner of modern simulations was the Prussian game Kriegsspiel (war game),which appeared around 1811 and is sometimes credited with the Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War. It was distributed to each Prussian regiment and they were ordered to play it regularly, prompting a visiting German officer to declare in 1824, “It’s not a game at all! It’s training for war!”

Graf Helmuth von Moltke

Graf Helmuth von Moltke is nowadays regarded as the grandfather of modern military simulation. Although not the inventor of Kriegsspiel, he was greatly impressed by it as a young officer, and as Chief of Staff of the Prussian Army promoted its use as a training aid.

Eventually so many rules sprang up, as each regiment improvised their own variations, two versions came into use. One, known as “rigid Kriegsspiel“, was played by strict adherence to the lengthy rule book. The other, “free Kriegsspiel“, was governed by the decisions of human umpires. Each version had its advantages and disadvantages: rigid Kriegsspiel contained rules covering most situations, and the rules were derived from historical battles where those same situations had occurred, making the simulation verifiable and rooted in observable data, which some later American models discarded. However, its prescriptive nature acted against any impulse of the participants towards free and creative thinking. Conversely, free Kriegsspiel could encourage this type of thinking, as its rules were open to interpretation by umpires and could be adapted during operation. This very interpretation, though, tended to negate the verifiable nature of the simulation, as different umpires might well adjudge the same situation in different ways, especially where there was a lack of historical precedent. In addition, it allowed umpires to weight the outcome, consciously or otherwise.

The above arguments are still cogent in the modern, computer-heavy military simulation environment. There remains a recognised place for umpires as arbiters of a simulation, hence the persistence of manual simulations in war colleges throughout the world. Both computer-assisted and entirely computerised simulations are common as well, with each being used as required by circumstances.

rand-sptThe Rand Corporation is one of the best known designers of Military Simulations for the US Government and Air Force, and one of the pioneers of the Political-Military simulation.

Their SAFE (Strategy and Force Evaluation) simulation is an example of a manual simulation, with one or more teams of up to ten participants being sequestered in separate rooms and their moves being overseen by an independent director and his staff. Such simulations may be conducted over a few days (thus requiring commitment from the participants): an initial scenario (for example, a conflict breaking out in the Persian Gulf) is presented to the players with appropriate historical, political and military background information. They then have a set amount of time to discuss and formulate a strategy, with input from the directors/umpires (often called Control) as required. Where more than one team is participating, teams may be divided on partisan lines — traditionally Blue and Red are used as designations, with Blue representing the ‘home’ nation and Red the opposition. In this case, the teams will work against each other, their moves and counter-moves being relayed to their opponents by Control, who will also adjudicate on the results of such moves. At set intervals, Control will declare a change in the scenario, usually of a period of days or weeks, and present the evolving situation to the teams based on their reading of how it might develop as a result of the moves made. For example, Blue Team might decide to respond to the Gulf conflict by moving a carrier battle group into the area whilst simultaneously using diplomatic channels to avert hostilities. Red Team, on the other hand, might decide to offer military aid to one side or another, perhaps seeing an opportunity to gain influence in the region and counter Blue’s initiatives. At this point Control could declare a week has now passed, and present an updated scenario to the players: possibly the situation has deteriorated further and Blue must now decide if they wish to pursue the military option, or alternatively tensions might have eased and the onus now lies on Red as to whether to escalate by providing more direct aid to their clients.

Computer-assisted simulations are really just a development of the manual simulation, and again there are different variants on the theme. Sometimes the computer assistance will be nothing more than a database to help umpires keep track of information during a manual simulation. At other times one or other of the teams might be replaced by a computer-simulated opponent (known as an agent or automaton). This can reduce the umpires’ role to interpreter of the data produced by the agent, or obviate the need for an umpire altogether. Most commercial wargames designed to run on computers (such as Blitzkrieg, the Total War series, Civilization games, and even Arma 2) fall into this category.

Where agents replace both human teams, the simulation can become fully computerised and can, with minimal supervision, run by itself. The main advantage of this is the ready accessibility of the simulation — beyond the time required to program and update the computer models, no special requirements are necessary. A fully computerised simulation can run at virtually any time and in almost any location, the only equipment needed being a laptop computer. There is no need to juggle schedules to suit busy participants, acquire suitable facilities and arrange for their use, or obtain security clearances. An additional important advantage is the ability to perform many hundreds or even thousands of iterations in the time that it would take a manual simulation to run once. This means statistical information can be gleaned from such a model; outcomes can be quoted in terms of probabilities, and plans developed accordingly.

Removing the human element entirely means the results of the simulation are only as good as the model itself. Validation thus becomes extremely significant — data must be correct, and must be handled correctly by the model: the modeller’s assumptions (“rules”) must adequately reflect reality, or the results will be nonsense. Various mathematical formulae have been devised over the years to attempt to predict everything from the effect of casualties on morale to the speed of movement of an army in difficult terrain. One of the best known is the Lanchester Square Law formulated by the British engineer Frederick Lanchester in 1914. He expressed the fighting strength of a (then) modern force as proportional to the square of its numerical strength multiplied by the fighting value of its individual units. The Lanchester Law is often known as the attrition model, as it can be applied to show the balance between opposing forces as one side or the other loses numerical strength.

Heuristic or stochastic?

Another method of categorising military simulations is to divide them into two broad areas.

Heuristic simulations are those that are run with the intention of stimulating research and problem solving; they are not necessarily expected to provide empirical solutions.

Stochastic simulations are those that involve, at least to some extent, an element of chance.

Most military simulations fall somewhere in between these two definitions, although manual simulations lend themselves more to the heuristic approach and computerised ones to the stochastic.

Manual simulations, as described above, are often run to explore a ‘what if?’ scenario and take place as much to provide the participants with some insight into decision-making processes and crisis management as to provide concrete conclusions. Indeed, such simulations do not even require a conclusion; once a set number of moves has been made and the time allotted has run out, the scenario will finish regardless of whether the original situation has been resolved or not.

Computerised simulations can readily incorporate chance in the form of some sort of randomised element, and can be run many times to provide outcomes in terms of probabilities. In such situations, it sometimes happens that the unusual results are of more interest than the expected ones. For example, if a simulation modelling an invasion of nation A by nation B was put through one hundred iterations to determine the likely depth of penetration into A’s territory by B’s forces after four weeks, an average result could be calculated. Examining those results, it might be found that the average penetration was around fifty kilometres — however, there would also be outlying results on the ends of the probability curve. At one end, it could be that the FEBA is found to have hardly moved at all; at the other, penetration could be hundreds of kilometres instead of tens. The analyst would then examine these outliers to determine why this was the case. In the first instance, it might be found that the computer model’s random number generator had delivered results such that A’s divisional artillery was much more effective than normal. In the second, it might be that the model generated a spell of particularly bad weather that kept A’s air force grounded. This analysis can then be used to make recommendations: perhaps to look at ways in which artillery can be made more effective, or to invest in more all-weather fighter and ground-attack aircraft.

Political-military simulations

Since Carl von Clausewitz‘ famous declaration war is merely a continuation of Politics by other means, military planners have attempted to integrate political goals with military goals in their planning with varying degrees of commitment. Post World War II, political-military simulation in the West, initially almost exclusively concerned with the rise of the Soviet Union as a superpower, has more recently focused on the global ‘war on terror‘. It became apparent, in order to model an ideologically motivated enemy in general (and asymmetric warfare in particular), political factors had to be taken into account any realistic grand strategic simulation.

This differed markedly with the traditional approach to military simulations. Kriegsspiel (wargame) was concerned only with the movement and engagement of military forces, and subsequent simulations were similarly focused in their approach. Following the Prussian success in 1866 against Austria at Sadowa, the Austrians, French, British, Italians, Japanese and Russians all began to make use of war-gaming as a training tool. The United States was relatively late to adopt the trend, but by 1889 wargaming was firmly embedded in the culture of the U.S. Navy (with the Royal Navy as the projected adversary).

Political-military simulations take a different approach to their purely military counterparts. Since they are largely concerned with policy issues rather than battlefield performance, they tend to be less prescriptive in their operation. However, various mathematical techniques have arisen in an attempt to bring rigor to the modeling process. One of these techniques is known as game theory — a commonly-used method is that of non-zero-sum analysis, in which score tables are drawn up to enable selection of a decision such that a favorable outcome is produced regardless of the opponent’s decision.

It was not until 1954 the first modern political-military simulation appeared (although the Germans had modeled a Polish invasion of Germany in 1929 that could be fairly labeled political-military), and it was the United States that would elevate simulation to a tool of statecraft. The impetus was US concern about the burgeoning nuclear arms race (the Soviet Union exploded its first nuclear weapon in 1949, and by 1955 had developed their first true ‘H’ bomb). A permanent gaming facility was created in The Pentagon and various professional analysts were brought in to run it, including the social scientist Herbert Goldhamer, economist Andrew Marshall and MIT professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield.

Notable US political-military simulations run since World War II include the aforementioned SAFE, STRAW (Strategic Air War) and COW (Cold War). The typical political-military simulation is a manual or computer-assisted heuristic-type model, and many research organizations and think-tanks throughout the world are involved in providing this service to governments. During the Cold War, the Rand Corporation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, amongst others, ran simulations for the Pentagon that included modeling the Vietnam War, the fall of the Shah of Iran, the rise of pro-communist regimes in South America, tensions between India, Pakistan and China, and various potential flashpoints in Africa and South-East Asia. Both MIT and Rand remain heavily involved in US military simulation, along with institutions such as Harvard, Stanford, and the National Defense University. Other nations have their equivalent organizations, such as Cranfield Institute‘s Defense Academy (formerly the Royal Military College of Science) in the United Kingdom.

Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known. It is also traditional that in-game roles are played by participants of an equivalent rank in real life, although this is not a hard-and-fast rule and often disregarded. Whilst the major purpose of a political-military simulation is to provide insights that can be applied to real-world situations, it is very difficult to point to a particular decision as arising from a certain simulation — especially as the simulations themselves are usually classified for years, and even when released into the public domain are sometimes heavily censored. This is not only due to the unwritten policy of non-attribution, but to avoid disclosing sensitive information to a potential adversary. This has been true within the simulation environment itself as well — former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: “No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game.”

Political-military simulations remain in widespread use today: modern simulations are concerned not with a potential war between superpowers, but more with international cooperation, the rise of global terrorism and smaller brushfire conflicts such as those in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and the Sudan. An example is the MNE (Multinational Experiment) series of simulations that have been run from the Ataturk Wargaming, Simulation and Culture Center in Istanbul over recent years. The latest, MNE 4, took place in early 2006. MNE includes participants from Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States, and is designed to explore the use of diplomatic, economic and military power in the global arena.

Simulation and reality

Ideally military simulations should be as realistic as possible — that is, designed in such a way as to provide measurable, repeatable results that can be confirmed by observation of real-world events. This is especially true for simulations that are stochastic in nature, as they are used in a manner that is intended to produce useful, predictive outcomes. Any user of simulations must always bear in mind that they are, however, only an approximation of reality, and hence only as accurate as the model itself.


In the context of simulation, validation is the process of testing a model by supplying it with historical data and comparing its output to the known historical result. If a model can reliably reproduce known results, it is considered to be validated and assumed to be capable of providing predictive outputs (within a reasonable degree of uncertainty).

Developing realistic models has proven to be somewhat easier in naval simulations than on land. One of the pioneers of naval simulations, Fletcher Pratt, designed his “Naval War Game” in the late 1930s, and was able to validate his model almost immediately by applying it to the encounter between the German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee and three British cruisers in the Battle of the River Plate off Montevideo in 1939. Rated on thickness of armour and gun power, Graf Spee should have been more than a match for the lighter cruisers, but Pratt’s formula correctly predicted the ensuing British victory.


HMS Exeter at the Battle of the River Plate in 1939. As predicted by Pratt’s naval warfare model, despite taking heavy damage the lighter British cruisers were able to defeat their much larger opponent, the German battleship Admiral Graf Spee.

In contrast, many modern operations research models have proven unable to reproduce historical results when they are validated; the Atlas model, for instance, in 1971 was shown to be incapable of achieving more than a 68% correspondence with historical results. Trevor Dupuy, a prominent American historian and military analyst known for airing often controversial views, has said that “many OR analysts and planners are convinced that neither history nor data from past wars has any relevance.” In Numbers, Predictions, and War, he implies a model that cannot even reproduce a known outcome is little more than a whimsy, with no basis in reality.

Historically, there have even been a few rare occasions where a simulation was validated as it was being carried out. One notable such occurrence was just before the famous Ardennes offensive in World War II, when the Germans attacked allied forces during a period of bad weather in the winter of 1944, hoping to reach the port of Antwerp and force the Allies to sue for peace. According to German General Friedrich J Fangor, the staff of Fifth Panzerarmee had met in November to game defensive strategies against a simulated American attack. They had no sooner begun the exercise than reports began arriving of a strong American attack in the Hűrtgen area — exactly the area they were gaming on their map table. Generalfeldmarschall Walther Model ordered the participants (apart from those commanders whose units were actually under attack) to continue playing, using the messages they were receiving from the front as game moves. For the next few hours simulation and reality ran hand-in-hand: when the officers at the game table decided that the situation warranted commitment of reserves, the commander of the 116th Panzer Division was able to turn from the table and issue as operational orders those moves they had just been gaming. The division was mobilised in the shortest possible time, and the American attack was repulsed.

Validation is a particular issue with political-military simulations, since much of the data produced is subjective. One controversial doctrine that arose from early post-WWII simulations was that of signalling — the idea that by making certain moves, it is possible to send a message to your opponent about your intentions: for example, by conspicuously conducting field exercises near a disputed border, a nation indicates its readiness to respond to any hostile incursions. This was fine in theory, and formed the basis of East-West interaction for much of the cold war, but was also problematic and dogged by criticism. An instance of the doctrine’s shortcomings can be seen in the bombing offensives conducted by the United States during the Vietnam War. US commanders decided, largely as a result of their Sigma simulations, to carry out a limited bombing campaign against selected industrial targets in North Vietnam. The intention was to signal to the North Vietnamese high command that, whilst the United States was clearly capable of destroying a much greater proportion of their infrastructure, this was in the nature of a warning to scale down involvement in the South ‘or else’. Unfortunately, as an anonymous analyst said of the offensive (which failed in its political aims), “they either didn’t understand, or did understand but didn’t care.” It was pointed out by critics that, since both Red and Blue teams in Sigma were played by Americans — with common language, training, thought processes and background — it was relatively easy for signals sent by one team to be understood by the other. Those signals, however, did not seem to translate well across the cultural divide.

Problems of simulation

Many of the criticisms directed towards military simulations derive from an incorrect application of them as a predictive and analytical tool. The outcome supplied by a model relies to a greater or lesser extent on human interpretation and therefore should not be regarded as providing a ‘gospel’ truth. However, whilst this is generally understood by most game theorists and analysts, it can be tempting for a layman — for example, a politician who needs to present a ‘black and white’ situation to his electorate — to settle on an interpretation that supports his preconceived position. Tom Clancy, in his novel Red Storm Rising, illustrated this problem when one of his characters, attempting to persuade the Soviet Politburo that the political risks were acceptable as NATO would not be in a position to react in the face of political uncertainty caused by a division of opinion between the Allies, used a political wargame result as evidence the results of a simulation carried out to model just such an event. It is revealed in the text that there were in fact three sets of results from the simulation; a best-, intermediate- and worst-case outcome. The advocate of war chose to present only the best-case outcome, thus distorting the results to support his case.

Battleship RowAlthough fictional, the above scenario may however have been based on fact. The Japanese extensively wargamed their planned expansion during World War II, but map exercises conducted before the Pacific War were frequently stopped short of a conclusion where Japan was defeated. One often-cited example prior to Midway had the umpires magically resurrecting a Japanese carrier sunk during a map exercise, although Professor Robert Rubel argues in the Naval War College Review their decision was justified in this case given improbable rolls of the dice. Given the historical outcome, it is evident the dice rolls were not so improbable, after all. There were however equally illustrative fundamental problems with other areas of the simulation, mainly relating to a Japanese unwillingness to consider their position should the element of surprise, on which the operation depended, be lost.

Tweaking simulations to make results conform with current political or military thinking is a recurring problem. In US Naval exercises in the 1980s, it was informally understood no high-value units such as aircraft carriers were allowed to be sunk, as naval policy at the time concentrated its tactical interest on such units. The outcome of one of the largest ever NATO exercises, Ocean Venture-81, in which around 300 naval vessels, including two carrier battle groups, were adjudged to have successfully traversed the Atlantic and reached the Norwegian Sea despite the existence of a (real) 380-strong Soviet submarine fleet as well as their (simulated) Red Team opposition, was publicly questioned in Proceedings, the professional journal of the US Naval Institute. The US Navy managed to get the article classified, and it remains secret to this day, but the article’s author and chief analyst of Ocean Venture-81, Lieutenant Commander Dean L. Knuth, has since claimed two Blue aircraft carriers were successfully attacked and sunk by Red forces.

There have been many charges over the years of computerised models, too, being unrealistic and slanted towards a particular outcome. Critics point to the case of military contractors, seeking to sell a weapons system. For obvious reasons of cost, weapons systems (such as an air-to-air missile system for use by fighter aircraft) are extensively modelled on computer. Without testing of their own, a potential buyer must rely to a large extent on the manufacturer’s own model. This might well indicate a very effective system, with a high kill probability (Pk). However, it may be the model was configured to show the weapons system under ideal conditions, and its actual operational effectiveness will be somewhat less than stated. The US Air Force quoted their AIM-9 Sidewinder missile as having a Pk of 0.98 (it will successfully destroy 98% of targets it is fired at). In operational use during the Falklands War in 1982, the British recorded its actual Pk as 0.78.

Another factor that can render a model invalid is human error. One notorious example was the US Air Force’s Advanced Penetration Model, which due to a programming error made US bombers invulnerable to enemy air defences by inadvertently altering their latitude or longitude when checking their location for a missile impact. This had the effect of ‘teleporting‘ the bomber, at the instant of impact, hundreds or even thousands of miles away, causing the missile to miss. Furthermore, this error went unnoticed for a number of years. Other unrealistic models have had battleships consistently steaming at seventy knots (twice their top speed), an entire tank army halted by a border police detachment, and attrition levels 50% higher than the numbers each force began with.

Issues of enemy technical capability and military philosophy will also affect any model used. Whilst a modeller with sufficiently high security clearance and access to the relevant data can expect to create a reasonably accurate picture of his own nation’s military capacity, creating a similarly detailed picture for a potential adversary may be extremely difficult. Military information, from technical specifications of weapons systems to tactical doctrine, is high on the list of any nation’s most closely guarded secrets. However, the difficulty of discovering the unknown, when it is at least known that it exists, seems trivial compared to discovering the unguessed. As Len Deighton famously pointed out in Spy Story, if the enemy has an unanticipated capability (and he almost always does), it may render tactical and strategic assumptions so much nonsense. By its very nature, it is not possible to predict the direction every new advance in technology will take, and previously undreamt-of weapons systems can come as a nasty shock to the unprepared: the British introduction of the tank during World War I caused panic amongst German soldiers at Cambrai and elsewhere, and the advent of Hitler‘s vengeance weapons, such as the V-1 “flying bomb”, caused deep concern amongst Allied high command.

