Town Square

The Mysterious Death of Pat Tillman

Original post made by Albert on Apr 30, 2007

Pat Tillman was a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books on World War II and Winston Churchill to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author. In letters to friends and family he promised that when his tour of duty was over, he would speak out against what he called 'The bleeping criminal war in Iraq'. This would have been a disaster for the Bush regime, on the heels of the Abu Grhaib scandal. Conveniently for the Bush regime,, he had been killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan before his tour of duty was over. The fraudulent way in which the military initially spread fraudulent fairy tales about the circumstances of his death, the cooking of all the initial information to his family and the public, stink to high heaven. We need a special prosecutor with subpoena power to investigate this tragedy.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 30, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Would the family of Sgt. D_____, who died when he tossed a bazooka round down because he didn't want it in his trailer, feel better if they knew the exact manner of his death? How about the families of the men at Kunu Ri who zipped up their sleeping bags against orders and the bitter cold, and as a consequence were hopping down the hill in front of an advancing enemy because you can't get out of a zipped up bag or fight effectively in one. In both cases they were in action, and nothing would bring them back. If their actions were less than John Waynish, hey, stuff happens. Infantry combat is a hazardous affair, and friendly fire has always been its accompaniment. Don't pretend you bring this up out of regard for the soldier.
Tillman's death was a consequence of inadequate communication within a divided command, but that happens, too. Combat tactics are not the same as parade ground configurations and I would not pretend to second guess Tillman's unit commander either for the action or for the subsequent obfuscation.

Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 30, 2007 at 5:56 pm

From the beginning of wars commanders have lied about the manner of deaths of soldiers to give the grieving family comfort, and to reaffirm that any soldier fighting for his country is a hero.

How much more true is it now that every soldier is a hero because they have VOLUNTEERED to put themselves in this position.

I would rather my son be seen as a hero than a victim, because that is the real point of the death. And I would rather that my son's death not be used as fodder against the very cause he was fighting for.

Right or wrong, there is nothing new about this. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 30, 2007 at 6:01 pm

The manner in which the Army and Pentagon have handled the Tillman's death have been fraught with fraudulence, lies and deception, much like the whole sordid Iraq invasion matter. Something is terribly wrong here and needs to be investigated by a special prosecutor with a rigor at least as intense as the Lewinsky affair.

Posted by RS, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 30, 2007 at 6:02 pm


Tilman was deployed in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
The quote you attribute to him does not make sense.
Please dont use this man's tragic death to further your cause.

Posted by Suellen, a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 30, 2007 at 6:08 pm

This thread sounds like the right wing nut jobs talking about Vince Foster during the Clinton administration. It is sad to see otherwise apparently intelligent people who've had their rational faculties damaged by hatred of someone they don't even know personally. I thought that during the Clinton administration, but comforted myself that people on my side didn't think like that. Sad to say I was wrong.

Posted by Jeff Derman, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Apr 30, 2007 at 6:34 pm

RS, the quote about the Iraq war from Pat Tillman have been disclosed by his brother Kevin, as well as some of Pat's friends who had received letters from him with scatting criticism of the Iraq invasion. The Tillman family has rejected the Pentagon's fraudulent version of events and its clumsy cover up attempts and is demanding a special prosecutor-they deserve one. They suspect foul play and I personally would be shocked if there hadn't been one. The Bush regime has engaged in an almost unprecedented campaign of lies since it wasn't elected in 2000 and this fraud case is just one of many.I wouldn't believe them if the said that today was Monday, that's how much credibility they have with the American people.

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 30, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Unfortunately, i have learned in the last 6 years that when you suspect the Bush regime of the most despicaple acts, you always find out that the reality is even worse. As much as I hate conspiracy theories, I wouldn't put anything past this criminal regime. In order to find the truth about Pat Tillman's death and in light of the fraud perpetrated by the Army and Pentagon, we must have a special prosecutor.

Posted by anon., a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 30, 2007 at 7:53 pm

the truth is is that modern war is extremely dangerous stuff,
and many soldiers are killed by "freindly fire"

Posted by Dave, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 30, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Back in 2002-3, when some people suggested that the Bush administration was forging intelligence and cooking the books in order to find a fraudulent excuse to invade Iraq, some liberals claimed that it was an overreaction and a conspiracy theory that has no place in the the progressive camp. Guess what? it was exactly what the regime was doing. The same kneejerk progressives didn't believe back in 2000 that the right wing would dare steal an election and they didn't believe it in 2004-guess what. Now we hear from the same wimps that suspicions about the Pat Tillman death amount to-'rational faculties damaged by hatred of someone they don't even know personally'. Guess what, you guys have been wrong every time since 2000, you are probably wrong now and your lack of any courage and will to fight for our disappearing democracy is the reason the Bush regime has been getting away with murder, fraud and deception for so long.