Human factors have been a constant thorn in the side of the designers of military simulations — whereas political-military simulations are often required by their nature to grapple with what are referred to by modellers as “squishy” problems, purely military models often seem to prefer to concentrate on hard numbers. Whilst a warship can be regarded, from the perspective of a model, as a single entity with known parameters (speed, armour, gun power, and the like), land warfare often depends on the actions of small groups or individual soldiers where training, morale, intelligence, and personalities (leadership) come into play. For this reason it is more taxing to model — there are many variables that are difficult to formulate. Commercial wargames, both the tabletop and computer variety, often attempt to take these factors into account: in Rome: Total War, for example, units will generally rout from the field rather than stay to fight to the last man. One valid criticism of some military simulations is these nebulous human factors are often ignored (partly because they are so hard to model accurately, and partly because no commander likes to acknowledge men under his command may disobey him). In recognition of this shortcoming, military analysts have in the past turned to civilian wargames as being more rigorous, or at least more realistic, in their approach to warfare. In the United States, James F. Dunnigan, a prominent student of warfare and founder of the commercial tabletop wargames publisher Simulations Publications Incorporated (SPI, now defunct), was brought into the Pentagon’s wargaming circle in 1980 to work with Rand and Science Applications Incorporated (SAI) on the development of a more realistic model. The result, known as SAS (Strategic Analysis Simulation), is still being used.

The human factors problem was an essential element in the development of Jeremiah at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the 1980s. Research by Lulejian and Associates had indicated that the individual soldier’s assessment of his probability of survival was the key metric in understanding why and when combat units became ineffective. While their research was based on day to day time scales, the developer of Jeremiah, K E Froeschner, applied the principle to the 10 second time step of the computer simulation. The result was a high degree of correlation with measured actions for which detailed data were available from a very few after action reports from WWII, the Israeli tank action on the Golan Heights as well as live exercises conducted at Hunter liggett Military Reservation in Monterey, California.

Jeremiah was subsequently developed into Janus by other researchers and the ‘Jeremiah Algorithm’ deleted for reasons of economy (Janus ran initially on a small computer) and for the reasons cited above — some in the military (mostly lower ranks) did not like the idea of orders not being obeyed. However the Generals who witnessed Jeremiah and the algorithm in action were usually favourable and recognized the validity of the approach.


Lyndon Johnson and aides examining a model of Khe Sanh during the Vietnam War.

All the above means that models of warfare should be taken for no more than they are: a non-prescriptive attempt to inform the decision-making process. The dangers of treating military simulation as gospel are illustrated in an anecdote circulated at the end of the Vietnam War, which was intensively gamed between 1964 and 1969 (with even President Lyndon Johnson being photographed standing over a wargaming sand table at the time of Khe Sanh) in a series of simulations codenamed Sigma. The period was one of great belief in the value of military simulations, riding on the back of the proven success of operations research (or OR) during World War II and the growing power of computers in handling large amounts of data.

The story concerned a fictional aide in Richard Nixon‘s administration, who, when Nixon took over government in 1969, fed all the data held by the US pertaining to both nations into a computer model — population, gross national product, relative military strength, manufacturing capacity, numbers of tanks, aircraft and the like. The aide then asked the question of the model, “When will we win?” Apparently the computer replied, “You won in 1964!”




1997 FEMA Manual Depicts Impact at World Trade Center


, , , , ,

FLASHBACK: 1997 FEMA Manual Depicts AA 11 Impact Point At WTC 1 In Cross-hairs.

femawtc1impactcoincidenrk7This FEMA manual often cited for its depiction of the WTC in cross-hairs, actually reveals upon closer examination nearly the exact impact point of American Airlines flight 11 with the upper north face of World Trade Center tower number 1.


Explosive: As defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation, “a substance fitting into one of these two categories: (1) any substance or article, including a device, designed to function by explosion; or (2) any substance or article, including a device, which, by chemical reaction within itself, can function
in a similar manner even if not designed to function by explosion.

Explosive Incident: An event in which an explosives device is used as a terrorist weapon.

Nuclear Incident: An event in which a nuclear agent is used as a terrorist
weapon. There are two fundamentally different threats in the area of nuclear terrorism: (1) the use, or threatened use, of a nuclear bomb; and (2) the detonation of a conventional explosive incorporating nuclear materials.

Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDDs): A conventional explosive incorporating nuclear materials. Radiation In this self-study program, refers to nuclear radiation, not radiation as a type of heat transfer. There are three types of nuclear radiation: (1) alpha, (2) beta, and (3) gamma. Radiation is the cause of one of the six types of harm that can be encountered at a terrorist incident.

Thermal, Radioactive, Asphyxiation, Chemical, Etiological, and Mechanical (TRACEM)

Thermal harm is the result of exposure to the extremes of heat and cold. Here
we will examine only heat, but cold can be equally harmful.
As you have learned elsewhere, heat travels by one of four methods:conduction, convection, radiation, and direct flame contact.

Radiation, as used in this section, refers to nuclear radiation, not radiation as a
type of heat transfer. There are three types of nuclear radiation that the first
responder should be familiar with: alpha, beta, and gamma. Alpha and
beta radiation are found as particles, while gamma radiation is found in the
form of rays.
Alpha radiation is the least penetrating of the three, and is not considered
dangerous unless alpha-contaminated particles enter the body. Once inside
the body, alpha radiation will damage internal organs.
Beta radiation is more penetrating than alpha radiation. Beta-contaminated
particles can damage skin tissue, and can harm internal organs if they enter
the body. The use of PPE including SCBA willgreatly enhance the emergency responder’s safety when dealing with alpha or beta radiation.

Gamma Radiation: Gamma rays are high-energy, ionizing radiation that travel at the speed of light and have great penetrating power. They can cause skin burns, severely injure internal organs, and have long-term, physiological effects.

Incendiary Device: Any mechanical, electrical, or chemical device used
intentionally to initiate combustion and start a fire.
Incendiary Incident: An event in which an incendiary device is used as a terrorist weapon.
Irritating Agent: A chemical agent, also known as riot control agents or tear
gas, which causes respiratory distress and tearing designed to incapacitate. Common examples include chloropicrin, MACE, tear gas, pepper spray, and dibenzoxazepine.

In 1999 NORAD had drills of jets as weapons targeting the World Trade Center

norad_drill_911In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was “unrealistic,” NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

“Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft,” the statement said. “These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures.”

A White House spokesman said that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.

On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn’t anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.

On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it “too unrealistic.”

President Bush said at a news conference, “Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.”

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were “hijacked.” Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that “scriptwriters” for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

“Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response,” Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission.

“We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace,” Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander.”Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised.”

NORAD, a U.S.-Canadian command, was created in 1958 to guard against Soviet bombers.

Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons. Since the attacks, NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings.

NORAD fighters based in Florida have intercepted two hijacked smaller aircraft since the Sept. 11 attacks. Both originated in Cuba and were escorted to Key West in spring 2003, NORAD said.


NASA Dryden Controlled Impact Demonstration


Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft

DFRC Movie # Movie Date Movie Description
EM-0004-01 December 1984 CID Aircraft crash landing
EM-0004-02 December 1984 Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) tail camera video
EM-0004-03 December 1984 Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) montage

In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel with an additive designed to suppress fire. The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with
Jet-A fuel had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests.

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remote-controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree glide slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a “go-around,” there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish.

This flight, called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), was the culmination of more than a year of preparation in a joint research project by NASA and the FAA to test the effectiveness of anti-misting kerosene (AMK) in a so-called survivable impact. Added to typical Jet A fuel, the AMK was designed to suppress the fireball that can result from an impact in which the airstream causes spilled fuel to vaporize into a mist.

The plane was also instrumented for a variety of other impact-survivability experiments, including new seat designs, flight data recorders, galley and stowage-bin attachments, cabin fire-proof materials, and burn-resistant windows. Crash forces were measured, and a full complement of instrumented crash test dummies was carried on the flight.

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level and exactly on the centerline during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway. The Boeing 720 landed askew and caused a cabin fire when burning fuel was able to enter the fuselage.

It was not exactly the impact that was hoped for, but research from the CID program yielded new data on impact survivability which helped establish new FAA rules regarding fire prevention and retardant materials. Although proponents argued that AMK prevented a hotter, more catastrophic fire during the CID, FAA requirements for the additive were put on the back burner.


9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda, without any detailed advanced knowledge on the part of any government agency. Proponents of these conspiracy theories claim there are inconsistencies in the official conclusions, or evidence which was overlooked. In a 2008 global poll of 16,063 people in 17 countries, majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks. 46% of those surveyed believed al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, 15% believed the U.S. government was responsible, 7% believed Israel was and another 7% believed some other perpetrator, other than al Qaeda, was responsible. The poll found that respondents in the Middle East were especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al-Qaeda.

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural failure due to fire. Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective standdown of the American military. Possible motives claimed by conspiracy theorists for such actions include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as geostrategic interests in the Mideast, such as pipeline plans launched in the early 1990s by Unocal and other oil companies. Other conspiracy theories revolve around authorities having advance knowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignoring or helping to assist the attackers.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and media outlets such as Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theories. The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.


Emergency Response to Terrorism – Self Study – National …

Session6.doc – FEMA – Federal Emergency Management ..

Emergency response to terrorism : self-study. (Book, 1997 …

Emergency Response to Terrorism: Strategic …

World Trade Center & Pentagon Disaster |

1997 FEMA Manual Depicts AA 11 Impact …

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

NORAD Exercises Simulate Plane Crashes into US …

remote-controlled Boeing 720

airforce manual 10-100, airman’s manual, 1 august 1999 …

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11

Global Guardian

Vigilant Guardian Archives

Complete 911 Timeline

FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study …

World Trade Center Building Performance Study (Hardcopy)

September 1, 2002
World Trade Center Building Performance Study (CD)

September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Cover and Table of Contents

1.43M September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Executive Summary

76.78K September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Chapter 1. Introduction

3.67M September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Chapter 2. WTC 1 and WTC 2

5.04M September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Chapter 3. WTC 3

2.38M September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Chapter 4. WTC 4, 5, and 6

3.38M September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Chapter 5. WTC 7

3.52M September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Chapter 6. Bankers Trust Building

1.77M September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Chapter 7. Peripheral Buildings

3.35M September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Chapter 8. Observations, Findings, and Recommendations

125.76K September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Appendix A. Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings

794.20K September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Appendix B. Structural and Steel Connections

793.90K September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Appendix C. Limited Metallurgical Examinations

2.04M September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Appendix D. WTC Steel Data Collection

2.23M September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Appendix E. Aircraft Information

534.83K September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Appendix F. Structural Engineers Emergency Response Plan

420.47K September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Appendix G. Acknowledgments

81.30K September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Appendix H. Acronyms and Abbreviations

41.58K September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf Appendix I. Metric Conversions

101.90K September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type text/plain FEMA 403 Presentation

6.46K September 1, 2002
Icon for file of type application/pdf FEMA 403 Presentation

10.74M September 1, 2002







Salton SeaHigh, environmentally unsustainable rates of population growth in the Salton Sea watershed and in those parts of California hoping to siphon water out of it are the greatest medium- and long-term threats to a healthy Salton Sea.

These will cause increased nutrient inputs to the Sea, further aggravating its already hypereutrophic state. They will favor increased water diversions to coastal California, decreased Salton Sea inflows, and a shrinking and saltier Sea. They will increase the cost of the engineering projects needed to counter these trends.

High immigration rates are the greatest controllable cause of this population growth and the environmental degradation that comes with it. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that of the 122 million increase predicted for the U.S. population by 2050, immigration will account for about 80 million. That figure only includes post-2000 immigrants and their descendants.

Immigration's ImpactMost of the likely major institutions – Congress, universities, scientific societies, environmental organizations, the press – seem unable to deal with these issues openly and rationally. In too many forums one hears debate suppressed by name-calling and ad hominem attacks on the part of ideologues. Many major scientific societies and environmental organizations have bought into the “Globalist Co-pout” paradigm, the idea that American citizens should work on resolving the issue of global overpopulation, but should turn a blind eye to the issue of U.S. overpopulation.

Think globally act locally Affected by acute cognitive dissonance, these organizations actually are hurting their own agendas on other national environmental issues. Thus, we start the new millennium with the most fundamental national environmental issues being dealt with only by a small number of thick-skinned, well-centered organizations, such as CAPS, FAIR, NPG, and PEB. They operate in the best tradition of “Think globally, act locally.” Most U.S. scientific societies and environmental organizations seem stuck on “Think Globally, Talk Globally.”
Scientists, activists, state officials, NGOs, and others increasingly claim to speak and act on behalf of “humanity.” The remarkable array of circumstances in which humanity is invoked testifies to the category’s universal purchase. Yet what exactly does it mean to govern, fight, and care in the name of humanity?

In this timely collection, leading anthropologists and cultural critics grapple with that question, examining configurations of humanity in relation to biotechnologies, the natural environment, and humanitarianism and human rights. From the global pharmaceutical industry, to forest conservation, to international criminal tribunals, the domains they analyze highlight the diversity of spaces and scales at which humanity is articulated.

The ideas about humanity find concrete expression in the governing work that operationalizes those ideas to produce order, prosperity, and security. As a site of governance, humanity appears as both an object of care and a source of anxiety. Assertions that humanity is being threatened, whether by environmental catastrophe or political upheaval, provide a justification for the elaboration of new governing techniques. At the same time, humanity itself is identified as a threat (to nature, to nation, to global peace) which governance must contain.

These apparently contradictory understandings of the relation of threat to the category of humanity coexist and remain in tension, helping to maintain the dynamic co-production of governance and humanity.

Population Growth and Sustainability

Who is working for sustainability rather than just going to conferences about it? or hiding behind the skirts of “it’s not in my job description?”

Expected Increase in Population in the Salton Basin by 2020: ca. 100%and where will their toilet water flow?

Expected Increase in Population in Southern California by 2020:

 ca. 50%and where will they get their water?

Expected Increase along entire U.S.-Mexico Border by 2020:

 ca. 94% – and what will this do to the border environment?

“These population trends portend serious problems for border communities in terms of infrastructure deficits, availability of water and energy, and negative environmental impacts on water, air, and natural areas. …. Most border communities are not prepared to deal with even the best-case scenario” (SCERP, 1999; see info packet).

Expected increase in U.S. Population by 2050

 ca. 31% i.e. by 122,000,000 – or 12 x Los Angeles

– 42,000,000 due to current residents– 80,000,000 due to future immigration

“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”
– Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)

Solution of the Salton Sea’s problems requires a large dose of political wisdom and a small dose of science and engineering.High Nutrient Inputs
Closed Basin Lake
Extreme Eutrophication

Eutrophication: the complex sequence of changes in aquatic ecosystems caused by an increased rate of supply of plant nutrients to water; in the Salton Sea, characterized by dense, colorful algal blooms and periodic poor water quality which can kill fish and other organisms.


Salton Sea in Relation to Other Lakes

Going Downhill

The trophic state of a lake is primarily determined by nutrient inputs and mean depth. Unlike other lakes shown, the Salton Sea is a closed basin lake. Its condition is thus worse than indicated by the dots representing it.

Phosphorus inputs are increasing because the human population in the Salton Sea watershed is increasing at 3-4% per year. And all municipal wastewaters in the watershed empty into streams or groundwaters that flow toward the Sea.
Lake depth will decrease in the future if there is reduction in Salton Sea inflows. This will further exacerbate the lake’s overenrichment with nutrients.

Ways to Slow and then Reverse Eutrophication

P = POSITIVE GROWTH)1. P removal from municipal waste waters in Imperial Valley

2. Outlaw P-containing detergents in Mexico

3. P removal via harvesting of tilapia for production of commercial fishmeal, a multi-decade project

4. Reduce population growth in watershed

SaltonWatershedNRapid Population Growth + California 4.4 Plan
Extreme Water Shortage
Fallowing of land, “Reclaiming” of Salton Sea inflows, Major shrinkage of Salton Sea

These processes are already underway:


SDCWA: proposed water transfers from IID
MWDSC: has requested rights to SS inflows
CVWD: has requested rights to SS inflows
Mexico: Planning ways to use New R. flows
Current Average inflows to Salton Sea

Who is Fighting High U.S. Population Growth?

Positions & votes by Congressmen on legislation affecting immigration and population growth rates

P – Position/ vote:
_ = Environment friendly, Salton Sea friendly
  = Environment hostile, Salton Sea hostile – Southern California Congressmen (Districts 40-52)

Legislative items (key below)

1 2  3  4  5 7 8
Lewis (R-40) _ _ ? ?
Kim (R-41) _ _ ? ?
Baca (D-42) ? ?
Brown (D-42) _ _ _
Calvert (R-43) _ _ _ _ ? ?
Bono, S. (R-44) _ _ _
Bono, M. (R-44) _ ? ?
Rohrabacher (R-45) _ _ _ _ _ _ ? _
Dornan (R-46) _ _
Sanchez (D-46) ? ?
Cox (R-47) _ _ ? _
Packard (R-48) _ _ _ _ _ _
Bilbray (R-49) _ _ _ _ _ ? _
Filner (D-50) _ _ ? ?
Cunningham (R-51) _ _ _ _ ? _
Hunter (R-52) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

California Senators

Boxer (D) (analysis in process)

Feinstein (D) (analysis in process)

1. Chrysler et al. amendment to HR 2202: killed much needed legal forms, allowing endless chain migration of extended families and continued high immigration rates.
2. Gallegly et al. amendment to H.R.2202 – 104th Congress: would have established a mandatory employment verification system in 5 states heavily impacted by illegal immigration.
3. Pombo/Chambliss amendment to HR2202: would have granted as many as 250,000 temporary farm worker visas without adequate mechanisms to assure repatriation.
4. McCollum amendment to HR2202: would have instructed government to make the Social Security card tamper-proof and thereby greatly assisted slowing of illegal immigration.
5. Rohrabacher amendment to HR2202: would have prevented permanent extension of legal loophole that allowed illegal aliens to obtain legal status.
6. HR3736: raised the number of skilled foreign temporary workers allowed into U.S. from 65,000 to 115, 000 with no effective mechanism to assure their repatriation.
7. HR41: imposes temporary limits on most categories of immigration and restores immigration to lower historical levels. Pending.
8. HR73: would deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. Pending.


Any voter concerned about the Salton Sea or, indeed, about environmental degradation in the U.S. in general will appreciate those votes or positions symbolized by green flowers. This will be doubly true for anyone who agrees we should be thinking and planning in terms of our grandchildren’s generation. There are many factors to weigh in any piece of legislation, but it should be disappointing to the public that 40 percent of the votes tallied above favor maintaining or increasing our high growth rate. This currently is greater than that of any other industrialized nation. The Salton Sea would have a better chance of surviving to 2050 if we didn’t add many tens of millions of thirsty people to California’s and the nation’s population over the next decades. Concerned citizens will try to steer those black question marks toward environmentally responsible outcomes.

Distribution and Numbers of Immigrants,1996

ImmigrantDistribution“From the founding of the republic to the mid-1920s, U.S. immigration was largely unrestricted, but shortly thereafter Congress passed legislation severely limiting entry from all regions except northwestern Europe. Beginning in 1965 and continuing thereafter, it passed a series of more liberal laws, including the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986, under which 2.7 million illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico, were given legal immigrant status. The new laws not only promoted diversity but also opened the door to the longest and largest wave of immigration ever–27 million since 1965, including illegal entries….

“In 1996, a more or less typical year, there were 916,000 legal immigrants plus an estimated 275,000 who came illegally….

“The U.S. population will grow enormously, absent a drastic reduction in immigration. A big drop in immigration does not seem imminent in view of pressures from many ethnic groups, which generally support a heterogeneous society, and from employers who depend on low-wage labor. The U.S. Census Bureau’s latest projection, which assumes a continuation of recent immigration and emigration levels over the next half a century, puts the U.S. population at 394 million in 2050. Of the 122 million increase between now and then, 80 million would be added because of immigration.”

Excerpted from “U.S. Immigration” by R. Doyle, Scientific American, September 9, 1999.

A Crime Whose Name We Dare Not Speak?

President Clinton, 1998 Despite massive illegal immigration, there will be no massive deportations. Most of the illegals here now will be allowed to stay; most of those who come later will also be allowed to stay.


“The betrayal of any trust or confidence; breach of faith” – Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1956

Political Candidates, 2000

No opinions on the subject? Perhaps someone should ask …..

The Globalist Cop-out

The Globalist Cop-out states that since overpopulation is a global problem, the ways of dealing with it must be primarily global or international in nature. It is ok for individual nations to attempt to control their own birth rates. But they should not control or reduce their immigration rates, even if immigration is the major cause of their population growth. It would be “unfair” if one country were able to stabilize its population well ahead of other countries, especially if it were an industrialized western country. So goes the “reasoning.”

The U.S., for example, should deal with its population problem by ameliorating the social, political, and economic problems in the rest of the world that cause so many to attempt to come here. Then, in some later century or millenium, they will prefer to stay home.
The Globalist Cop-out is a device used in the U.S. primarily by four groups of people:
1) as a mantra by the saintly innocents, who claim the moral high ground with vague references to “human rights”, “social justice”, etc. and who are apparently truly without understanding of the consequences of the open border or high immigration policies they advocate;
2) as a smokescreen by those who want high immigration rates so they will have a good supply of cheap labor:
3) as a smokescreen by those who want high immigration rates, but usually only for their own “group”, however defined, in order to increase its political power; and
4) as an excuse for inaction by those afflicted by el fenómeno microcojónico, a condition especially widespread among university academics, environmental organizations, scientific societies, other professional organizations, and to a lesser extent among the general public.

This condition is characterized by acute cognitive dissonance. That results from full awareness of the problems posed by high immigration, guilt feelings over their luck in being U.S citizens, and great fear of being called names in public. The epithets favored by the attack dogs are “racist”, “nativist”, and “xenophobe”. The attack dogs come mostly from the three other groups. But even microcojónicos, after enough coffee and/or Viagra, have been known to “go postal” on persons who raise immigration issues.

By far the largest and most influential group, it is the microcojónicos who are the primary obstacle to stabilization of the U.S. population and the long-term health of the Salton Sea, the Colorado River and its delta, and other environments of California and Baja California, among thousands of other ecosystems in decline.

Prime Practitioners of The Globalist Cop-out

There are so many, choosing is hard! But below we give brief synopses of the cop-out stances of one political party, one scientific society, and one environmental organization.

 The Green Party of California

This paragon of saintly innocence claims to advocate protection of the environment more strongly than do other political parties. Their internet website presents a detailed platform on population and immigration issues. It refers to that majority of the U.S. population favoring reductions in immigration as being “xenophobic” and “reactionary.” As usual, such shameless rhetoric is a smokescreen for hiding weak arguments and forestalling reasoned debates the name-callers would be likely to lose.

The website says that even “militaristic fortification of the border” will not stop illegal immigration, that illegal immigrants do not displace native workers, and that they have a positive effect on the economy. Therefore the U.S. should provide full social and educational services to illegal immigrants and should not penalize persons or companies who employ them. The Party acknowledges that the population of California is expected to double in 30 years. It does not even hint that legal and illegal immigration are primary drivers of this increase.
The Greens are giving the Democrats and Republicans stiff competition for the Masters of Myopia Prize.

The Ecological Society of America

Composed of scientists who study deserts, prairies, and forests, lakes, rivers and oceans, the plants, animals and microbes that inhabit them, and the influence on them of man’s activities, this is the largest and most diverse group of environmental scientists in the U.S. There is no group more knowledgeable about the relation between U.S. population growth and environmental degradation. But this society has shirked all responsibility for doing anything about it.
In 1991 it published The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An Ecological Research Agenda” (Ecology 72:371-412). As a research agenda and request for more funds for research, it is fine. But as stated by Ludwig et al. (Ecol. Applications 3:547-555), “Such a claim that basic research will lead to sustainable use of resources in the face of a growing human population may lead to a false complacency: instead of addressing the problems of population and excessive use of resources, we may avoid such difficult issues by spending money on basic ecological research.”

The document addresses the global population issue briefly and says nothing whatsoever about U.S. population growth (despite coming from a U.S. organization).

A few years later it was suggested that the society prepare another white paper that dealt specifically with U.S. population growth, its causes and environmental impacts. The suggestion was turned down. The nation clearly cannot count on such academic-dominated societies of microcojónicos to speak or act in the national interest on difficult topics – except perhaps in exchange for more research funds. Fortunately, the civic role they fear to play has been assumed by other organizations. These include Population-Environment Balance, Negative Population Growth, Californians for Population Stabilization, Federation for Immigration Reform, and the Carrying Capacity Network, to name a few.

The Sierra Club Board of Directors

Until 1996 the Sierra Club, a U.S. environmental organization, advocated stabilization of the U.S. population via reduction in both rate of natural increase and immigration rates. In 1996 its Board of Directors and its so-called “Environmental Justice Committee” decided that population was a global problem and that the Club should have no position on U.S. immigration levels and policies.
Through a petition process, those wishing to have a policy in favor of reduced immigration levels forced the Board of Directors to have a membership-wide vote on the issue.

Using tactics that would make Gordon Liddy proud, the Board of Directors organized a campaign of disinformation and dirty tricks. These, ad hominem attacks on initiative proponents as “racists” and “migrant bashers”, and membership apathy, defeated the initiative. Voting took place in April 1998 – 6% were in favor, 9% were against, and 85% of the members didn’t vote.
In his victory press release, Sierra Club President Carl Pope crowed, “Our members have shown they understand that restricting immigration into the United States will not solve the environmental problems caused by global overpopulation” – as if the global scale is the only or most effective one at which the problem can be dealt with!

The cognitive dissonance underlying such amazing statements has been nicely analyzed in an article,Cry, the Overcrowded Country by Diana Hull (The Social Contract, Summer 1999; in your information packet).

California Population Growth

The Big Picture In Two Facts

1. Population projections indicate that in about 30 years, California will be as densely populated as China is now (137 persons per sq km)
2. Foreign immigration contributed 96% of California’s population growth from 1990 to 1997a.
a. See CAPS website ( for data and calculations. Foreign immigration is calculated as new immigrants plus births to immigrants, both legal and illegal, adjusted for deaths and out-migration to other states.

SierraClubLogoLeader in the Globalist Cop-out Movement

(in defiance of its motto)

A Sierra Club ballot issue

Should the Sierra Club advocate limiting immigration to stabilize the U.S. population and protect the environment?

Attack by politically correct ostriches

Adam Werbach, National Sierra Club President
“There is no place for the Sierra Club to be involved in blaming immigrants for environmental problems…”

Peter Andersen, SDSU Professor, Sierra Club, SD Chapter
“This type of Draconian measure to close the door behind us and not let any more people in is not the solution.”

Armando Soto Mayer, Sierra Club, LA Chapter
This ballot is “an issue of racism”

Carl Pope, National Sierra Club Executive Director
“If we do not solve our population crisis globally we will not solve it at all.”

Original Abstract

Current proposals for solving the problems of the Salton Sea all fall short of the mark. They are classic examples of the idea of a technological fix, the idea that scientists and engineers can provide the solution to what are fundamentally social and political problems. When called to the rescue, the scientists and engineers are happy to look for these technological fixes on behalf of the politicians, who usually need to claim “progress made” before the next election cycle.

The scientists and engineers know the fixes will not help much in the long run, and may even delay attention to the real problems. But a “fix search” can provide a job, research funds, per diem for travel to interesting places and conferences, and other perks. So we are happy to oblige, to be ‘good soldiers’ and not question orders. To avoid offense, to maintain our positions, and to keep the funds flowing, we refrain from pointing out to the politicians the lack of vision and courage that keeps them from dealing with the important issues. This poster attempts to depart from these self-serving and myopic traditions.

The long-term health of the Salton Sea requires four things: removal of salts, continued large inflows of waste-waters, some additional freshwater inputs for dilution purposes, and removal of phosphorus from the Sea at a rate faster than it is coming in. However, the last three of these will be very difficult if not impossible given the high rate of population growth, especially in California, Arizona, and Baja California. Should large amounts be invested in the proposed technological fixes for the Sea if the politicians are not willing, at the same time, to begin dealing with the social and political issue of population management so that the ‘fixes’ can bear real fruit?

In the U.S., population growth is driven primarily by immigration. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that under current immigration policies, immigration will account for about 80 million of the 122 million increase in the U.S. population predicted for 2050. Increasing population and increasing environmental degradation go hand in hand. In a very real sense, immigration is the greatest controllable cause of environmental problems in the U.S., including those confronting the Salton Sea. Our high average standard of living (nice cars, nice homes, nice industries, nice agriculture, nice daily showers, etc.) is a bigger cause, of course, but even the ‘greenest’ individuals seem disinclined to give up much of this.

The poster presents a collage of information on problems of eutrophication and water supply at the Salton Sea, their relation to population growth and immigration, the failures of the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government to deal effectively with immigration issues, and the smear tactics and cognitive dissonance with which some organizations attempt to suppress rational discussion of them.

An information packet with materials from different organizations on these issues will be available to symposium registrants. A resolution for forwarding to the President and Congress of the United States will also be available for signing by interested persons. This will present the Salton Sea as just one example of the collision between high rates of population growth and the need to reduce environmental degradation, and will ask for appropriate government action, so that expenditures on engineering projects at the Salton Sea, among other places, have a chance of purchasing more than white elephants. [The idea of a resolution was not implemented.]




Salton Sea Project Office

SEPS Scientists and Environmentalists

The Social Contract

Duke University Press

Population Growth and The Salton Sea Thumbprints


The College of Sciences – San Diego State University

Sierra Club leader departs amid discontent over group’s …

Sierra Club Leader Will Step Down –

The Sierra Club’s Carl Pope – PBS

Sierra Club – Undue Influence

Salton Sea | lisa’s leaks

The Salton Sea: Death and Politics in the Great America …

The Dying Sea


A Snapshot of the Future: Indoor Farms


, ,

Indoor FarmsThere’s a need

Indoor farms could be the answer to the water crisis bringing food security and year-round fresh produce to communities in need.

In the US, agriculture is responsible for 80% of water use and 90% in many western states. A big part of agriculture is irrigated crops. In 2008, about 72 million acre-feet of water was used to irrigate 40 million acres of farms in 17 western states. About 38 million of those acre-feet were from surface water and about 34 million from ground water. To get an idea of how much water that is, an Olympic sized swimming pool holds about 2 acre-feet of water.

Such large water use in a time of drought demands innovative solutions. One partial solution is indoor farming. Indoor farms aren’t novel in the realm of food production, for example Cornell University created an indoor farming system in 1999 (now operated by Challenge Industries, Inc.) and entities continue to implement indoor farms worldwide. A recent, rather successful, example is Mirai Co., Ltd.’s indoor farm in Japan.

future foodShigeharu Shimamura, the CEO of Mirai (a company that sells plant factory materials and vegetables), recently built the world’s largest indoor farm. Occupying a 25,000 square foot facility, the Mirai farm produces 10,000 heads of lettuce every day. The farm is quite remarkable because it grows lettuce 2.5 times faster than an outdoor farm, reduces produce waste from 50% to 10%, and reduces water use by 99%. Because of Mirai’s ability to control every aspect of plant growth, it is able to increase farm productivity by hundredfold per square foot. The Mirai farm uses far less water than an outdoor farm by reducing water lost due to seepage and evaporation. Moreover, the moisture that does evaporate off of the growing lettuce collects high above the produce racks and is recycled back into the system. This is an important process because in conventional farming as much as 70% of water never gets to crops.

Problems with indoor farms

Notably, Challenge Industries and Mirai both grow lettuce. However, Shimamura said that technically it is possible to grow any plant in an indoor farm. What is stopping his company and others from growing different plants is economics; these farms use a lot of energy. Therefore, it only makes sense to produce fast-growing vegetables at this time. Another issue with energy is the carbon footprint. Dr. Louis D. Albright, the program director of Cornell University’s Controlled Environment Agriculture program, argues that powering the LED lights creates a larger carbon footprint than shipping produce from coast-to-coast.

Beyond energy, indoor farming also presents a question of employment and how employees fit into this picture. Mirai uses machines to automate about half of the processes at its farm while picking is done by hand. However, Mirai hopes to fully automate the farm once there is an emergence of harvesting robots. Cornell’s farm, which produces 945 heads of lettuce per day, employs only 2 fulltime workers and 1 part time worker. Whether or not this is a problem is a matter of perspective. I view it as a step into the future in which we can redirect human capital to new challenges and innovations. But that’s easy to say as a law student who is going into the knowledge economy. Others may view the near-total robotization of farming to be no more than a job killer. Total robotization of farming could eradicate jobs across the globe; the Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are about 750,000 agricultural workers (this includes livestock workers). Coupled with the expectation that 3D printers will kill the manufacturing industry, indoor farms could put the availability of manual labor jobs in serious jeopardy.

harvest robotIt is also worth being concerned about the public’s potential reactions to indoor farms. People love organically grown food that has not been tampered by human interference. They may be turned off by the fact that computer systems are growing lettuce 2.5 times faster than it would grow outside and that LED lights feed the plants rather than the sun. In fact, Mirai calls its indoor farm a plant factory. It all sounds very artificial. However, people may react positively because indoor farms are pesticide free which would lead to a cut-down in water pollution. Another noteworthy benefit of indoor farms is that they can provide fresh produce year-round in communities that may not have reliable access to crops. Mirai, for example, put its factory in a part of Japan that was devastated by a 2011 earthquake amid fears about Japan’s declining supply of domestic vegetable production.

Closing thoughts

I honestly believe indoor farms are the inevitable future. Populations and food demand grow while land and water remain finite. American citizens who live in freezing climates like arctic Alaska or in deserts could have a reliable, local source for fresh produce year-round.



USDA Economic Research Service, Irrigation & Water Use (last updated June 7, 2013),

USDA Economic Research Service, Western Irrigated Agriculture tables 1-8 to -11 (last updated June 7, 2013),

Samantha Masunaga, Rosemead cemetery aims to be a model of drought-tolerant landscaping, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 14, 2014,

Rutgers University, Floating Hydroponics Greenhouse (last visited Jan. 18, 2015),

Gloria Dickie, Q&A: Inside the World’s Largest Indoor Farm, Nat Geo Food, July 17, 2014,

GE Reports, Lettuce See the Future: Japanese Farmer Builds High-Tech Indoor Veggie Factory, July 9, 2014,

Water for farming Running dry, The Economist, Sep. 18, 2008,

Monica Kim, Salad Inc.: Can plant factories save us from climate change? Modern Farmer, Dec. 14, 2014,

Cornell University Controlled Environment Agriculture, People of CEA (last visited Jan. 22, 2015),

US Bureau of Labor Staistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook: Agricultural Workers, Jan. 8, 2014,



University of Denver Water Law Review at …

Mirai Co., Ltd.

In the pink: Speeding up crop growth | FutureFood 2050

Future appears bright for indoor veggie farms | The Japan …

Floating_Hydroponics Greenhouse

GE Mirai Lettuce Farm 4 – Inhabitat

Indoor Cultivation for the Future – Field Robotics Center


Hazards Toll: The Costs of Inaction at the Salton Sea


, , , , ,

Dying Salton SeaHuge Public Health and Environmental Costs as Salton Sea Deteriorates

The Salton Sea is shrinking, and without a restoration project it will transform from California’s largest lake into an economic, health, and environmental hazard.

Imperial County and the Imperial Irrigation District has been in a long-running legal battle and litigation over the Salton Sea water transfer deal and its effects on the shrinking Sea.

The case stems from the 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement, or QSA, the largest agricultural-to-urban water transfer in U.S. history. Under that deal, increasing amounts of water are to be transferred from the farmland of the Imperial Valley to urban areas in San Diego County and the Coachella Valley.

The Imperial Irrigation District deal and its effects on the shrinking Sea.

The declining Salton Sea imposes massive public health and environmental costs on local residents and Californians. The continued failure to protect and preserve the Salton Sea, worsening air quality and the loss of valuable ecological habitat – combined with diminished recreational revenue and property devaluation – could cost as much as $70 billion over the next 30 years.

The high costs of California’s plan for the Salton Sea have inhibited deliberation and deterred any meaningful investment in revitalizing the Salton Sea. Many decision-makers assume that delaying action at the Salton Sea will result in business as usual, with no additional costs.

Hazard-toll-coverThe Hazard’s Toll report makes clear that this is not the case. Because the Salton Sea has changed over the past decade and will soon enter a period of very rapid decline, the costs of inaction are escalating rapidly.

The consequences of continued inaction at the Salton Sea will be felt most directly by the 650,000 people who live in harm’s way of the Salton Sea’s toxic dust, as well as by the birds and other life that depend on the lake.

“Exposing 134 square miles of lake-bed to desert winds could kick up an average of 86 tons per day of talcum powder-like dust into the region’s air,” said HAZARD co-author Karen Hyun. “This dust is a respiratory irritant, and Imperial County is already home to the highest childhood asthma hospitalization rate in California.”

“It may be creating a problem Southern California cannot live with,” said Phil Meyer, former consultant to the Salton Sea Task Force, a coalition of government agencies dedicated to finding ways to cleanse the sea.

Toxic Salton SeaSalton Sea mud contains enough arsenic and selenium to qualify for disposal in a dump reserved for the most toxic of society’s trash. Chromium, zinc, lead and pesticides, including DDT, are also in the lake bottom.

These chemicals can attach themselves to the fine particles of sediment while the lake evaporates and will be breathed by people…It will be a catastrophic health hazard!

Dried up lakes can be enormous polluters.

Owens LakeOwens Lake

The highest amount of tiny, airborne particles recorded in the Western Hemisphere occurred at Keeler, Calif., on Feb. 3, 1989. Wind-driven dust from the desiccated Owens Valley lake-bed pushed particle concentrations to 1,861 micrograms per cubic meter — 12 times greater than the federal health-based limit. Five percent of all the particle pollution in North America comes from the Owens Lake bed.