Posted by Heard it before, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2007 at 8:49 pm

The same conspiracy theory is still being argued about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Posted by Dave, a resident of College Terrace
on May 1, 2007 at 7:28 am

An administration that falsified and doctored intelligence in order to get the nation into a ruinous war is capable of anything. After all the crimes the Bush administration has committed, it should be considered guilty until proven innocent, although I doubt they are innocent of anything.

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2007 at 9:27 am

Anti-Muslims defend any evil thought or evil deed that justifies their War on Muslims.

Their boundless hatefulness is incredibly transparent.

Shouldn't we be concerned that Muslims and Arabs aren't the only people Anti-Muslims hate?

Posted by Suellen, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 1, 2007 at 12:02 pm

You guys are right. It's Bush's fault. He must have hired the same guy who was shooting from behind the grassy knoll.

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2007 at 12:30 pm


I hope you aren't making light of the JFK assassination or the 9/11 attack.

Or the insultingly obvious cover-ups that accompanied both events.

Posted by Suellen, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 1, 2007 at 12:50 pm


I am mocking Oliver Stone and anyone else who pretends to find conspiracies where there are none. That includes the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists, those who think Clinton murdered Vince Foster or was involved in the drug trade, those who think the US, Israel, "the Jews", or the CIA perpetrated 911, and anyone who thinks that Bush had a hand in Tillman's death.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2007 at 2:35 pm


Are you insisting you question neither the Warren Commission Report nor the 9/11 Commission Report?


Posted by Gerard, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Suellen, are you claiming that the notion that the Bush regime falsified, manipulated and doctored inteeeligence in order to get the Congress to authorize the Iraq invasion is a conspiracy theory as well? From the start, many, including people who didn't vote for Bush and Cheney assumed that there things they just will not do, weel, because it would be un-American, American presidents just aren't supposed to get involved in such things-falsifying intelligence, lying to the public and Comgress, torture, saidsm, abuse of human rights, etc. But the Bush regime kept committing all these un-American acts, and they seem to be proud of it. Labeling suspicions about the Pat Tillman death circumstances, where suspicion is highly justified as 'consipracy theory' is naive, cowardly and smells of fear of questioning authority.

Posted by Suellen, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 1, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Those of us in the Reality Based Community do not imagine that when all the facts of an event are unknown or unknowable, that this implies a conspiracy.

It's one thing to say a report by a government commission was sloppily done or lacking in detail, or that the conclusions were necessarily based only on the evidence available. It is quite another to pretend that real or imagined deficiencies in a report is evidence of some grand conspiracy.

The best available evidence is that Oswald shot JFK and that 19 Islamist hijackers hit the World Trade Center on 911.

There is ZERO evidence that Bush is implicated in the death of Tillman, or that Clinton had anything to do with the death of Vince Foster. Anyone who believes as much probably is at least slightly delusional.

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Nice work, Suellen, I'm beginning to wonder if the same criminal cabal responsible for assassinating JFK also orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

Interesting how both events were captured on film/video, reminiscent of hunters displaying trophies.

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 1, 2007 at 3:51 pm

No one accused bush of being involved in the death of Pat Tillman. The facts are that the reports on the circumstances of his death have been falsified many times and with each Pentagon comment, more questions are raised than answers are put to rest. The possibility that Pat Tillman was ordered killed shouldn't be dismissed out of hand before a thorough investigation of his death by a special prosecuror is conducted. Only then will be able to put all suspicions to rest. If Americans wer told 5 years ago that a Us administration would falsify intelligence in order to get the country into a war, most people would sream 'conspiracy theory', but now they don't, since most once far fetched suspicions about the Bush administration have proven to be true.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 1, 2007 at 6:41 pm

The possibility that Albert killed Tillman to keep Tillman from revealing Albert's presence on the grassy knoll cannot be dismissed, either.

Posted by sam, a resident of Meadow Park
on May 1, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Walter, it's worse than you think: I think Tillman killed Albert and is posting here under a nom de plume to cover up that fact. It can't be ruled out unless we investigate the matter.