Mono Lake

Mono LakeThe once prosperous mining towns and ranches of Mono Lake have all dried up. Many ranchers sold their land and water rights to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and moved. The LADWP contracted to build a system of diversion dams to ship the water south. The project was completed in 1941, and virtually all the water destined for Mono Lake was piped to southern California. Without the annual inflow of fresh water, the lake began to dry up. The city of Los Angeles is the largest landowner in the area.

In addition to the changes to the lake populations, the lower water level caused other problems. As water evaporated, the lake shrank exposing a layer of alkaline salts. High winds stir up these salts and create toxic dust storms. These dust storms are a health hazard for everyone living in the Mono Lake basin. Changes to the lake were dramatic. Without a freshwater source the salinity of the lake doubled. By 1995 the water level had dropped over 45 feet.

“Arsenic in dust blown from the shores of shrinking Mono Lake in the eastern Sierra Nevada poses a cancer risk of 1 in 10,000 — 100 times more dangerous than the toxic emissions from a large factory. Arsenic is a byproduct of volcanic activity in the area,” said Tom Gill, geochemist for the air quality branch of the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at the University of California, Davis.

Aral Sea

Dust from the banks of the disappearing Aral Sea in the former Soviet Union is one of the world’s great environmental health hazards.

Aral_Sea_Dust_Storm[1]Once the fourth largest lake in the world, massive river diversions have shrunk the Aral Sea by 40 percent, exposing about 11,000 square miles of lake bottom. The intentional shrinking of the Aral Sea in Central Asia is considered one of the most dramatic examples of a natural area destroyed by human activities. The Aral Sea has become a symbol of what can go wrong when transboundary water is mismanaged.

About 40 million tons of dust, salts, pesticides and hydrocarbons are swept up by dust storms annually, with consequences for the 5 million people living around it, including 1.5 million children. Diseases are increasing causing anemia, tuberculosis, kidney and liver diseases, respiratory
infections, allergies, mouth and respiratory cancers among the millions of people living near the sea.

“There’s no reason to believe it couldn’t or wouldn’t happen at the Salton Sea,” Gill said.

salton-sea-mapAccording to the report, the Salton Sea’s surface elevation will drop by more than five feet in just the next 12 years. In 2018, due to the 2003 water-transfer agreements and changes in Mexico, inflows to the Sea will decrease dramatically, causing the Sea to reach a critical tipping point. Among the devastating changes:

  • Between 2018 and 2030, the Sea will drop an additional 20 feet;
  • By 2021, rising lake salinity will mean the loss of nearly all fish life. Tens of thousands of resident and migratory birds will lose breeding and roosting habitats and food sources;
  • By 2036, the southern shore will have receded 4 to 5 miles, and the shrinking Sea will expose more than 130 square miles of dusty lake-bed to the desert winds—an area nearly three times the size of San Francisco;
  • In 60 years, the Sea will be little more than a shallow algal/bacterial soup.

According to Julia Levin, State Policy Director for Audubon California, the impact on fish and birds will be staggering. “This analysis demonstrates that we must do something to protect the Salton Sea,” she said. “Without restoration, we will lose almost all fish life and tens of thousands of resident and migratory birds.”

“California has a clear choice: do nothing for the Sea now and suffer the consequences, or fund a restoration project that protects the ecosystem and promotes economic development,” said Cohen.

The report also highlights a large number of important data gaps that should be addressed in the near future. Despite many decades of study and the impending decline of the Salton Sea, we still lack information on many factors affecting life and the economy in the region. These factors, combined with general uncertainty about population growth rates, climate change, and changing hydrologic conditions, suggest that the above estimates indicate a general magnitude of potential future costs, rather than precise projections.

“Failing to act on behalf of the Salton Sea will have dire consequences,” said Michael J. Cohen, lead author of Hazard. “California must implement a restoration plan to combat the future problems of a shrinking Sea. Failure to do so will mean nothing less than disaster for the health of the region’s inhabitants, wildlife, and growing economy,” Cohen said.

Hazard’s Toll is a companion volume to Hazard: The Future of the Salton Sea With No Restoration Project. The 2006 volume contains information on the formation, ecological processes, and hydrology of the Salton Sea, as well as an assessment of the potential ecological impacts of the Sea’s current decline.

The Pacific Institute is dedicated to protecting the natural world, encouraging sustainable development, and improving global security. Founded in 1987 and based in downtown Oakland, the Institute provides independent research and policy analysis on issues at the intersection of development, environment, and security.





Download the full report:

high resolution (6.0 MB)
low resolution (2.8 MB)

Download the
four-page executive summary

Read/listen to interviews with Michael Cohen:
KPBS: Cost Of Doing Nothing At The Salton Sea May Be Higher Than Cost Of Repair
KPPC: Failure to Restore Salton Sea Could Cost the State Billions
KCRW: Salton Sea Study (Segment starts at 20’43”)

Salton Sea Authority

Salton Sea Feasibility Study

Center for Inland Waters

Salton Sea Task Force

Environmental Protection Agency



Water Authority–Imperial Irrigation District Water Transfer

Salton Sea – State Water Resources Control Board – State of …

Quantification Settlement Agreement | San Diego County …

After 12 years, legal dispute over water transfer ends

Salton Repairs Peril Water Transfer

the potential for fugitive dust problems at the Salton Sea

A Shrinking Sea Mean Toxic Dust

Dried Salton Sea Could Produce ‘Clouds Of Toxic Dust …

California’s Largest Lake Threatened by Urban Water Transfer

legal dispute over water transfer

Natural Analogues in Radioactive Waste Disposal

Vicken Etyemezian – DRI Desert Research Institute


10 Environmental Disaster Time Bombs – Listverse

2005 Tonopah Test Range and Kauai Test Facility Site

Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom – Nevada …

Radioactive snails lead to Spain-U.S. atomic probe

Chapter 14 – Department of Water Resources

Chapter 2 – Office of Legacy Management

Natural Pu-traces within the continental crust|INIS

Fortress California, 1910-1961: From Warfare to Welfare


Leaky drums spill plutonium on ocean floor

October | 2014 | University of Denver Water Law Review at …

Disappearing Lakes, Shrinking Seas; Selected Examples

Beautiful Wasteland

The Post-Apocalyptic Wonderland Of Salton Sea, California

Research Opportunities for Deactivating and …

The 9/11 NORAD Tapes


, , ,

norad tapes

Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Nasypany, mission-crew commander, on the “ops” floor at the Northeast Air Defense Sector. In a single minute on 9/11, Nasypany fielded reports of four possible hijackings. Photograph by Mark Schäfer.

How did the U.S. Air Force respond on 9/11? Could it have shot down United 93, as conspiracy theorists claim? Obtaining 30 hours of never-before-released tapes from the control room of NORAD’s Northeast head-quarters, the author reconstructs the chaotic military history of that day—and the Pentagon’s apparent attempt to cover it up.

Tucked in a piney notch in the gentle folds of the Adirondacks’ southern skirts—just up from a derelict Mohawk, Adirondack & Northern rail spur—is a 22-year-old aluminum bunker tricked out with antennae tilted skyward. It could pass for the Jetsons’ garage or, in the estimation of one of the higher-ranking U.S. Air Force officers stationed there, a big, sideways, half-buried beer keg.

As Major Kevin Nasypany, the facility’s mission-crew commander, drove up the hill to work on the morning of 9/11, he was dressed in his flight suit and prepared for battle. Not a real one. The Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), where Nasypany had been stationed since 1994, is the regional headquarters for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Cold War–era military organization charged with protecting North American airspace. As he poured his first coffee on that sunny September morning, the odds that he would have to defend against Russian “Bear Bombers,” one of NORAD’s traditional simulated missions, were slim. Rather, Nasypany (pronounced Nah-sip-a-nee), an amiable commander with a thick mini-mustache and a hockey player’s build, was headed in early to get ready for the NORAD-wide training exercise” he’d helped design. The battle commander, Colonel Bob Marr, had promised to bring in fritters.

At the time, NEADS is was a desolate place, the sole orphan left behind after the dismantling of what was once one of the country’s busiest bomber bases—Griffiss Air Force Base, in Rome, New York, which was otherwise mothballed in the mid-90s. NEADS mission remained in place and continues today: its officers, air-traffic controllers, and air-surveillance and communications technicians—mostly American, with a handful of Canadian troops—are responsible for protecting a half-million-square-mile chunk of American airspace stretching from the East Coast to Tennessee, up through the Dakotas to the Canadian border, including Boston, New York, Washington, D.C., and Chicago.


World Trade Center site (Ground Zero) with an overlay showing the original building locations.

It was into this airspace that violence descended on 9/11, and from the NEADS operations floor that what turned out to be the sum total of America’s military response during those critical 100-some minutes of the attack—scrambling four armed fighter jets and one unarmed training plane—emanated.

The story of what happened in that room, and when, has never been fully told, but is arguably more important in terms of understanding America’s military capabilities that day than anything happening simultaneously on Air Force One or in the Pentagon, the White House, or NORAD’s impregnable headquarters, deep within Cheyenne Mountain, in Colorado.


NORAD War room

It’s a story that was intentionally obscured, some members of the 9/11 commission believe, by military higher-ups and members of the Bush administration who spoke to the press, and later the commission itself, in order to downplay the extent of the confusion and miscommunication flying through the ranks of the government.



The truth, however, is all on tape.

Through the heat of the attack the wheels of what were, perhaps, some of the more modern pieces of equipment in the room—four Dictaphone multi-channel reel-to-reel tape recorders mounted on a rack in a corner of the operations floor—spun impassively, recording every radio channel, with time stamps.

The recordings are fascinating and chilling. A mix of staccato bursts of military code; urgent, overlapping voices; the tense crackle of radio traffic from fighter pilots in the air; commanders’ orders piercing through a mounting din; and candid moments of emotion as the breadth of the attacks becomes clearer.

For the NEADS crew, 9/11 was not a story of four hijacked airplanes, but one of a heated chase after more than a dozen potential hijackings—some real, some phantom—that emerged from the turbulence of misinformation that spiked in the first 100 minutes of the attack and continued well into the afternoon and evening. At one point, in the span of a single mad minute, one hears Nasypany struggling to parse reports of four separate hijackings at once. What emerges from the barrage of what Nasypany dubs “bad poop” flying at his troops from all directions is a picture of remarkable composure. Snap decisions more often than not turn out to be the right ones as commanders kick-start the dormant military machine. It is the fog and friction of war live—the authentic military history of 9/11.

“The real story is actually better than the one we told,” a NORAD general admitted to 9/11-commission staffers when confronted with evidence from the tapes that contradicted his original testimony. And so it seems.

united-93-movie-poster-2006-1010481905“Subpoenaed by the commission during its investigation, the recordings have never been played publicly beyond a handful of sound bites presented during the commission’s hearings. Last September, as part of my research for the film United 93, on which I was an associate producer, I requested copies from the Pentagon. I was played snippets, but told my chances of hearing the full recordings were nonexistent. So it was a surprise, to say the least, when a military public-affairs officer e-mailed me, a full seven months later, saying she’d been cleared, finally, to provide them.”

“The signing of the Declaration of Independence took less coordination,” she wrote.

I would ultimately get three CDs with huge digital “wav file” recordings of the various channels in each section of the operations floor, 30-some hours of material in full, covering six and a half hours of real time. The first disc, which arrived by mail, was decorated with blue sky and fluffy white clouds and was labeled, in the playful Apple Chancery font, “Northeast Air Defense Sector—DAT Audio Files—11 Sep 2001.”

“This is not an exercise”

At 8:14 a.m., as an Egyptian and four Saudis commandeered the cockpit on American 11, the plane that would hit the north tower of the World Trade Center, only a handful of troops were on the NEADS “ops” floor. That’s the facility’s war room: a dimly lit den arrayed with long rows of radarscopes and communications equipment facing a series of 15-foot screens lining the front wall. The rest of the crew, about 30 Americans and five or six Canadians, were checking e-mails or milling around the hall. A briefing on the morning’s training exercise was wrapping up in the Battle Cab, the glassed-in command area overlooking the ops floor.

On the Dictaphone decks, an automated voice on each channel ticked off, in Greenwich Mean Time, the last few moments of life in pre-9/11 America: “12 hours, 26 minutes, 20 seconds”—just before 8:30 a.m. eastern daylight time.

The first human voices captured on tape that morning are those of the “ID techs”—Senior Airman Stacia Rountree, 23 at the time, Tech Sergeant Shelley Watson, 40, and their boss, Master Sergeant Maureen “Mo” Dooley, 40. They are stationed in the back right corner of the ops floor at a console with several phones and a radarscope. Their job in a crisis is to facilitate communications between neads, the civilian F.A.A., and other military commands, gathering whatever information they can and sending it up the chain. Dooley—her personality at once motherly and aggressive—generally stands behind the other two, who are seated.

The tapes catch them discussing strategy of an entirely domestic order:


O.K., a couch, an ottoman, a love seat, and what else … ? Was it on sale … ? Holy smokes! What color is it?

In the background, however, you can make out the sound of Jeremy Powell, then 31, a burly, amiable technical sergeant, fielding the phone call that will be the military’s first notification that something is wrong. On the line is Boston Center, the civilian air-traffic-control facility that handles that region’s high-flying airliners.


BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.

POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?

BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:"/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf", width:"1", height:"1", majorversion:"7", build:"0", flashvars:"lcId="+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, "hiddenPlayer");


Powell’s question—”Is this real-world or exercise?”—is heard nearly verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the simulations team on hand to send “inputs”—simulated scenarios—into play for the day’s training exercise.

Boston’s request for fighter jets is not as prescient as it might seem. Standard hijack protocol calls for fighters to be launched—”scrambled”—merely to establish a presence in the air. The pilots are trained to trail the hijacked plane at a distance of about five miles, out of sight, following it until, presumably, it lands. If necessary, they can show themselves, flying up close to establish visual contact, and, if the situation demands, maneuver to force the plane to land.

At this point, certainly, the notion of actually firing anything at a passenger jet hasn’t crossed anyone’s mind.

In the ID section, the women overhear the word “hijack” and react, innocently enough, as anyone might with news of something exciting going on at work:




WATSON: What was that?

ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?

DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.



For the first time in their careers, they’ll get to put their training to full use.

Almost simultaneously, a P.A. announcement goes out for Major Nasypany, who’s taking his morning constitutional.


P.A.: Major Nasypany, you’re needed in ops pronto. P.A.: Major Nasypany, you’re needed in ops pronto.

[Recorded phone line:]

SERGEANT MCCAIN: Northeast Air Defense Sector, Sergeant McCain, can I help you?

SERGEANT KELLY: Yeah, Sergeant Kelly from Otis, how you doing today?

SERGEANT MCCAIN: Yeah, go ahead.

SERGEANT KELLY: The—I’m gettin’ reports from my TRACON [local civilian air traffic] that there might be a possible hijacking.

SERGEANT MCCAIN: I was just hearing the same thing. We’re workin’ it right now.



“When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was ‘Somebody started the exercise early,'” Nasypany later told me. The day’s exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a “traditional” simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. “I actually said out loud, ‘The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour,” Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there was an exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into several conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses this as coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of recordings, so do I.)

On tape, one hears as Nasypany, following standard hijack protocol, prepares to launch two fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base, on Cape Cod, to look for American 11, which is now off course and headed south. He orders his Weapons Team—the group on the ops floor that controls the fighters—to put the Otis planes on “battle stations.” This means that at the air base the designated “alert” pilots—two in this case—are jolted into action by a piercing “battle horn.” They run to their jets, climb up, strap in, and do everything they need to do to get ready to fly short of starting the engines.

Meanwhile, the communications team at NEADS—the ID techs Dooley, Rountree, and Watson—are trying to find out, as fast as possible, everything they can about the hijacked plane: the airline, the flight number, the tail number (to help fighter pilots identify it in the air), its flight plan, the number of passengers (“souls on board” in military parlance), and, most important, where it is, so Nasypany can launch the fighters. All the ID section knows is that the plane is American Airlines, Flight No. 11, Boston to Los Angeles, currently somewhere north of John F. Kennedy International Airport—the point of reference used by civilian controllers.

ID tech Watson places a call to the management desk at Boston Center, which first alerted NEADS to the hijack, and gets distressing news.


WATSON: It’s the inbound to J.F.K.?

BOSTON CENTER: We—we don’t know.

WATSON: You don’t know where he is at all?

BOSTON CENTER: He’s being hijacked. The pilot’s having a hard time talking to the—I mean, we don’t know. We don’t know where he’s goin’. He’s heading towards Kennedy. He’s—like I said, he’s like 35 miles north of Kennedy now at 367 knots. We have no idea where he’s goin’ or what his intentions are.

WATSON: If you could please give us a call and let us know—you know any information, that’d be great.

BOSTON CENTER: Okay. Right now, I guess we’re trying to work on—I guess there’s been some threats in the cockpit. The pilot—

WATSON: There’s been what?! I’m sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Threat to the … ?

BOSTON CENTER: We’ll call you right back as soon as we know more info.

Dooley is standing over Watson, shouting whatever pertinent information she hears to Nasypany, who’s now in position in the center of the floor.


DOOLEY: O.K., he said threat to the cockpit!


This last bit ratchets the tension in the room up considerably.

At Otis Air National Guard Base, the pilots are in their jets, straining at the reins. (“When the horn goes off, it definitely gets your heart,” F-15 pilot Major Dan Nash later told me, thumping his chest with his hand.) But at NEADS, Nasypany’s “tracker techs” in the Surveillance section still can’t find American 11 on their scopes. As it turns out, this is just as the hijackers intended.

green eyeRadar is the NEADS controllers’ most vital piece of equipment, but by 9/11 the scopes were so old, among other factors, that controllers were ultimately unable to find any of the hijacked planes in enough time to react. Known collectively as the Green Eye for the glow the radar rings give off, the scopes looked like something out of Dr. Strangelove and were strikingly anachronistic compared with the equipment at civilian air-traffic sites. (After 9/11, NEADS was equipped with state-of-the-art equipment.)

In order to find a hijacked airliner—or any airplane—military controllers need either the plane’s beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane’s exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the NEADS controllers were at a loss.

“You would see thousands of green blips on your scope,” Nasypany told me, “and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it’s a needle in a haystack.”

At this point in the morning, more than 3,000 jetliners are already in the air over the continental United States, and the Boston controller’s direction—”35 miles north of Kennedy”—doesn’t help the NEADS controllers at all.

On tape, amid the confusion, one hears Major James Fox, then 32, the leader of the Weapons Team, whose composure will stand out throughout the attack, make an observation that, so far, ranks as the understatement of the morning.


FOX: I’ve never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:"/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf", width:"1", height:"1", majorversion:"7", build:"0", flashvars:"lcId="+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, "hiddenPlayer");


Less than two minutes later, frustrated that the controllers still can’t pinpoint American 11 on radar, Nasypany orders Fox to launch the Otis fighters anyway.


FOX: M.C.C. [Mission Crew Commander], I don’t know where I’m scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination—

NASYPANY: O.K., I’m gonna give you the Z point [coordinate]. It’s just north of—New York City.

FOX: I got this lat long, 41-15, 74-36, or 73-46.

NASYPANY: Head ’em in that direction.

FOX: Copy that.