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 1, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Actually, I don't think the Pentagon could have planned the murder of Pat Tillman-they are too incompetent.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2007 at 11:20 am

Tell us more about the incompetence of the U.S. military establishment, Albert. And let us know, too what your standard of comparison is.

Posted by Sillaw_E_Retlaw, a resident of another community
on May 2, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Get over it. The Tillman and Lynch stories were manufactured propaganda to sell the wars. The U.S. Gov't has done this in every war. What is amazing is how well the media laps it up.

Posted by Donnie, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 2, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Sillaw, you're right that the US, and most other countries in fact, have tried to manufacture heroes when at war. As you point out that's almost "normal:, and probably a necessity to keep moral and public support high for a war effort. (Which depending on your view of the current war, you may think compounds the offense, rather than mitigates it.)

But if you'll read the thread a little more carefully, you'll see that what some are objecting to is not the lies used to cast Tillman as a hero, rather it's the implication via innuendo that somehow the Bush Administration or Tillman's superiors were involved in his death to prevent him from expressing his doubts about his mission - or for other nefarious reasons. That kind of calumny seems beyond the pale of legitimate discussion - even on a site in a liberal community like Palo Alto - without a LOT of documentation.

Cheap conspiracy theorizing is damaging to our country. That was true when the right wing did it to Clinton and is true now when the left is doing it.

Posted by Sillaw_E_Retlaw, a resident of another community
on May 2, 2007 at 3:10 pm


I would be surprised if the orchestration of the "Heroes Stories" DID NOT go all the way to the White House. As for whether his superiors had a role in his death, I have no idea. Modern weapons are very lethal.

Posted by Donnie, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 2, 2007 at 3:16 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Sil, a resident of another community
on May 2, 2007 at 3:42 pm


I've worked with the U.S. Military for most of my career and, for the most part, they follow orders from above on something like this. But I also know that some soldiers are fragged if they are disliked. I'm not saying that there was a conspiracy to kill Tillman, but there certainly was one to fabricate and maintain the "War Hero" story. It's not unusual. But to maintain the story for someone as nationally known as Tillman, the order to keep it quiet had to have come very high up the chain of command, and probably outside of the Pentagon.

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 2, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Again, the right wingers and the timid centrists and liberals on this board are distorting the issue, some deliberately. No one claimed to know for certain that Tillman had been murdered. The undisputed fact though, is that the army and Pentagon have lied so often and so much about the circumstances of his death, that we just can't assume that he wasn't killed on orders from above. In light of the Bush administration incessant lies and criminal mentality, a special prosecutor is a must. An administration that lied, deceived, fabricated, forged, outed a CIA agent and deceived congress and the nation in order to start a war would think nothing of killing a poster boy who turned out as suporting the anti-war movement. I wouldn't be surprized at all if Tillman had been deliberately killed, but I certainly don't have evidence that suggest he was, only suspicions. But we will never find out if we don't investigate, will we?

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2007 at 5:24 pm

The concept of probable cause seems foreign to some folk here. If it were a true White House scam, then the rest of the platoon would also have died gloriously. Or perhaps they did, and have been replaced by androids.

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 2, 2007 at 5:48 pm

During the Vietnam war, there had been instances of fragging, when soldiers would assassinate an unpopular officer of one's own fighting unit. Fragging can happen for a variety of reasons. Based on the numerous lies by the Pentagon and Army vis-a-vis the Pat Tillman death, a probable cause for fragging in this case is a very reasonable conclusion and an investigation by a special prosecutor is a must.

Posted by OldSailor, a resident of Portola Valley
on May 2, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Pat Tillman walked away from a $ multi-million contract believing he was doing something patriotic for his country. Gainst his will, he became the PosterBoy for US militarism. He quickly came to the conclusion that the Iraq war was illegal and became uneasy even with the Afghanistan mission, as letters to his wife, brother and friends suggest. The prospect of PT going stateside after his tour of duty and speaking against the war would have been a public relations nightmare for the Liar-In-Chief and his administration. As a matter of fact, I would be extremely surprised if he weren't fragged, like some have suggested here. In any case, this matter needs to be cleared up since nobody in the chain of command all the way up to Rumsfeld can be trusted or believed.

Posted by Donnie, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 2, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Some soldiers were fragged in Viet Nam. However this was done by individual soldiers - usually enlisted men fragging officers. None of this was done at the direction of Richard Nixon as excreable a president as he was.