Having them up, Nasypany figures, is better than having them on the ground, assuming NEADS will ultimately pin down American 11’s position. His job is to be proactive—to try to gain leverage over the situation as fast as possible. His backstop is Colonel Marr, the battle commander and Nasypany’s superior up in the Battle Cab, whose role is more strategic, calculating the implications of each move several hours down the line.

Marr, 48 at the time (and since retired), is a well-liked leader. Most of his conversations on 9/11 are unrecorded: he speaks over a secure phone with his superior, Major General Larry Arnold, stationed at NORAD’s command center at Tyndall Air Force Base, in Florida, or over an intercom with Nasypany. In the latter case, only Nasypany’s side of the conversations is recorded.

In the last lines of his first briefing to Marr, Nasypany unwittingly, in his last line, trumps Fox in the realm of understatement.


NASYPANY: Hi, sir. O.K., what—what we’re doing, we’re tryin’ to locate this guy. We can’t find him via I.F.F. [the Identification Friend or Foe system]. What we’re gonna do, we’re gonna hit up every track within a 25-mile radius of this Z-point [coordinate] that we put on the scope. Twenty-nine thousand [feet] heading 1-9-0 [east]. We’re just gonna do—we’re gonna try to find this guy. They can’t find him. There’s supposedly been threats to the cockpit. So we’re just doing the thing … [off-mic conversation] True. And probably right now with what’s going on in the cockpit it’s probably really crazy. So, it probably needs to—that will simmer down and we’ll probably get some better information.


American 11 slammed into the north tower of the World Trade Center four seconds into this transmission.

More than 150 miles from Manhattan, within the same minute as American 11 hits the tower, the stoplight in the Alert Barn at Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod turns from red to green, Colonel Marr and General Arnold having approved Nasypany’s order to scramble the fighters. The pilots taxi out and fire the afterburners as the planes swing onto the runway. NEADS has no indication yet that American 11 has crashed.

Five minutes later, Rountree, at the ID station, gets the first report of the crash from Boston Center (as her colleagues Watson and Dooley overhear).


ROUNTREE: A plane just hit the World Trade Center.


ROUNTREE: Was it a 737?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (background): Hit what?

WATSON: The World Trade Center—

DOOLEY: Who are you talking to? [Gasps.]


DOOLEY: Get—pass—pass it to them—

WATSON: Oh my God. Oh God. Oh my God.

ROUNTREE: Saw it on the news. It’s—a plane just crashed into the World Trade Center.

DOOLEY: Update New York! See if they lost altitude on that plane altogether.

Watson places a call to civilian controllers at New York Center.

WATSON: Yes, ma’am. Did you just hear the information regarding the World Trade Center?


WATSON: Being hit by an aircraft?

NEW YORK CENTER: I’m sorry?!

WATSON:Being hit by an aircraft.

NEW YORK CENTER: You’re kidding.

WATSON: It’s on the world news.

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:"/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf", width:"1", height:"1", majorversion:"7", build:"0", flashvars:"lcId="+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, "hiddenPlayer");


In light of this news, someone asks Nasypany what to do with the fighters—the two F-15s from Otis Air National Guard Base—which have now just blasted off for New York at full afterburner to find American 11. (The flying time at full speed from Cape Cod to New York is about 10 minutes.) Pumped with adrenaline, Nasypany doesn’t miss a beat.


NASYPANY: Send ’em to New York City still. Continue! Go!

NASYPANY: This is what I got. Possible news that a 737 just hit the World Trade Center. This is a real-world. And we’re trying to confirm this. Okay. Continue taking the fighters down to the New York City area, J.F.K. area, if you can. Make sure that the F.A.A. clears it— your route all the way through. Do what we gotta do, okay? Let’s press with this. It looks like this guy could have hit the World Trade Center.


“I’m not gonna stop what I initially started with scrambling Otis—getting Otis over New York City,” Nasypany recalled when I played him this section of his tape. “If this is a false report, I still have my fighters where I want them to be.”

Meanwhile, confusion is building on the ops floor over whether the plane that hit the tower really was American 11. Rumors that it was a small Cessna have started to circulate through the civilian air-traffic system. ID tech Rountree is on the phone with Boston Center’s military liaison, Colin Scoggins, a civilian manager, who at first seems to confirm that it was American 11 that went into the tower.


BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah, he crashed into the World Trade Center.

ROUNTREE: That is the aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center?

BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yup. Disregard the—disregard the tail number [given earlier for American 11].

ROUNTREE: Disregard the tail number? He did crash into the World Trade Center?

BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): That’s—that’s what we believe, yes.


But an unidentified male trooper at NEADS overhears the exchange and raises a red flag.


MALE NEADS TECH: I never heard them say American Airlines Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center. I heard it was a civilian aircraft.

Dooley, the ID desk’s master sergeant, takes the phone from Rountree to confirm for herself, and the story veers off course …

DOOLEY (to Boston): Master Sergeant Dooley here. We need to have—are you giving confirmation that American 11 was the one—

BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): No, we’re not gonna confirm that at this time. We just know an aircraft crashed in and …

DOOLEY: You—are you—can you say—is anyone up there tracking primary on this guy still?

BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): No. The last [radar sighting] we have was about 15 miles east of J.F.K., or eight miles east of J.F.K. was our last primary hit. He did slow down in speed. The primary that we had, it slowed down below—around to 300 knots.

DOOLEY: And then you lost ’em?

BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah, and then we lost ’em.


The problem, Scoggins told me later, was that American Airlines refused to confirm for several hours that its plane had hit the tower. This lack of confirmation caused uncertainty that would be compounded in a very big way as the attack continued. (Though airlines have their own means of monitoring the location of their planes and communicating with their pilots, they routinely go into information lockdown in a crisis.)

Amid the chaos, Nasypany notices that some of his people are beginning to panic, so he makes a joke to relieve the tension.


NASYPANY: Think we put the exercise on the hold. What do you think? [Laughter.]

Just at that moment, in one of the dark, U-shaped air-traffic-control areas at New York Center, on Long Island, a half-dozen civilian controllers are watching a second plane that’s turned off course: United 175, also scheduled from Boston to Los Angeles. As the controllers try to hail the pilots, a manager comes running in and confirms that the plane that hit the first tower was, indeed, a commercial airliner, rather than a small Cessna. It’s just at that moment that United 175, 38 minutes into its flight and now near Allentown, Pennsylvania, moving southwest farther and farther off course, makes a sudden swing northeast toward Manhattan. Suddenly—instinctively—the civilian controllers know: it’s another hijacking, and it’s not going to land.

The controllers start speculating what the hijacker is aiming at—one guesses the Statue of Liberty—and the room erupts in profanity and horror. One controller is looking at his scope, calling out the rate of descent every 12 seconds as he watches the radar refresh. It is not until the last second, literally, that anyone from New York Center thinks to update neads. ID tech Rountree fields the call.


ROUNTREE: They have a second possible hijack!

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:”/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf”, width:”1″, height:”1″, majorversion:”7″, build:”0″, flashvars:”lcId=”+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, “hiddenPlayer”);


Almost simultaneously, United 175 slams into the south tower of the World Trade Center, something several NEADS personnel witness live on CNN, including Colonel Marr, the commanding officer. (Dooley told me she remembers looking up toward the Battle Cab and, for a long moment, seeing Marr’s jaw drop and everyone around him frozen.)

On the ops floor, there is considerable confusion as to whether the second hijacking New York Center just called in is the same plane that hit the second tower, or whether there are now three missing planes.


NASYPANY (to Marr): Sir, we got—we’ve got unconfirmed second hit from another aircraft. Fighters are south of—just south of Long Island, sir. Right now. Fighters are south of Long Island.

There’s seemingly enough commotion in the Battle Cab that Nasypany needs to clarify: “Our fighters … ” The two F-15s, scrambled from Otis, are now approaching the city.

In the background, several troops can be heard trying to make sense of what’s happening.


—Is this explosion part of that that we’re lookin’ at now on TV?


—Jesus …

—And there’s a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines …

—Two planes?…

—Get the fuck out …

—I think this is a damn input, to be honest.


The last line—”I think this is a damn input”—is a reference to the exercise, meaning a simulations input. It’s either gallows humor or wishful thinking. From the tape, it’s hard to tell.

“We’ve already had two. Why not more?”

Meanwhile, flying southwest over the ocean, the two fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base are streaking toward Manhattan. The pilots are startled, to say the least, when they see billowing smoke appear on the horizon; no one’s briefed them about what’s going on. They were scrambled simply to intercept and escort American 11—a possible hijacking—and that is all they know.

“From 100 miles away at least, we could see the fire and the smoke blowing,” Major Dan Nash, one of the F-15 pilots, told me. “Obviously, anybody watching CNN had a better idea of what was going on. We were not told anything. It was to the point where we were flying supersonic towards New York and the controller came on and said, ‘A second airplane has hit the World Trade Center.’ … My first thought was ‘What happened to American 11?'”

With both towers now in flames, Nasypany wants the fighters over Manhattan immediately, but the weapons techs get “pushback” from civilian F.A.A. controllers, who have final authority over the fighters as long as they are in civilian airspace. The F.A.A. controllers are afraid of fast-moving fighters colliding with a passenger plane, of which there are hundreds in the area, still flying normal routes—the morning’s unprecedented order to ground all civilian aircraft has not yet been given. To Nasypany, the fact that so many planes are still in the sky is all the more reason to get the fighters close. (“We’ve already had two,” he told me, referring to the hijackings. “Why not more?”)

The fighters are initially directed to a holding area just off the coast, near Long Island.

Nasypany isn’t happy, and he makes sure that’s duly noted for posterity as he calls out to Major Fox, the leader of the Weapons Team.


NASYPANY: Okay, Foxy. Plug in. I want to make sure this is on tape.… This is what—this is what I foresee that we probably need to do. We need to talk to F.A.A. We need to tell ’em if this stuff’s gonna keep on going, we need to take those fighters on and then put ’em over Manhattan, O.K.? That’s the best thing. That’s the best play right now. So, coordinate with the F.A.A. Tell ’em if there’s more out there, which we don’t know, let’s get ’em over Manhattan. At least we got some kinda play.

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:”/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf”, width:”1″, height:”1″, majorversion:”7″, build:”0″, flashvars:”lcId=”+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, “hiddenPlayer”);


He tells the Battle Cab he wants Fox to launch two more fighters from Langley Air Force Base, in Virginia, to establish a greater presence over New York, but the request is refused. The order from the Battle Cab is to put the Langley jets on battle stations only—to be ready, but not to launch.

“The problem there would have been I’d have all my fighters in the air at the same time, which means they’d all run out of gas at the same time,” Marr later explained.

Incredibly, Marr has only four armed fighters at his disposal to defend about a quarter of the continental United States. Massive cutbacks at the close of the Cold War reduced norad’s arsenal of fighters from some 60 battle-ready jets to just 14 across the entire country. (Under different commands, the military generally maintains several hundred unarmed fighter jets for training in the continental U.S.) Only four of norad’s planes belong to neads and are thus anywhere close to Manhattan—the two from Otis, now circling above the ocean off Long Island, and the two in Virginia at Langley.

Nasypany starts walking up and down the floor, asking all his section heads and weapons techs if they are prepared to shoot down a civilian airliner if need be, but he’s jumping the gun: he doesn’t have the authority to order a shootdown, nor does Marr or Arnold, or Vice President Cheney, for that matter. The order will need to come from President Bush, who has only just learned of the attack at a photo op in Florida.

On the ops floor, you hear Nasypany firmly pressing the issue. He briefs Marr on the armaments on board the F-15s, and how he sees best to use them “if need be”:


NASYPANY: My recommendation, if we have to take anybody out, large aircraft, we use AIM-9s in the face.… If need be.


If there’s another hijacking and the jets can engage, Nasypany is telling Marr, a missile fired into the nose of the plane will have the greatest chance of bringing it down.

But the prospect soon becomes real. Mo Dooley’s voice erupts from the ID station on the operations floor.


DOOLEY: Another hijack! It’s headed towards Washington!

NASYPANY:Shit! Give me a location.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. Third aircraft—hijacked—heading toward Washington.


This report, received from Colin Scoggins at Boston Center, will set off a major escalation in the military response to the attack, resulting in the launch of additional armed fighter jets. But 20 months later, when the military presents to the 9/11 commission what is supposed to be a full accounting of the day, omitted from the official time line is any mention of this reported hijacking and the fevered chase it engenders.

It was the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, 2003, and the hearing room in the Hart Senate Office Building, in Washington, was half empty as the group of mostly retired military brass arranged themselves at the witness table before the 9/11 commission. The story the NORAD officers had come to tell before the commission was a relatively humbling one, a point underscored by the questions commission chairman Thomas Kean introduced during his opening remarks: How did the hijackers defeat the system, and why couldn’t we stop them? These were important questions. Nearly two years after the attack, the Internet was rife with questions and conspiracy theories about 9/11—in particular, where were the fighters? Could they have physically gotten to any of the hijacked planes? And did they shoot down the final flight, United 93, which ended up in a Pennsylvania field?

On hand, dressed in business suits (with the exception of Major General Craig McKinley, whose two stars twinkled on either epaulet), were Major General Larry Arnold (retired), who had been on the other end of the secure line with NEADS Colonel Marr throughout the attack, and Colonel Alan Scott (retired), who had been with Arnold at NORAD’s continental command in Florida on 9/11 and who worked closely with Marr in preparing the military’s time line. None of the military men were placed under oath.

Their story, in a nutshell, was one of being caught off guard initially, then very quickly ramping up to battle status—in position, and in possession of enough situational awareness to defend the country, and the capital in particular, before United 93, the fourth hijacked plane, would have reached Washington.

Major General Arnold explained to the commission that the military had been tracking United 93 and the fighters were in position if United 93 had threatened Washington. “It was our intent to intercept United Flight 93,” Arnold testified. “I was personally anxious to see what 93 was going to do, and our intent was to intercept it.”

Colonel Marr, the commanding officer at NEADS on 9/11, had made similar comments to ABC News for its one-year-anniversary special on the attacks, saying that the pilots had been warned they might have to intercept United 93, and stop it if necessary: “And we of course passed that on to the pilots: United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington, D.C.”

When I interviewed him recently, Marr recalled a conversation he had had with Arnold in the heat of the attack. “I remember the words out of General Arnold’s mouth, or at least as I remember them, were ‘We will take lives in the air to save lives on the ground.'” In actuality, they’d never get that chance.

In the chronology presented to the 9/11 commission, Colonel Scott put the time norad was first notified about United 93 at 9:16 a.m., from which time, he said, commanders tracked the flight closely. (It crashed at 10:03 a.m.) If it had indeed been necessary to “take lives in the air” with United 93, or any incoming flight to Washington, the two armed fighters from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia would have been the ones called upon to carry out the shootdown. In Colonel Scott’s account, those jets were given the order to launch at 9:24, within seconds of NEADS receiving the F.A.A.’s report of the possible hijacking of American 77, the plane that would ultimately hit the Pentagon. This time line suggests the system was starting to work: the F.A.A. reports a hijacking, and the military reacts instantaneously. Launching after the report of American 77 would, in theory, have put the fighters in the air and in position over Washington in plenty of time to react to United 93.

In testimony a few minutes later, however, General Arnold added an unexpected twist: “We launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington, D.C., not in response to American Airlines 77, but really to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way.”

How strange, John Azzarello, a former prosecutor and one of the commission’s staff members, thought. “I remember being at the hearing in ’03 and wondering why they didn’t seem to have their stories straight. That struck me as odd.”

The ears of another staff member, Miles Kara, perked up as well. “I said to myself, That’s not right,” the retired colonel, a former army intelligence officer, told me. Kara had seen the radar re-creations of the fighters’ routes. “We knew something was odd, but we didn’t have enough specificity to know how odd.”

As the tapes reveal in stark detail, parts of Scott’s and Arnold’s testimony were misleading, and others simply false. At 9:16 a.m., when Arnold and Marr had supposedly begun their tracking of United 93, the plane had not yet been hijacked. In fact, NEADS wouldn’t get word about United 93 for another 51 minutes. And while NORAD commanders did, indeed, order the Langley fighters to scramble at 9:24, as Scott and Arnold testified, it was not in response to the hijacking of American 77 or United 93. Rather, they were chasing a ghost. NEADS was entering the most chaotic period of the morning.

“Chase this guy down”

At 9:21 a.m., just before Dooley’s alert about a third hijacked plane headed for Washington, NEADS is in the eye of the storm—a period of relative calm in which, for the moment, there are no reports of additional hijackings.

The call that sets off the latest alarm (“Another hijack! It’s headed towards Washington!”) comes from Boston and is wholly confounding: according to Scoggins, the Boston manager, American 11, the plane they believed was the first one to hit the World Trade Center, is actually still flying—still hijacked—and now heading straight for D.C. Whatever hit the first tower, it wasn’t American 11.

The chase is on for what will turn out to be a phantom plane.


NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He’s heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I’m—I’m gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:"/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf", width:"1", height:"1", majorversion:"7", build:"0", flashvars:"lcId="+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, "hiddenPlayer");


Arnold and Marr approve scrambling the two planes at Langley, along with a third unarmed trainer, and Nasypany sets the launch in motion.

It’s a mistake, of course. American 11 was, indeed, the plane that hit the first tower. The confusion will persist for hours, however. In Boston, it is Colin Scoggins who has made the mistaken call.

“When we phoned United [after the second tower was hit], they confirmed that United 175 was down, and I think they confirmed that within two or three minutes,” Scoggins, the go-to guy at Boston Center for all things military, later told me. “With American Airlines, we could never confirm if it was down or not, so that left doubt in our minds.”

An unwieldy conference call between F.A.A. centers had been established, and Scoggins was monitoring it when the word came across—from whom or where isn’t clear—that American 11 was thought to be headed for Washington. Scoggins told me he thinks that the problem started with someone overheard trying to confirm from American whether American 11 was down—that somewhere in the flurry of information zipping back and forth during the conference call this transmogrified into the idea that a different plane had hit the tower, and that American 11 was still hijacked and still in the air. The plane’s course, had it continued south past New York in the direction it was flying before it dipped below radar coverage, would have had it headed on a straight course toward D.C. This was all controllers were going on; they were never tracking an actual plane on the radar after losing American 11 near Manhattan, but if it had been flying low enough, the plane could have gone undetected. “After talking to a supervisor, I made the call and said [American 11] is still in the air, and it’s probably somewhere over New Jersey or Delaware heading for Washington, D.C.,” Scoggins told me.

Over the next quarter-hour, the fact that the fighters have been launched in response to the phantom American 11—rather than American 77 or United 93—is referred to six more times on Nasypany’s channel alone. How could Colonel Scott and General Arnold have missed it in preparing for their 9/11-commission testimony? It’s a question Arnold would have to answer later, under oath.

In the middle of the attack, however, the hijackers’ sabotaging of the planes’ beacons has thrown such a wrench into efforts to track them that it all seems plausible.


ANDERSON: They’re probably not squawking anything [broadcasting a beacon code] anyway. I mean, obviously these guys are in the cockpit.

NASYPANY: These guys are smart.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, they knew exactly what they wanted to do.


Another officer asks Nasypany the obvious question.


MAJOR JAMES ANDERSON: Have you asked—have you asked the question what you’re gonna do if we actually find this guy? Are we gonna shoot him down if they got passengers on board? Have they talked about that?


Approval for any such order would have to come from the commander in chief. Just after 9:30, however, the president was in his motorcade preparing to leave the Emma Booker Elementary School, in Sarasota, for the airport and the safety of Air Force One. The 9/11 commission determined that the president had not been aware of any further possible hijackings and was not yet in touch with the Pentagon.

But a clear shootdown order wouldn’t have made a difference. The Langley fighters were headed the wrong way—due east, straight out to sea into a military-training airspace called Whiskey 386, rather than toward Washington, which NEADS believed was under attack. According to the 9/11 commission, the Langley pilots were never briefed by anyone at their base about why they were being scrambled, so, despite having been given the order from NEADS to fly to Washington, the pilots ended up following their normal training flight plan out to sea—a flight plan dating from the Cold War. As one pilot later told the commission, “I reverted to the Russian threat—I’m thinking cruise-missile threat from the sea.”

At NEADS, a 28-year-old staff sergeant named William Huckabone, staring at his Green Eye, is the first to notice that the Langley jets are off course. His voice is a mix of stress and dread as he and the controller next to him, Master Sergeant Steve Citino, order a navy air-traffic controller who’s handling the fighters to get them turned around toward Baltimore to try to cut off the phantom American 11. The navy air-traffic controller seems not to understand the urgency of the situation.


NAVY A.T.C.: You’ve got [the fighters] moving east in airspace. Now you want ’em to go to Baltimore?

HUCKABONE: Yes, sir. We’re not gonna take ’em in Whiskey 386 [military training airspace over the ocean].

NAVY A.T.C.: O.K., once he goes to Baltimore, what are we supposed to do?

HUCKABONE: Have him contact us on auxiliary frequency 2-3-4 decimal 6. Instead of taking handoffs to us and us handing ’em back, just tell Center they’ve got to go to Baltimore.

NAVY A.T.C.: All right, man. Stand by. We’ll get back to you.

CITINO: What do you mean, “We’ll get back to you”? Just do it!

HUCKABONE: I’m gonna choke that guy!

CITINO: Be very professional, Huck.


CITINO: All right, Huck. Let’s get our act together here.

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:"/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf", width:"1", height:"1", majorversion:"7", build:"0", flashvars:"lcId="+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, "hiddenPlayer");


All hell is breaking loose around them. Boston Center has called in with another suspected hijacking—the controllers there don’t know the call sign yet—and ID tech Watson is speed-dialing everyone she can to find a position on the resurrected American 11. In the course of a call to Washington Center, the operations manager there has sprung new information about yet another lost airplane: American 77.


WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I’ll—we’ve been looking. We’re—also lost American 77—

WATSON: American 77?

DOOLEY: American 77’s lost—

WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?

WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—

WATSON: From where, sir?

WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—

WATSON: What guy?

WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don’t have any idea where he is or what happened.


This is a full 10 minutes later than the time Major General Arnold and Colonel Scott would give in their testimony; reality was a lot messier. Forty minutes prior, at 8:54 a.m., controllers at Indianapolis Center had lost radar contact with American 77, flying from Washington Dulles to LAX, and assumed the plane had crashed because they weren’t aware of the attack in New York. Though they soon realized this was another hijacking and sent warnings up the F.A.A. chain, no one called the military; it was only by chance that NEADS Watson got the information in her call to Washington Center.

As Watson takes in the information from Washington Center, Rountree’s phone is ringing again. By this point, the other ID techs have taken to calling Rountree “the bearer of death and destruction” because it seems every time she picks up the phone there’s another hijacking. And so it is again. At Boston Center, Colin Scoggins has spotted a low-flying airliner six miles southeast of the White House.


ROUNTREE: Huntress[call sign for neads] ID, Rountree, can I help you?

BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Latest report, [low-flying] aircraft six miles southeast of the White House.

ROUNTREE: Six miles southeast of the White House?

BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yup. East—he’s moving away?

ROUNTREE: Southeast from the White House.

BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Air—aircraft is moving away.

ROUNTREE: Moving away from the White House?

BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah.…

ROUNTREE: Deviating away. You don’t have a type aircraft, you don’t know who he is—

BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Nothing, nothing. We’re over here in Boston so I have no clue. That—hopefully somebody in Washington would have better—information for you.


This will turn out to be American 77, but since the hijackers turned the beacon off on this plane as well, no one will realize that until later. Depending on how you count, NEADS now has three reported possible hijackings from Boston (the phantom American 11 and two unidentified planes) as well as Washington Center’s report that American 77 is lost.

Of these four vague and ultimately overlapping reports, the latest—word of a plane six miles from the White House—is the most urgent. The news sets off a frenzy.


NASYPANY: O.K., Foxy [Major Fox, the Weapons Team head]. I got a aircraft six miles east of the White House! Get your fighters there as soon as possible!

MALE VOICE: That came from Boston?

HUCKABONE: We’re gonna turn and burn it—crank it up—

MALE TECH: Six miles!

HUCKABONE: All right, here we go. This is what we’re gonna do—

NASYPANY: We’ve got an aircraft deviating eight [sic] miles east of the White House right now.

FOX: Do you want us to declare A.F.I.O. [emergency military control of the fighters] and run ’em straight in there?

NASYPANY: Take ’em and run ’em to the White House.

FOX: Go directly to Washington.

CITINO: We’re going direct D.C. with my guys [Langley fighters]? Okay. Okay.

HUCKABONE: Ma’am, we are going A.F.I.O. right now with Quit 2-5 [the Langley fighters]. They are going direct Washington.

NAVY A.T.C.: Quit 2-5, we’re handing ’em off to Center right now.

HUCKABONE: Ma’am, we need to expedite that right now. We’ve gotta contact them on 2-3-4-6.

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:"/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf", width:"1", height:"1", majorversion:"7", build:"0", flashvars:"lcId="+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, "hiddenPlayer");


“Six miles south, or west, or east of the White House is—it’s seconds [away],” Nasypany told me later. “Airliners traveling at 400-plus knots, it’s nothing. It’s seconds away from that location.”

The White House, then, is in immediate danger. Radar analysis in the following weeks will show that the plane abruptly veers away and turns toward the Pentagon, though the controllers at neads have no way of knowing this in the moment. Looking in the general capital area, one of the tracker techs thinks he spots the plane on radar, then just as quickly loses it.


MALE TECH: Right here, right here, right here. I got him. I got him.

NASYPANY: We just lost track. Get a Z-point [coordinate] on that.… O.K., we got guys lookin’ at ’em. Hold on.… Where’s Langley at? Where are the fighters?


The fighters have no chance. They’re about 150 miles away, according to radar analysis done later. Even at top speed—and even if they know the problem is suicide hijackings of commercial airliners rather than Russian missiles—it will take them roughly 10 minutes to get to the Pentagon.


NASYPANY: We need to get those back up there—I don’t care how many windows you break!… Goddammit! O.K. Push ’em back!

But the Pentagon is already in flames, American 77 having plowed through the E-ring of the west side of the building seconds before, at 9:37:46. The Langley fighters will not be established over Washington for another 20 minutes.

“You were just so mad”

On the ops floor, everyone is staring at CNN on the overhead screen. Seeing the first pictures of the Pentagon in flames is gut-wrenching. Nasypany’s voice can be heard cursing in frustration: “Goddammit! I can’t even protect my N.C.A. [National Capital Area].” You hear troops prod one another to stay focused.

CITINO: O.K.—let’s watch our guys, Huck. Not the TV.

“The more it went on, the more unbelievable it got, and then the one that did the Pentagon,” Dooley told me, “we just couldn’t believe it. You were just so mad that you couldn’t stop these guys and so you’re looking for the next one. Where are they going next?”

It looks like Washington again. Three minutes after the Pentagon is hit, Scoggins, at Boston Center, is back on the phone. The Boston controllers are now tracking Delta 1989—Boston to Las Vegas—which fits the same profile as the other hijackings: cross-country, out of Boston, lots of fuel, and possibly off course. But this one’s different from the others in one key respect: the plane’s beacon code is still working. In this chase, neads will have a chance, as the excitement in Dooley’s last line reflects:


ROUNTREE: Delta 89, that’s the hijack. They think it’s possible hijack.


ROUNTREE: South of Cleveland. We have a code on him now.

DOOLEY: Good. Pick it up! Find it!

MALE TECH: Delta what?

ROUNTREE: Eight nine—a Boeing 767.

DOOLEY: Fuck, another one—


They quickly find the plane on radar—it’s just south of Toledo—and begin alerting other F.A.A. centers. They’re not sure where the plane is headed. If it’s Chicago, they’re in big trouble, because they don’t have any planes close enough to cut it off. Marr and Nasypany order troops to call Air National Guard bases in that area to see if anyone can launch fighters. A base in Selfridge, Michigan, offers up two unarmed fighters that are already flying, on their way back from a training mission.


SELFRIDGE FLIGHT OFFICER: Here—here’s what we can do. At a minimum, we can keep our guys airborne. I mean, they don’t have—they don’t have any guns or missiles or anything on board. But we—

NEADS TECH: It’s a presence, though.

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:"/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf", width:"1", height:"1", majorversion:"7", build:"0", flashvars:"lcId="+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, "hiddenPlayer");


But NEADS is victim again to an increasingly long information lag. Even before Rountree gets the urgent call that Delta 1989 is hijacked, a civilian air-traffic controller in Cleveland in contact with the pilot has determined that the flight is fine—that Delta 1989 isn’t a hijacking after all.

Meanwhile, however, NEADS has gotten a call from a NORAD unit in Canada with yet another suspected hijacking headed south across the border toward Washington. In the barrage of information and misinformation, it becomes increasingly difficult for the controllers to keep count of how many suspected hijackings are pending. So far, it is known that three have hit buildings, but given the uncertainty about the fates of American 11 and American 77—no one knows yet that this is the plane that hit the Pentagon—the sense at neads is that there are possibly three hijacked jets still out there, and who knows how many more yet to be reported. At this point, no one on the military side is aware that United 93 has been hijacked.

Then, over a crackly radio, one of the Langley fighter pilots, now in a combat air patrol over Washington, is calling in urgently.


PILOT: Baltimore is saying something about an aircraft over the White House. Any words?

CITINO: Negative. Stand by. Do you copy that, SD [Major Fox]? Center said there’s an aircraft over the White House. Any words?

FOX: M.C.C. [Nasypany], we’ve got an aircraft reported over the White House.


A fourth hijacking? Nasypany, who’s running full throttle, replies instinctively.

NASYPANY: Intercept!

FOX: Intercept!

NASYPANY: Intercept and divert that aircraft away from there.


On one channel, you hear a weapons tech very dramatically hailing the fighters and ordering the intercept.

CITINO: Quit 2-5 [Langley fighters], mission is intercept aircraft over White House. Use F.A.A. for guidance.

FOX: Divert the aircraft away from the White House. Intercept and divert it.

CITINO: Quit 2-5, divert the aircraft from the White House.

PILOT: Divert the aircraft.…


Meanwhile, Nasypany calls the Battle Cab. With a plane headed straight for the White House, Nasypany needs an update on his rules of engagement—fast.


NASYPANY: Do you hear that? That aircraft over the White House. What’s the word? … Intercept and what else? …Aircraft over the White House.


The “what else?” is the big question: do they have the authority to shoot? The request skips up the chain to Arnold.

“I was in Vietnam,” Arnold later told me. “When people are shooting at you, you don’t know when it’s going to stop. And that same thought went through my mind [on 9/11]. You begin to wonder, How can I get control of this situation? When can we as a military get control of this situation?”

Arnold, in turn, passes the request for rules of engagement farther up the chain.

It is in the middle of this, simultaneously, that the first call comes in about United 93. ID tech Watson fields it.


CLEVELAND CENTER: We got a United 93 out here. Are you aware of that?

WATSON: United 93?

CLEVELAND CENTER: That has a bomb on board.

WATSON: A bomb on board?! And this is confirmed? You have a [beacon code], sir?

CLEVELAND CENTER: No, we lost his transponder.

The information is shouted out to Nasypany.

NASYPANY: Gimme the call sign. Gimme the whole nine yards.… Let’s get some info, real quick. They got a bomb?


But by the time neads gets the report of a bomb on United 93, everyone on board is already dead. Following the passengers’ counterattack, the plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania at 10:03 a.m., 4 minutes before Cleveland Center notified neads, and a full 35 minutes after a Cleveland Center controller, a veteran named John Werth, first suspected something was wrong with the flight. At 9:28, Werth actually heard the guttural sounds of the cockpit struggle over the radio as the hijackers attacked the pilots.

Werth’s suspicions about United 93 were passed quickly up the F.A.A.’s chain of command, so how is it that no one from the agency alerted neads for more than half an hour?

A former senior executive at the F.A.A., speaking to me on the condition that I not identify him by name, tried to explain. “Our whole procedures prior to 9/11 were that you turned everything [regarding a hijacking] over to the F.B.I.,” he said, reiterating that hijackers had never actually flown airplanes; it was expected that they’d land and make demands. “There were absolutely no shootdown protocols at all. The F.A.A. had nothing to do with whether they were going to shoot anybody down. We had no protocols or rules of engagement.”

In his bunker under the White House, Vice President Cheney was not notified about United 93 until 10:02—only one minute before the airliner impacted the ground. Yet it was with dark bravado that the vice president and others in the Bush administration would later recount sober deliberations about the prospect of shooting down United 93. “Very, very tough decision, and the president understood the magnitude of that decision,” Bush’s then chief of staff, Andrew Card, told ABC News.

Cheney echoed, “The significance of saying to a pilot that you are authorized to shoot down a plane full of Americans is, a, you know, it’s an order that had never been given before.” And it wasn’t on 9/11, either.

President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, which—though no one knew it at the time—was 15 minutes after the attack was over.

But comments such as those above were repeated by other administration and military figures in the weeks and months following 9/11, forging the notion that only the passengers’ counterattack against their hijackers prevented an inevitable shootdown of United 93 (and convincing conspiracy theorists that the government did, indeed, secretly shoot it down). The recordings tell a different story, and not only because United 93 had crashed before anyone in the military chain of command even knew it had been hijacked.

At what feels on the tapes like the moment of truth, what comes back down the chain of command, instead of clearance to fire, is a resounding sense of caution. Despite the fact that neads believes there may be as many as five suspected hijacked aircraft still in the air at this point—one from Canada, the new one bearing down fast on Washington, the phantom American 11, Delta 1989, and United 93—the answer to Nasypany’s question about rules of engagement comes back in no uncertain terms, as you hear him relay to the ops floor.


NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…

FOX: I’m not really worried about code words at this point.

NASYPANY: Fuck the code words. That’s perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:"/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf", width:"1", height:"1", majorversion:"7", build:"0", flashvars:"lcId="+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, "hiddenPlayer");


The orders from higher headquarters are to identify by aircraft type and tail number, and nothing more. Those orders—and the fact that the pilots have no clearance to shoot—are reiterated by NEADS controllers as a dramatic chase towards the White House continues. Two more problems emerge: the controllers can’t find the White House on their dated equipment, and they have trouble communicating with the Langley fighters (which are referred to by their call signs, Quit 2-5 and Quit 2-6).

CITINO: Quit 2-6, Huntress. How far is the—suspect aircraft?

PILOT: Standby. Standby.… About 15 miles, Huntress.

CITINO: Huntress copies two-two miles.

PILOT:15 miles, Huntress.

CITINO: 15 miles. One-five …noise level please … It’s got to be low. Quit 2-6, when able say altitude of the aircraft.… Did we get a Z-track [coordinates] up for the White House?

HUCKABONE: They’re workin’ on it.

CITINO: Okay. Hey, what’s this Bravo 0-0-5 [unidentified target]?

FOX: We’re trying to get the Z-point. We’re trying to find it.

HUCKABONE: I don’t even know where the White House is.

CITINO: Whatever it is, it’s very low. It’s probably a helicopter.

MALE VOICE: It’s probably the helicopter you’re watching there.… There’s probably one flying over the [Pentagon].

MALE VOICE: It’s probably the smoke. The building’s smoked. [They’re seeing more pictures of the flaming Pentagon on CNN.]

HUCKABONE: Holy shit.… Holy shit …

CITINO: Yes. We saw that. O.K.—let’s watch our guys, Huck. Not the TV.… Quit 2-6, status? SD, they’re too low. I can’t talk to ’em. They’re too low. I can’t talk to ’em.

FOX: Negative clearance to fire.

CITINO: O.K. I told ’em mission is ID and that was it.

FOX: Do whatever you need to divert. They are not cleared to fire.


As it turns out, it’s just as well the pilots are not cleared to shoot. Delta 1989 and the Canadian scare turn out to be false alarms. American 11 and United 93 are already down. And the fast-moving target near the White House that the armed fighters are racing to intercept turns out to be a friendly—a mistake by a civilian controller who was unaware of the military’s scrambles, as weapons techs Huckabone and Citino, and their senior director, Fox, suddenly realize.

HUCKABONE: It was our guys [the fighters from Langley].

CITINO: Yup. It was our guys they saw. It was our guys they saw—Center saw.

FOX: New York did the same thing….

CITINO: O.K., Huck. That was cool. We intercepted our own guys.

var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:"/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf", width:"1", height:"1", majorversion:"7", build:"0", flashvars:"lcId="+MediaPlayer.getUid() };

UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, "hiddenPlayer");


At that point in the morning, Marr later told me, preventing an accidental shootdown was a paramount concern. “What you don’t want happening is a pilot having to make that decision in the heat of the moment where he is bearing all that burden as to whether I should shoot something down or not,” Marr said.

It is 12 minutes after United 93 actually crashed when neads’s Watson first hears the word. Her voice is initially full of hope as she mistakenly believes she is being told that United 93 has landed safely.


WATSON: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?

WASHINGTON CENTER: Yeah, he’s down.

WATSON: What—he’s down?


WATSON: When did he land? Because we have confirmation—

WASHINGTON CENTER: He did—he did—he did not land.

Here, on the tape, you hear the air rush out of Watson’s voice.

WATSON: Oh, he’s down down?

MALE VOICE: Yes. Yeah, somewhere up northeast of Camp David.

WATSON: Northeast of Camp David.

WASHINGTON CENTER: That’s the—that’s the last report. They don’t know exactly where.


“I know what spin is”

On June 17, 2004, a year after the 9/11 commission’s initial public hearing, Major General Arnold and a more robust contingent of norad and Pentagon brass arrived to testify before the commission at its 12th and final public meeting. This time, they would testify under oath.

The hearing began with an elaborate multi-media presentation in which John Farmer Jr., the commission’s senior counsel, John Azzarello, and another staff attorney, Dana Hyde, took turns illustrating, in withering detail, the lag time between when the F.A.A. found out about each of the hijacked aircraft and the time anyone from the agency notified the military. Excerpts from the neads tapes and parallel recordings from the F.A.A., which show the civilian side in equal turmoil, were played in public for the first time. (Both sets of recordings were provided to the commission only after being subpoenaed.)

The focus of the pointed questioning that followed wasn’t on why the military didn’t do better, but rather on why the story Major General Arnold and Colonel Scott had told at the first hearing was so wrong, in particular with respect to the phantom American 11, which the officers had never mentioned, and United 93, which they claimed to have been tracking. Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, who cut his teeth 30 years earlier working for the Watergate special prosecutor, led off the questioning and came out swinging.