The suggestions, based on NOTHING but raw hatred for Bush, that Tillman was ordered killed from above is pure fantasy - and is very damaging to our country no matter what your politics are.

If you have something concrete to show Tillman's death was ordered, let's see it. Otherwise, you should be ashamed of yourselves for even mentioning it.

This kind of weird conspiracy-mongering is beneath even anonymous internet posting.

Posted by Hillary, a resident of Barron Park
on May 2, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Donnie is right. There are tons of documented policies the Bush administration has and actions the Bush administration has taken - including not the least the War - that provide plenty of grist for criticism and even excoriation of Bush.

Why do we have to enter into the twilight zone when we want to criticize Bush? Isn't what is clearly on the public record enough to completely discredit him in the eyes of any reasonable observer?

When we engage in this wild unsupportable conspiracy mongering, we just lower our credibility among anyone we communicate our message to, and call into question the very legitimate criticisms we make along with this black helicopter stuff.

Can't we agree that in Palo Alto, we're above this kind of nonsense?

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2007 at 8:58 pm

This need to demolish the person instead of debating policy is an enemy of good government and rational debate. Nobody wins.

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Downtown North
on May 3, 2007 at 12:36 am

Only after every last filthy lowlife thug responsible for the costly, destructive, and utterly pointless War on Muslims is brought to justice will we stop exploring the crimes of the anti-Muslim criminal network that Bush and Cheney serve.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 3, 2007 at 6:53 am

The real war on Muslims is being fought by Muslims. We sacrifice Jew and Gentile blood to save Muslims. Muslim gratitude, there's an oxymoron.

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Downtown North
on May 3, 2007 at 7:20 am

Are you really suggesting that 1.5 billion Muslims should be "grateful" an anti-Muslim criminal network has flattened Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Occupied Territories, including terrorizing tens of millions of Muslims and murdering and maiming millions of Muslims?

Posted by Colgate, a resident of Fairmeadow
on May 3, 2007 at 7:33 am

Just like Muslim terrorists have no right to come to our country and cause death and destruction (9/11), the US has no right to be in the Islamic world doing the same. We are not an empire and have no right to have miltary presence in the Muslim world, interfere with their domestic affairs, something we had been doing for many decades prior to 9/11. It was absurd to believe that the US could freely meddle in Arab countries affairs and not pay the price in its own territory. We must amend the Constitution to prohibit any future administration from invading another country. Our military's sole purpose should be to repell an enemy force trying to invade the USA.

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Downtown North
on May 3, 2007 at 11:22 am


We have yet to officially identify who attacked USA on 9/11.

Muslim terrorists didn't touched the 47-story steel-framed WTC 7 building that imploded onto itself on the evening of 9/11.

Neither FEMA nor the 9/11 Commission Report identified the cause of the WTC 7 collapse, nor have we received final word from NIST's 18-million-dollar study of the collapse.

Posted by Conspiracy Theorist, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 3, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Must have been Bush who took down #7. Impeach him!

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm

if any one came out 4 years ago and suggested that the Bush administration fabricated and forged intelligence reports to justify invading Iraq we would here the same arguments and verbage used against investigating the Tillman death:conspiracy, farfetched, fantasy, unfounded, twilight zone, etc. Bush/Cheney have been getting away with it because Americans just can't believe that their president and vice president could be liars, criminals and killers, but now we know that they are. being blind and naive will not save our democracy. If they nothing to hide, why not allow a special prosecutor? Why are they hiding all the soldiers involved in the incident? Why are they all kept incommunicado? Why is the story constantly changing?

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 4, 2007 at 6:07 pm

There is no mystery about the collapse of building 7 in the minds of the intelligent. Diesel fuel tanks in the basement for the emergency generators there ignited from debris from the collapse of 1 and 2. Water mains were broken by the collapse, and so the basement fire could not be extinguished. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Downtown North
on May 5, 2007 at 10:02 am

Anyone who is halfway interested in the mystery of the WTC 7 collapse is well aware that neither FEMA nor the 9/11 Commission Report has provided an explanation for the collapse of a 47-story steel-framed building on the evening of 9/11/2001.

And for some odd reason, the 18-million-dollar NIST Report has not provided an explanation for the mysterious collapse either.

It been over 5 years since the attack.