“General, is it not a fact that the failure to call our attention to the miscommunication and the notion of a phantom Flight 11 continuing from New York City south in fact skewed the whole reporting of 9/11?” he asked Arnold, who replied that he had not been aware of those facts when he testified the year before.

“I’ve been in government and I know what spin is,” Farmer, the senior counsel, told me. The military’s story was “a whole different order of magnitude than spin. It simply wasn’t true.” Farmer says he doesn’t understand why the military felt the need to spin at all. “The information they got [from the F.A.A.] was bad information, but they reacted in a way that you would have wanted them to. The calls Marr and Nasypany made were the right ones.”

Both Marr and Arnold bristled when I asked about the commission’s suspicion that there had been an effort to spin the story. “I can’t think of any incentive why we’d want to spin that,” Marr said, his eyes tensing for the first time in what had been friendly interviews. “I’ll be the first to admit that immediately after—in fact, for a long time after—we were very confused with who was what and where, what reports were coming in. I think with having 29 different reports of hijackings nationwide, for us it was next to impossible to try and get back there and figure out the fidelity [about the morning’s chronology] that the 9/11 commission ended up being able to show.”

Azzarello, Farmer, and several other commission members I spoke to dismissed this fog-of-war excuse and pointed out that not only had the military already reviewed the tapes but that the false story it told at the first hearing had a clear purpose. “How good would it have looked for the government in general if we still couldn’t have stopped the fourth plane an hour and 35 minutes [into the attack]?” Azzarello asked. “How good would it have looked if there was a total breakdown in communication and nothing worked right?”

If nothing else, it might have given the public a more realistic sense of the limitations, particularly in the face of suicide terrorism, of what is, without doubt, the most powerful military in the world.

As one of its last acts before disbanding, in July 2004, the 9/11 commission made referrals to the inspector general’s offices of both the Department of Transportation (which includes the F.A.A.) and the Defense Department to further investigate whether witnesses had lied. “Commission staff believes that there is significant evidence that the false statements made to the commission were deliberately

false,” Farmer wrote to me in an e-mail summarizing the commission’s referral. “The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93.” A spokesman for the Transportation Department’s inspector general’s office told me that the investigation had been completed, but he wasn’t at liberty to share the findings, because the report had not been finalized. A spokesman at the Pentagon’s inspector general’s office said its investigation had also been completed, but the results are classified.

Poring over time-stamped transcripts that undercut the Pentagon’s official story, one is tempted to get caught up in a game of “gotcha.” For those on the operations floor in the thick of it that day, however, the cold revelations of hindsight are a bitter pill to swallow.

Listening to the tapes, you hear that inside neads there was no sense that the attack was over with the crash of United 93; instead, the alarms go on and on. False reports of hijackings, and real responses, continue well into the afternoon, though civilian air-traffic controllers had managed to clear the skies of all commercial and private aircraft by just after 12 p.m. The fighter pilots over New York and D.C. (and later Boston and Chicago) would spend hours darting around their respective skylines intercepting hundreds of aircraft they deemed suspicious. Meanwhile, Arnold, Marr, and Nasypany were launching as many additional fighters as they could, placing some 300 armed jets in protective orbits over every major American city by the following morning. No one at neads would go home until late on the night of the 11th, and then only for a few hours of sleep.

Five years after the attack, the controversy around United 93 clearly eats at Arnold, Marr, Nasypany, and several other military people I spoke with, who resent both conspiracy theories that accuse them of shooting the flight down and the 9/11 commission’s conclusion that they were chasing ghosts and never stood a chance of intercepting any of the real hijackings. “I don’t know about time lines and stuff like that,” Nasypany, who is now a lieutenant colonel, said in one of our last conversations. “I knew where 93 was. I don’t care what [the commission says]. I mean, I care, but—I made that assessment to put my fighters over Washington. Ninety-three was on its way in. I knew there was another one out there. I knew there was somebody else coming in—whatever you want to call it. And I knew what I was going to have to end up doing.” When you listen to the tapes, it couldn’t feel more horrendously true.When I asked Nasypany about the conspiracy theories—the people who believe that he, or someone like him, secretly ordered the shootdown of United 93 and covered it up—the corners of his mouth began to quiver. Then, I think to the surprise of both of us, he suddenly put his head in his hands and cried. “Flight 93 was not shot down,” he said when he finally looked up. “The individuals on that aircraft, the passengers, they actually took the aircraft down. Because of what those people did, I didn’t have to do anything.”On the day, however, there was no time for sentiment. Within 30 seconds of the report that United 93 has crashed, killing everyone on board, once again, the phone is ringing.10:15:30POWELL: Southeast just called. There’s another possible hijack in our area.…NASYPANY: All right. Fuck


9/11 The Lost Tapes full documentary – September 11 2001


9/11 Depository :: NORAD Tapes


9/11 tapes expose flaws in military chiefs’ testimony

NEADS/EADS Role on 9/11

The 9/11 Tapes: The Story in the Air

9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify The 9 …

NEADS Files « 9-11 Revisited

Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS)

Substantial evidence indicates US neoconservatives perpetrated 9/11 in pursuit of their own goals


, , , ,

sadlibertyIn NATO powers and allied states, the media and politicians have embraced the Islamic conspiracy theory as the obvious and indisputable explanation for the September 11 attacks. But one man’s truth is another man’s lie. In the rest of the world, what prevails is the idea that the event was orchestrated by the neocons. This is, for example, the view of Ambassador Mohsen PakAein, in charge of Iran’s Afghan policy.

September 11 – who was behind the events? In order to find out the reasons why the U.S. neoconservatives have succeeded in carrying out their plans and in moving toward their ambitious goals, it is necessary to understand the causes and motivations behind the events of 9/11.

On 9/11, American trade, military, and political centers collapsed as a result of explosions, with enormous smoke and dust. In this event, two passenger jets slammed into the World Trade Center, and another one hit the Pentagon. Also, another jet crashed – for unknown reasons – before it hit its target. According to the latest statistics, these operations resulted in over five thousand deaths and injuries. Immediately, a state of emergency was declared all over the U.S. The sky across America was declared a no-fly zone, and the U.S. army was put on high alert. Also, European countries were informally in a state of emergency, and their security forces stepped up espionage and intelligence operations.

The official programs of the mass media in Europe were disrupted, and crisis groups, as well as political and military pundits, held especial meetings in order to try to reduce the insecurity, which took hold of all the political apparatuses, and to control public unrest in the wake of this mass killing. A few hours after the operations, the then U.S. president called the above-mentioned events a national tragedy for America and stated that this is a war. It is a war on America, George Bush said, and added – this is an attack on a lifestyle, democracy, and the values of the modern world. Bush went on to say [that America had entered a war, a war between the evil and the good – and we will win this war, he alleged.

The events of 9/11 set the needed stage for carrying out the radical ideas of the American neoconservatives. In declaring war and bringing out its gigantic military machine, America referred to Article 5 of the NATO Washington Treaty for the first time in fifty years and prepared itself to attack targets all over the world. This measure taken by America marked a new phase in international policy and order.

treatyThe first stage of this interaction was the attack on Afghanistan. Some researchers, by relying on lots of evidence, believe that America itself is the cause behind the events of 9/11. Lyndon LaRouche, a former American presidential candidate and one of the U.S.’s prominent analysts of political and economic issues, claimed in an interview that the events of 9/11 were planned and carried out by veteran American politicians, in order to canalize and redirect the administration of George W. Bush along a specific course. He said that 9/11 could not have been the job of an outside group or organization because, given the way the security system works, these events could have only been orchestrated by internal security groups and organizations. And at high levels of the security authorities, of course, there might have been cooperation with others, albeit in a limited way, but what is self-evident is the fact that these attacks were mainly controlled by high-ranking American security authorities and organizations.

Bush Timetable President PopularityThey wanted to stage an effective coup against Bush. They didn’t intend to overthrow the government, but they wanted to move the Bush administration in the direction they wanted. In his book The Big Lie, written about 9/11, Thierry Meyssan, a French researcher who sparked the global debate on the interpretation of the attacks says the overwhelming media campaign is the imperial system’s last attempt to preserve its apparent legitimacy and justify its future wars: “After the two World Trade Center towers collapsed in a way that no one predicted, complete official investigations into the incident as to how it happened were not conducted, but the official account confirmed the idea of two jets, as well as the identity of the accused, without substantiating their existence or their involvement in the incident. Immediately, there was an emphasis on demolishing the damaged buildings and collecting the debris, and whatever was left in this place was placed under the control of the F.B.I and was declared as part of national defense secrets.”

The rapidity with which the debris was collected raised suspicion with the fire officials of the Fire Department of New York, because they didn’t find Washington officials convincing, and they were certain that the fuel of the two jets wasn’t sufficient to melt the iron skeleton of the two towers in such a short time. And practically and chemically, it is impossible, unless the two towers were made of cardboard. For this reason, officials of the fire department requested an inquiry in order to clarify the facts as to whether an explosion occurred at the bottom of the two towers or not. However, F.B.I authorities didn’t agree with this suggestion. There is another mystery here, since it is only through explosives that high rise buildings can be demolished, while in this case there isn’t any other evidence or picture to show what happened at the bottom of the two towers.”

Big LieIn an interview with France TV, Meyssan discloses secrets which can only be grasped by experts in aerospace sciences. He says: “Following a Q&A with the experts in this field, it became clear that it is impossible for passenger jets, such as the ones that [allegedly] crashed into World Trade Center, to carry out such precision targeting without having predetermined radars from within the two towers. This is exactly what happened two hours prior to the attack, which scrambled radios and TVs within the range of that area. Thus, without these radars, it wouldn’t have been possible to achieve target precision, even if several jets had carried out this task simultaneously.”

There are other aspects which cast doubt on the involvement of foreign agents in the explosions. With regard to the writings in Arabic that show how to learn flying and pilot airplanes, it should be noted that aircraft terminology has never been written in Arabic, but has always been completely in English. As for the attack on the Pentagon, the U.S. administration claimed that these operations were conducted by crashing a Boeing 757 into the first or second floor, while the aforementioned aircraft flew so low that it touched the grass surrounding the Pentagon. However, when asked about this, experts in war aircraft ascertained that such an act couldn’t be [accomplished] by non-military aircraft, such as a Boeing 757, because such aircraft aim at their targets vertically or fly low, but not close to the ground, and suddenly attack their target horizontally. And since the Pentagon isn’t very high, but with only two floors, it is impossible for a non-military jet to hit the Pentagon horizontally, because Boeing jets can’t fly so low; and even if such a thing is supposedly possible, it will damage the trees, electric posts, and other things around the area, which didn’t happen. Indeed, no sign or traces of this kind could be seen at the scene of the accident.

pentagonplaneWhat draws more attention in this regard is the fact that no one had seen the skeleton of the aircraft in the scene of the accident, and there wasn’t the smallest picture of it, but just a black box, which it was said had been found on the scene of the accident, whereas in the first statements made by the officials, it was said that the attack was carried out by a helicopter. Furthermore, the place which was the target of the attack didn’t house any personnel or military staff, because buildings were under construction in this place, and the only victims were workers and people who happened to be there. This is surprising, because only one military person was killed, while they announced that many of the victims were Pentagon employees.

Another surprising thing is that there wasn’t any follow-up on the pilots or the perpetrators of the operations.

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability – Former NASA Flight Director, Dwain Deets of NASA Dryden Aerospace, said  “9/11 aircraft speed was ‘the elephant in the room’ in regards impossible flight speeds for commercial 757/767s.”

His qualifications are:

  • MS Physics, MS Eng
  • Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
  • Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
  • Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
  • Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
  • Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
  • Associate Fellow – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
  • Included in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” 1993 – 2000
  • Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
  • Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
  • Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
  • 37 year NASA career

“The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) reported the ground-speed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are:”

  • (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200;
  • (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner;
  • (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or
  • (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.

“Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the “Elephant In The Room” and needs to be thoroughly investigated.”

For summary of speed analysis, please see the article; Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed

Another point is that, when an aircraft is hijacked, its information is conveyed in a code to the control tower, and non-military aircraft also use identification serial numbers which are sent to the control tower by transmitter disks, and, in fact, it is in this way that tracking of such aircraft is made possible. Likewise, when an aircraft doesn’t send signals, it is assumed to be an aircraft of the enemy, and warning signals are sent to it. In the case of the two jets which hit the Twin Towers, there wasn’t any signal.

Another point worth contemplating concerning the above-mentioned incident is that none of the officials of the companies belonging to the buildings of the world trade center was a victim. At the time of the incident, most of these managers were invited for a friendly breakfast at a military base, which is very far from New York, and George W. Bush joined them.

Overall, there is substantial evidence which indicates that 9/11 was perpetrated by American neoconservatives in order to create the opportunity to achieve their goals, such as strengthening militarism, attacking countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and enlisting other countries to join them in fighting terrorism. This suggests the will and determination of the neoconservatives to consolidate American power across the globe at whatever cost.

How can democracy thrive if we fail to question official “truths?”

Just remember a 3rd building (building 7) collapsed on 9/11 and it was not hit by a plane.


September 11: Should The Truth Be Revealed or Concealed?

David Ray Griffin (born 1939) is an American retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the The Center for Process Studies in 1973, a Research Centers at the Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought.

More recently, Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving elements of the United States government.

Books by David Ray Griffin about the September 11 attacks

 Also see:


Voltaire Network – Réseau Voltaire

Peter Myers’ Newsletters: 466 Orwellian September 11 …

Complete 911 Timeline: The Post-9/11 World

 The Congressional report on torture confirms that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attacks of September 11

9/11 – Should the Truth be Revealed or Concealed?

Thirteen years after the September 11 attacks, blindness persists

The CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia

Former NASA Flight Director recently said 9/11 aircraft …

The US War In Afghanistan and Just War Theory

The Looming Tower

Americans Are Blinded By Agendas

September 11: Inside Job or Mossad Job?

9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA:

Historical memento: Hosni Mubarak’s misgivings about official 9/11 account

9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes


The Life and Death of 9/11

September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy …

Legacy Of Donald Rumsfeld: FDA and Aspartame Gate


, , , ,

donaldrumsfeldheadingtowallstree-25058-20111127-158On Nov. 4, 2006, President Bush was publicly praising 74-year-old Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his service to the nation, his wartime leadership and expressed his “sincere” desire that the unpopular Rumsfeld would continue as secretary of defense until his term is over in 2008. But the president was not sincere; he was lying. The day after the election, “Rummy” announced he was stepping down from the top spot in the Pentagon. As President Bush was explaining why he lied to America about Rumsfeld’s pending resignation at a day-after-election press conference, he was still praising Rumsfeld’s “accomplishments.” The president failed to mention that Rumsfeld’s Pentagon couldn’t account for “misplacing” nearly $3 trillion.

Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen J. Hedges more accurately summed up Rummy’s “accomplishments” in his Nov. 12, 2006 editorial, Winter comes for a Beltway Lion: Rumsfeld rose and fell with his conviction intact.” Hedges noted Rumsfeld’s “accomplishments” are the result of his bet that ill-equipped Arabs defending their homes were no match for the technologically-superior professional military under his direction. He was wrong and history will remember him as the defense secretary who failed in Iraq. Though the end of the Rumsfeld story has yet to be written, we can state with certainty that the thousands of American soldiers and (at least) 800,000 Iraqi and Afghani men, women and children non-combatants who have been killed under his authority since Sept. 11, 2001, are merely the most recent examples of the murder and misery this ruthless beltway bureaucrat has been inflicting on our world since the late 70s

On the way up

At age 29, Princeton educated wrestling champion, navy pilot and presidential aid Republican Donald Rumsfeld was elected by Illinois to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1962. Rummy began accumulating political contacts-and power-for the next 14 years. After leaving the House, he held several high-level executive posts during the Nixon era and became the youngest defense secretary in U.S. history under Gerald Ford. When Ford lost the White House to Jimmy Carter in 1976, Rummy was unemployed in D.C. for the first time since 1962. In 1978 Rummy’s career as a public poisoner-for-profit began when he became CEO of G.D. Searle, a small pharmaceutical company. When Rummy took the helm, Searle was being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for attempting to defraud the FDA into approving artificial aspartame as a safe artificial sweetener when lab tests proved it was a neurotoxic, carcinogenic drug.

He was able to pull political strings to get Searle out of legal trouble and influenced President Reagan’s appointment of Arthur Hull Hayes as FDA Commissioner to politically approve the sale of aspartame in 1981–over the objections of FDA scientists, independent researchers and consumer safety advocates.
Monsanto bought Searle for $2.7 billion in 1985, and the Searle family walked away with about $1 billion. Rumsfeld’s take was about $12 million.

Let him hear their cries

Since Rumsfeld “called in his markers” to achieve aspartame approval in the 80s, millions of cases of aspartame poisoning have been reported where ever aspartame is found in foods, beverages and medical preparations. According to FDA records, adverse reactions to aspartame comprise about 80 percent of consumer complaints. The agency has published a list of 92 symptoms of aspartame poisoning which includes blindness, joint pain, chronic fatigue, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, mental illness and death. Its use is linked to chronic illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, lupus, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease-illnesses that have become globally pandemic since aspartame was approved. During the 1980s when congressional hearings were being held on the dangers of aspartame, Dr. H.J. Roberts predicted that, if aspartame approval was not reversed at that time, in five or 10 years “Aspartame Disease: An FDA-Approved Epidemic” would be a global plague. By 2001, Dr. Roberts had published the 1,038-page text “Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic” proving his prediction came to pass.

aspartame-rusnfeldThe testimonies of people who have suffered the consequences of aspartame poisoning, a cluster of symptoms most appropriately called “Rumsfeld’s disease,” are as varied as they are numerous. Aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen linked to a variety of cancers; a teratogen linked to birth defects; an abortifacient implicated in untold numbers of pregnancies ending unexpectedly and without explanation; a neurotoxin associated with neurodevelopmental and behavioral disorders in children and the development of central nervous system complications in adults-a list that includes MS, fibromyalgia and various forms of dementia; it reacts with other chemicals to increase chemical sensitivity and; it reacts with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines to produce a full spectrum of off-label reactions and adverse events.

It would take a several volumes to memorialize the stories of those whose lives have been adversely affected by aspartame. The fact that all the components and end products of aspartame are toxic to humans and the fact that Rumsfeld is absolutely responsible for aspartame’s 25-year reign of medical misery, demands our action. Rumsfeld should be compelled to publicly defend his decision to poison the world with aspartame while in the court-ordered presence of those whose lives have been destroyed by his chemical weapon of mass misery.


Aspartame triggers an irregular heart rhythm, interacts with cardiac medication, damages the cardiac conduction system and causes sudden death. A lot of aspartame-associated deaths are in athletes whose running depletes magnesium reserves–magnesium protects the brain and heart from excitotoxins such as aspartame and monosodium glutamate. Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., author of “Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills” wrote the Athlete Alert on Sudden Cardiac Death which explains the biochemical processes involved.