It's looking like the real criminal cabal responsible for 9/11 and the War on Muslims is stalling for time, hoping we will lose interest in who is responsible for so much bloodshed and treachery.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 5, 2007 at 2:12 pm

There is no mystery about the building 7 collapse. But then there is no mystery about what happened to millions of Euopean Jews, and people still question that. Very likely the same people.

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Stanford
on May 5, 2007 at 3:59 pm

No mystery about what happened to WTC 7?

Please cite one scientific or scholarly paper demonstrating how a steel-framed building collapsed due to fire for the first time in all of world history.

No mystery about what happened to millions of European Jews?

Please cite one scientific or scholarly paper demonstrating the existence of the gas chambers, one paper on how they were designed, manufactured, installed, operated and destroyed.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 6, 2007 at 4:59 am

Check back issues of Engineering News Record where all the WTC building failures are examined comprehensively by building experts. if there has been any coverup, it has been the reluctance to consider the consequences of the outlawing of asbestos structural fire protection may have had.
Define scholarly paper. It is not necessary to exclude for discussion anything that has not been "examined" in a "scholarly "paper. Scholars are for sale, anyway.

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Stanford
on May 6, 2007 at 10:09 am

A magazine with a web site, Engineering News-Record does not impress as a serious, scientific journal:

Here's their web site: Web Link

Here's what the Wikipedia entry for ENR: Web Link

I searched on the ENR web site and found no conclusive study regarding the collapse of WTC 7.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 6, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Engineering News Record is a magazine for and about people who actually do things that have meaning. By and large, engineering works at least partially because engineers learn by studying failures. There are no deep studies of the building 7 failure because there is no questions about the cause of the failure except in the truther camp and on certain TV programs.

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Downtown North
on May 6, 2007 at 12:25 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

So you insist no-one is questioning the official story?

What about Bill Manning?

In January 2002 Bill Manning, the editor in chief of Fire Engineering magazine, published an angry article that criticized the government investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings as a "half-baked farce". He also complained that the selling of the large steel beams in the rubble was destroying evidence, and that it was against the law.

He pointed out that the law requires that all the rubble be saved after a disaster so that engineers can inspect the pieces and determine whether they need to change building codes to make them stronger.

You'll have to subscribe to read the Manning article found here: Web Link

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 6, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Most knowledgeable folk respectfully disagree with Manning. Ask Manning what he thinks today. It is routine to remove debris from a fire site to look for bodies - there was plenty of photography of the building before anything was removed, and the steel was kept in the New Jersey dump for long enough to run any tests. I suspect Manning was pissed because he was pushed aside by the Feds.

Posted by Hiro, a resident of Downtown North
on May 6, 2007 at 4:58 pm

It goes much, much farther than just Manning.

Whoever are responsible for the 9/11 attack and the War on Muslims are not going to get away with it:

The WTC building collapsed at the free fall speed of gravity, 8.4 seconds (10 floors per second). "Free fall" speed means that the falling building pieces crushed concrete, sheared steel bolts, and broke welds yet fell just as fast as a rock dropped off the side of the building that hit nothing. Impossible without explosives. Each floor hit would have significantly slowed the fall!

The South Tower (Building #2) fell after 1 hour; the North Tower (Building #1) fell after 2 hours. The Meridian Plaza burned fiercely for 19 hours and never collapsed. The Madrid fire in 2005 burnt for 24 hours like a torch and never collapsed.

Yet Scientific American, October 2001 said "The WTC was probably one of the more resistant tall buildings..they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center"

"A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel."- Cardington fire tests

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."- Federal Emergency Management Agency. Chapter 5, Page 31, May 2002

The investigation of the WTC "is a half-baked farce." - Fire Engineering Magazine. Jan 2002

All of the important evidence from the disaster was destroyed, illegally, and before the investigation was even concluded, some before it began! - Fire Engineering

$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40 million on Clinton's sex life. The entire 9/11 Commission only spent $15 million while all expenditures on Clinton's indiscretion exceed $65 million.

Building 7 at the WTC, 47 floors, steel, and constructed differently from the twin towers, fell at 5:30 but it was never hit by an airplane, had no significant fire!

The fires were not long enough (only 1-2 hours) to harm the steel.

Yet days later, there were "hot spots" in the building that still exceeded the maximum temperature possible from jet fuel - but not from explosives.

The gusting wind on the towers had at times been greater than the impact of the airliners. Neither tower was bent nor did they creak or groan at any time.

The concrete was encased in a steel framed pan yet clouds of finely pulverized concrete and steel beams came shooting out of the buildings for up to three times the width of the building at hundreds of miles per hour - only possible with explosives.

If the force of the falling building is strong enough to pulverize concrete then the bolts and rivets would have to hold beyond that force - and then give way. Yetthe force to pulverize concrete into fine powder is greater than the force that sheers or stretches steel bolts and rivets. It cannot be both ways.

Both impacts and fires in the Twin Towers did not hit the center of the buildings. That means that only two sides of the building were harmed at most and two sides were structurally sound. Building 7 had no impact or significant fires. Yet all three collapses are perfectly straight down. Only the tops of the Towers should have fallen over, not the entire building all straight down, just like a controlled demolition.

"I'm still to this day amazed that he [alleged pilot on Flight 77] could have flown into the Pentagon," according to the hijackers pilot instructor. "He could not fly at all." Yet, "The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES, Public Hearing, Friday, May 23, 2003: Mr. Mineta: "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane [Flight 77] is 50 miles out...30 miles... 10 miles out" - Cheney knew this plane was coming at Washington and the Pentagon and yet no planes had been scrambled to protect Washington after over 1 hour since the WTC was attacked. Even at 400 miles per hour, it takes over 7 minutes to travel 50 miles, more since the plane was at altitude. Cheney knew the plane was coming when it was even farther away since Mr. Mineta had not been present when Flight 77 was first reported to Mr. Cheney. They had known this flight was missing for over an hour after the first plane crashed into the North Tower. There should have been an umbrella of F-16 and other aircraft over Washington, DC. An F-16 fighter can travel 50 miles and destroy a target in less than 2 minutes. Moreover, pictures released by the Pentagon show anti-aircraft missiles firing at an aircraft much smaller than a 757. Everything failed! Incompetence, if not guilt. Read how the alleged hijackers used top secret information to find holes in our Radar Defenses.

NORAD successfully intercepted off course and suspected hijackings 100% of 67 times during the year prior to 9/11 (AP, 8/13/02), each time in under 20 minutes. An Air Force F-15 "scrambles" to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes, normally intercepting in 15 minutes. Yet on 9/11 they were four failures for over an hour each -- three after they knew the planes were high-jacked and intended mass murder. Please read, "Crossing the Rubicon", by Michael Ruppert, which indicts Richard Cheney for his involvement in the war games that diverted our interceptors from stopping the high-jacked airplanes. Contrast this to Condoleezza Rice's statement from her May 16, 2002 press briefing, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile". (See Fox TV broadcast plot 6 months earlier) "Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in on Genoa. This was where U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner into the summit, which prompted officials to close the airspace over Genoa and station anti-aircraft guns at the city's airport".

"On August 6, 2001, just over a month before 9/11 and during the "summer of threat", President Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) at his Crawford, Texas ranch, entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US The August 6th memo focused entirely on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. In testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor to President Bush, stated to the 9/11 Commission that she and President Bush considered the August 6th PDB as just an historical document and commented that this was not considered a domestic warning. At this 9/11 hearing, Condoleezza Rice had taken an oath to tell the truth to the Commissioners. [Perjury!]

"Additionally, according to the 9/11 Commission report, chief White House expert on terrorism, Richard Clarke, sent Rice an urgent memo just days after she took office stressing the severity of the terrorist threat. She did not respond. Although the national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks . . . terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions. The first meeting that dealt with al Qaeda did not occur until 9/4/01." Read the 9/11 widows letter on "Kindasleazy" Rice. Rice lied that they did not anticipate hijackers using airplanes as weapons yet FEMA's cover image depicts just such an attack!

I am also appalled by the media. A Zogby Poll I commissioned reported that 66% of New Yorkers want the 9/11 investigation re-opened and 49% believe government VIP's knew ahead of time and did nothing to stop it. The New York Times thought it NOT "news fit to print". I had to pay for an advertisement to get it in the New York Times!

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 6, 2007 at 6:59 pm

I wonder if the Fire Engineering writer was one of those who approved the replacement for asbestos for structural fireproofing; A replacement fire proofing that was knocked off by the impact. If he said there was no jet fuel for the building 7 fire fuel, what does he say happened to all the diesel fuel in the day tanks. Get that guy to write here and I'll ask him a few questions.

Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 7, 2007 at 3:20 pm

point me to the actual poll. I want to see the questions.