Poisoning American Fighting Men

Aspartame is made up of three components, aspartic acid (an excitotoxins), a methyl ester which immediately becomes methanol, then converts to formaldehyde and formic acid, and phenylalanine, (a neurotoxin as an isolate) The molecule breaks down to diketopiperazine, a Brain Tumor agent. Aspartame breaks down at 86 degrees or moderate temperature. During the first Gulf War, soldiers were drinking Rumsfeld poison by the pallet load in diet sodas sitting in the 120 degree Arabian son.

As stated previously, aspartame (and its toxic byproducts) interacts with all drugs and vaccines. Corporate-neutral, non-government researchers explain that the enormous volume they were exposed to. Consumption of aspartame formaldehyde cocktails is likely a factor in the epidemic of of hot diet sodas consumed by Desert Storm personnel interacted with the drugs, chemicals and vaccines to which they were exposed. Military Admits Gulf War Illness is from Aspartame consumption of aspartame formaldehyde cocktails is likely a factor in the epidemic of “Gulf War Illness” tragically affecting hundreds of thousands of Desert Storm veterans and their families.

Gulf War IllnessGulf War veteran, Geoffrey, reported what they had to drink were aspartame diet sodas and confirmed again the pallets were piled one on top of the other in the hot sun for weeks. He was young but his hair was gray as happens because of aspartame mitochondrial damage which helps you age. Aspartame addicts because of the liberation of free methyl alcohol, which causes chronic methanol poisoning. This affects the dopamine system of the brain and causes the addiction. He was still using it. His vision was affected as expected because the methanol converts to formaldehyde and formic acid in the retina of the eye and destroys the optic nerve. Prior to aspartame use he had not worn glasses. From headaches and blood pressure elevation to weight gain he is the typical aspartame victim. He is dizzy most of the time, and dizziness is #2 on the FDA list of 92 symptoms. He had no idea aspartame triggers these problems. His son is in Iraq and he planned to immediately warn him to abandon diet pop and Wrigley’s gum. His best friend, a diet pop addict, was just found dead in a chair. He said, “I was fighting for my country, and I try to help people, and my health has been destroyed.” Just one of millions of cases of Rumsfeld Disease.

The pop companies knew. The protest of the National Soft Drink Assn (now American Beverage) is in the Congressional Record of 1985 and explains aspartame breaks down at 86 degrees, and that it violates the adulteration statute. Coke and Pepsi knew the gun was loaded before they shipped this venom to kill and maim the troops.

Who murdered Chuck Fleming?

SweetDiane Fleming, a mother of three and a Sunday school teacher with no criminal history, was convicted of murdering husband Chuck Fleming and sentenced to spend 30 and 20 years concurrently in a Virginia prison. The autopsy shows Chuck died of acute methanol poisoning after experiencing chronic methanol poisoning for years. The jury convicted Diane of poisoning her husband with an unopened jug of methanol-containing windshield cleaner, even though it was analyzed and they found none to be missing.

Was the windshield wiper fluid found in the Gatorade he drank because this is what was alleged? Even the forensic toxicologist who gave the affidavit admitted in December 2001, while he was requested to perform certain tests involving several bottles of Gatorade mixture, which he had previously determined contained methanol, and a bottle of windshield washer fluid, he was not able to identify any. In fact, he said the method he used did not have the appropriate sensitivity necessary to identify trace concentrations of windshield washer fluid colorant in the Gatorade. He further stated he could not definitively determine whether any amount of windshield washer colorant was present in the Gatorade mixture and, therefore, did not issue a Certificate of Analysis. He then advised Investigator Elizabeth Baker of the Chesterfield County Police Department via telephone he would not be issuing a report because no definitive conclusions could be reached from the tests.

Chuck was a body builder who played basketball about four times a week and used a lot of aspartame-containing products. Several physicians including Dr. H.J. Roberts reviewed Chuck’s lifestyle, aspartame intake, and studied his autopsy report. Dr. Roberts stated, “On the basis of the prodigious amounts of aspartame products he [Chuck] consumed and the finding of a severe fatal metabolic acidosis, coupled with a high concentration of methanol in the blood and no other reasonable explanation, I concur with the cause of death as methanol poisoning – in this case due to considerable methanol consumption in the form of aspartame products If the facts about this case that have been reviewed are correct, it is my firm opinion that Diane Fleming should be immediately freed from wrongful imprisonment to rejoin her family. Furthermore, the FDA should be so advised by the court, and recommend that aspartame products be labeled as an imminent health threat, and either so labeled or removed from the market.”

Repeated attempts to intervene on Diane’s behalf have not been able to secure her release from prison. A Motion for Reconsideration before the Virginia State Supreme Court was rejected. Diane’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was earlier turned down.

There was complete shock Diane was ever convicted in the first place since there was no evidence. It was even admitted at the trial what he drank couldn’t have killed him. The jury was asked why they convicted her and stated because Diane could show no emotion. Of course, she couldn’t, she had been given Zoloft because of her anxiety on being indicted. Diane herself was using aspartame and it interacts with Zoloft and makes you like a Zombie. She was drugged.

Not even the press could believe a person could be convicted when there was no evidence. Alan Cooper of the Richmond Times-Dispatch wrote the family and stated:

“The formal sentencing of Diane Fleming is scheduled for April 25. I know of nothing else in the way of additional investigation or development. I expect her lawyer to again ask the judge to set aside the conviction BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT HER.——– I, and most of those in the courtroom, were surprised that the jury convicted her.

“It was a most unusual case, the first poisoning homicide trial I’ve covered in almost 30 years and hundreds of cases as a reporter. I thought the evidence showed that Ms. Fleming probably was the one in the best position to poison her husband, but there was nothing about a motive or even where the methanol, the poisoning agent, might have come from.”

Diane Fleming even today still cries about losing her husband. You see her emotion when interviewed for the aspartame documentary, “Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World.” But because she was drugged with aspartame and Zoloft, Rumsfeld Disease claimed another victim, and she has been in a cold prison cell for four years for a crime committed by his approval of poison.

Dr. Fierro

marcella-fierropVirginia State Medical Examiner (ME) Dr. Marcella Farinelli Fierro has the authority to recommend that Diane be released immediately based upon the forensic facts revealed in the autopsy report as supported by innumerable pieces of circumstantial evidence. After making repeated promises to talk with Dr. Roberts to discuss the possibility that Diane was wrongfully convicted of murdering her husband, Dr. Fierro, kept canceling. She was sent a copy of the peer reviewed journal article by Woodrow C. Monte:

Aspartame, Methanol & the Public Health.” Finally she shows up for the meeting with Fleming’s attorney at the time, Craig Cooley, Dr. Pearson (forensic toxicologist), Dr. Pearson’s colleague from toxicology, William Davenport and Warren Von Schuch in March 2004. Again, she was given Dr. Monte’s paper. When it was time for the conference call with Dr. Roberts for which the meeting was set up in the first place, she refused. He had spent hours preparing irrefutable evidence Fleming Died From Aspartame.

Dr. Fierro said she had done her own independent research and there was no legitimate scientific basis to conclude aspartame ingestion played any role in Chuck’s methanol poisoning. She advised that no “referred” (peer reviewed) scientific or medical journal had ever substantiated the position Dr. Roberts and other citations provided were taking. Yet she was holding a scientific peer reviewed paper on the subject. Even in the 1985 congressional record, reporting the protest of the National Soft Drink Assn, now American Beverage, they admitted aspartame violated federal adulteration statutes. Aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol, making approval illegal.

If Dr. Fierro had found some evidence to dispute overwhelming evidence of methanol poisoning by aspartame it would be reasonable that she would have looked forward to talking to Dr. Roberts to explain and put the issue to rest. But she was afraid of talking to this world expert. Why?

Dr. Woodrow Monte said “Every molecule of aspartame produces a molecule of methanol.” The chronic methanol poisoning was documented on the autopsy proving the fact. He was highly addicted to it stockpiling it in the garage and getting upset if the fridge wasn’t always stocked with diet pop laced with aspartame.

At the meeting Dr. Fierro commented Charles had ingested methanol on two previous occasions, but that his physicians had not picked it up because they weren’t looking for acute methanol poisoning. This is ludicrous. He would have been dead the first time. And how could she say on two occasions when she didn’t know Fleming?

This was obvious a coverup of the evidence of the chronic methanol poisoning on the autopsy. This leads to death, as in Chuck’s case, building up over time from repeated non-lethal levels of ingestion, such as those that science has proven to occur with aspartame consumption. The autopsy also showed pulmonary edema seen on other autopsies of aspartame victims as well as a fatty liver, as expected. And because aspartame damages the cardiac conduction system and his autopsy showed cardiomegaly or an enlarged heart of unknown origin, this probably was the immediate cause of death.

92 different symptoms of Aspartame

92 different symptoms of Aspartame.

Rather than expose aspartame and recommend Diane’s conviction for murder be vacated, based upon a scientifically-supported review of her husband’s autopsy report, Dr. Fierro has chosen to let an innocent woman sit in prison. Dr. Fierro has a history of using her capacity as an ME to influence the outcome of investigations for political reasons. She was the ME who authorized a revised autopsy report in the Death of Vincent Foster in 1993.

Hillary "I see dead people."Foster was President Clinton’s Chief of Counsel. Dr. Fierro’s alteration allowed Foster’s apparent murder to appear as a suicide. Had the original entry location of the bullet stood, the suicide conclusion would have been hard to explain since people committing suicide do not ordinarily shoot themselves in the back of the head.

Dr. Roberts wrote the Grievance Committee of the Virginia Medical Board: “I have seen the letter sent to you by Betty Martini, and concur with her concern about Diane Fleming whom I believe has been falsely incarcerated. My reasons were stated in two affidavits. As noted, I have been actively interested in methanol poisoning from aspartame products for more than two decades, and have written extensively on the subject.

“This is a pro bono volunteered effort intended to help an apparently innocent person. I do not know Mrs. Fleming, but her plight deserves more interest and consideration from this medical examiner. I repeatedly made myself available to Dr. Fierro for an interview/consultation, but she refused to speak to me. Under the circumstances, I also must question her indifference or bias.”

The continued investigation of Dr. Fierro keeps showing a link to Senator Orrin Hatch.
Even in Commonwealth Currents, Sept 1999, there was an article about Governor Jim Gilmore announcing the establishment of the Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine. In the list of Board of Directors there they were again, Marcella F. Fierro and Senator Orrin Hatch. Senator Hatch knows exactly how deadly aspartame is. A press release dated February 11, l986 titled: “Hatch Says No To Committee Hearings on Aspartame”. It states: “Senator Orrin Hatch said that he is not alarmed over the artificial sweetener aspartame, that an initial reading of documents recently delivered to him reveal no pre-approval issue that has not been thoroughly aired before, and consequently “it would serve no useful purpose to commit Committee resources to this issue at this time.” Yet Hatch knew the FDA wanted the manufacturer indicted and both US Prosecutors were hired by the defense team. He also knew Rumsfeld called in his markers to get it approved when the FDA said no.

Why is Senator Hatch from Utah on this Virginia Board? Since he has been trying to protect the aspartame industry for years did he confer with Fierro on this case. Is this the real reason Dr. Fierro refused to talk with Dr. Roberts. Once she had the evidence there would be no way to deny it any further. Investigative reporters should probe further. There are too many unanswered questions.

An ironic twist to the Rumsfeld legacy

A “jury” found Saddam Hussein “guilty” of crimes for which the punishment was  death by hanging. He was held for the alleged mass murder of some 30,000 Kurds in northern Iraq in the 80s. There are photos and documents proving that, during the Reagan era, Rumsfeld brokered the sales of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein-the chemicals Saddam allegedly used on the Kurds.

Is it not bizarre that Saddam’s downfall came with Rumsfeld as his adversary and that Rumsfeld’s failure to “win” in Iraq will be the final blot on his public service career? Is it not our job to deepen the poetry of this strange twist by using Rummy’s final fall from grace as a platform upon which to seek justice for all those ravaged, in one way or another, by the weapon of mass misery this man unleashed on the world 25 years ago?


For reasons that have yet to be fully understood, Dr. Fierro and the Virginia’s Supreme Court have not relented in the persecution of Diane Fleming who, the evidence plainly shows, is innocent of the crime of murdering her husband. She even passed a lie detector test and the detective on the case, Bob Skowron said: “Diane Fleming did not poison her husband. I’ve sent a lot of people to prison but no way could I sleep at night if I was responsible for an innocent woman being convicted. I would have stopped the indictment but right at that time I got promoted and taken off the case.”

Diane FlemingAbsent a favorable ruling from the court ordering Diane’s release, with apologies, Rumsfeld will be getting away with another murder. This time, instead of soldiers being paid to wage Rummy’s private war on humanity, a sweet, charitable Sunday school-teaching mother of three will pay by spending perhaps the rest of her life in a Virginia prison.’

1. If aspartame begins to break down into methanol, a known neurotoxin, at 86 degrees F., how can aspartame be safe for humans whose healthy bodies operate at 98.6 degrees F.?
2. Aspartame is comprised of 40 percent aspartic acid, 50 percent phenylalanine and 10 percent methanol. In the body it converts to methanol (a neurotoxin), then formaldehyde (embalming fluid), then formic acid (insecticide) and DKP (brain tumor agent). How can this substance be safe if all its metabolic conversions are unsafe?
3. Why are most people who drink “diet” pop sweetened with aspartame chronically overweight? Why do slender people who drink “diet” pop sweetened with aspartame have a tendency to gain weight?
4. What prompted the U.S. attorney investigating Searle for aspartame approval-related fraud to leave his job to work for the law firm representing Searle?
5. If science has proven that aspartame destroys diabetics, why do ad campaigns for sugarless products sweetened with aspartame target diabetics? Why does the American Diabetic Association recommend that diabetics use aspartame?
6. If some of aspartame’s metabolites are known to cause birth defects, why aren’t pregnant women being warned?
7. If science has determined that neurological pathways develop during childhood, why would the FDA approve the consumption of neurotoxic, methanol-containing aspartame for children?
8. What would prompt the FDA to approve aspartame as safe for human consumption when they have compiled a list of 92 symptoms from complaints received that include blindness, coma and death?
9. Why would the FDA list “death” as a “symptom?” Isn’t “death ” the cessation of symptoms?
10. Aspartame is described as an “excitotoxin” because it interacts with other drugs. Why does the FDA list it as a benign food “additive” when it could interact with a person’s medications with potentially lethal results?
11. The vast majority of product complaints (between 75 percent and 85 percent) received by the FDA are aspartame related. Why wouldn’t the FDA think this is important?
12. If aspartame is safe, why do so many sick people get better when they stop using it?
13. Donald Rumsfeld was the secretary of defense before using his political influence to achieve FDA approval for aspartame as CEO of G.D. Searle. Was aspartame approval considered a matter of national security? Rumsfeld is secretary of defense, again is aspartame’s continued presence in vitamins, drugs and the food supply related to his powerful political position?

The American people can render answers to all the previous questions moot by simply boycotting products containing aspartame and the companies who produce and market them.

To help with Diane’s legal defense, send donations to:
David Hargett, Attorney
11545 Nuckols Road, Suite C
Glen Allen, Virginia 23059

To the media: Diane is becoming very ill and has a lump in her leg. Medical neglect is the rule in prison. We have to get this innocent woman out. We implore you to follow the links below, do whatever additional research you feel is necessary and help us help Diane get back home where she belongs. Call us anytime.
Dr. Betty Martini, Founder, mission possible world health international (770) 242-2599

amino sweetAdditional evidence in support of Rumsfeld’s treachery

Idaho Observer: Rumsfeld’s disease: A politically-induced biochemical disaster of global proportions:

The FDA Board of Inquiry Report that revoked Searle’s petition for aspartame approval: Food And Drug Administration [Docket No. 75F-0355] <;

Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World – Top Documentary

Consumer advocate attorney James Turner explains how Rumsfeld said he would call in his markers and get aspartame on the market even though the FDA had not only revoked the petition for approval but even tried to have Searle, the original manufacturer indicted for fraud under Title 18, Section
1001: Sound and Fury Productions, Inc. <;

The entire Sweet Misery documentary DVD is available from The Idaho Observer at Idaho Observer – Pro-Liberty Network <;

FDA list of 92 aspartame-related symptoms with links to published medical journal reports describing them: symptoms – DORway <;

Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic,

Aspartame interacts with all drugs and vaccines – aspartame interacts with all drugs, vaccines and toxins <;

Case histories of aspartame adverse-events: Aspartame… the BAD news!,
 92 SymptomsAbout Aspartame  <;

Athlete Alert on Sudden Cardiac Death by Russell Blaylock, MD: athlete alert: renowned neurosurgeon identifies aspartame .. <;

The Diane Fleming story: Idaho Observer: Wife, mother wrongfully convicted of murder … <;

Dr. Fierro’s role in the Vince Foster affair: The Secret Life of Bill Clinton by Ambrose Evans Pritchard

Congressional Record: fda list of 92 symptoms on aspartame (nutrasweet/equal … <;

Aspartame, Methanol and the Public Health by Dr. Woodrow Monte – Aspartame poisoning: Documents relating to … – DORway <;

Mission Possible International, Aspartame & Aspartame Poisoning Information Site <; and WORLD NATURAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION <;
The Diane Fleming Story is also in the Artificially Sweetened Times produced by the Idaho Observer

To contact Diane Fleming (you can only send 5 pages)

Mrs. Diane Fleming
FCCW 8D 209A
Box 1000
Troy, Virginia 22974

Related Articles:
Coca Cola To Defend Aspartame In New Commercial
Aspartame in Milk Without a Label? Big Dairy Petitions FDA For Approval
Aspartame, MSG, Dumbing Down Society
Diet soda tied to stroke risk, but reasons unclear (How about Aspartame??)
Aspartame and Rumsfeld’s Disease: A Politically-Induced Biochemical Disaster of Global Proportions
The Dangers of Sucralose/Splenda Revealed Again by New Extensive Review
Artificial Sweeteners Lead to Overeating
Diet Soda: Sweet Words and Sour Reality
A practical guide to sugar and sweeteners
Sugar Linked To $1 Trillion In U.S. Healthcare Spending
Starving Cancer to Death by Removing one Food: Refined Sugar
Sugar makes cancer light-up in MRI scanners
Sugar substitutes and the potential danger of Splenda


How Aspartame Became Legal – The Timeline

Donald Rumsfeld: Aspartame

Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame …

Monsanto to Acquire G. D. Searle & Co. in $2.7-Billion Cash …

How Did Diane Fleming Get Wrongly Convicted?

Diane Fleming Information by Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum

The Charles Fleming Murder Case

92 different symptoms of Aspartame | Gathering of Minds


The Aspartame Epidemic

Resurrecting The Aspartame US Senate Hearings

Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Hatch – Sweet Poison

Splenda Isn’t So Splendid: The Toxic Rumsfeld-Monsanto Link

How does aspartame affect our bodies? | A conversation on …

Aspartame Disease: An FDA-Approved Epidemic

Diane Fleming – Husband Died From Aspartame

Aspartame Being Re-Branded as AminoSweet: The Next …

Diary: US Gov Owners and Donald Rumsfeld poison US …

The Rumsfeld Plague: Aspartame Brings Horror

Just How Bad is Aspartame? Proven Unsafe But FDA …

Artificial Sweeteners – AMChiro


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,789 other followers