Alex Constantine - July 6, 2007
Blindly traipsing after the Dr. Joneses is what America does best. How many "researchers" have lectured me, scorned me for not having the intelligence to see that his "science" was indisputable? Lost count. My turn to lecture: 9/11 researchers are like children who have entered a field it takes many years to become proficient in, but immediately considered themselves to be scholars.
Get off the Grassy Knoll
Primary concentration on forensics is dissociative ... and lazy. Mae Brussell advised against it and so do I. The shills constantly use forensics to trip up purposeful research. (Vincent Bugliosi is the latest example.) Why? Because the dupes who comprise the majority always fall for (ultimately ego-syntonic) forensic arguments and will spend years wasting time in debate over, say, the melting point of steel ... while the perps walk away untouched.
Concentrate on identifying the perpetrators - this is why we do the research.
Stick to the point, the perps and the commission of the crime itself. Daniel Hopsicker writes about the CIA and drugs. What do drugs have to do with 9/11? Watch out for provocative leads that go nowhere - drop the spoon-fed revelations and take up the links that comprise a complete "conspiracy chain" that pertains to the crime itself.
The "scholars" who know better will go on for years doing essentially nothing but arguing a few forensic points - and completely stall a constructive investigation. Go back to Point A. Mae Brussell's work stands as a foundation for research. Learn the ropes FIRST, then I may sit still for a lecture. Until then, it's the prattling of children gathering around the next forensic-piper I hear - and justice remains to be done. Arguing the melting point of steel for the next four years would be an immense waste of time, as it has been for the past six.
Who did 9/11? The Iran contra players in coordination with SAIC, NSA under Hayden, Lockheed, Titan, Booz-Allen-Hamilton, Allied Signal, Raytheon, CSC, Mantech, Affiliated Computer Services ... the contractors who profited by the transfer of government functions to the private sector. That's who. They all had a hand in it.
How can you know this if you spend years arguing over the melting point of steel?
Construction expert Christopher A. Brown has evaluated the World Trade Center "blueprints" leaked by the founder of STJ911 disinformation cell, Steven E. Jones.
**Brown's analysis follows:
"Unfortunately the WTC plans released appear to be fraudulently presented as "Construction Drawings" or "Architectural plans" actually used for construction of WTC 1.
The following is an analyses of random samples of the revisions table from the graphics files of the above [Jones-leaked] WTC 1 plans "4.)PAC1 TOWER A". The analysis of graphic appearances and text from the "4.)PAC1 TOWER A" subdirectory above.
Most of the dimensions are not legible at any zoom level on any of the scans. The title block shows 1967 on most sets, some are not legible.
Below is a portion of the title block of A-A-13.TIFF
PROBLEMS WITH AUTHENTICITY OF THE ABOVE.
Note the lack of clouding (dots and trash) in the background of the actual dated "REVISIONS" table. An area usually really smudged creating major clouding in a scanned plan. NOTE the clean, sharp edged cutoff of the dot cloud to the right of the word "REVISIONS". Something VERY typical of photoshopping documents.
NONE OF THE SHEETS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE PLANNING DIVISION. You can count on every sheet being signed with approval on a job
for a building with this prominence.
These are not construction drawings. If they were from LERA they would be from scanned from vellums and these are from beat up blue lines judging by the clouding trash on them. Some of the digital files were created on
10/15/02 at 4:44 AM
Below is a portion of the title block revisions table of A-A-99.TIFF Notice the anomaly in the initial columns of the left side table, 3rd cell from the bottom.
[At right] is a zoom of that cell. Not much to be said about it except it definitely does not belong there and it is some sort of digital, graphic artifact. Not a hand lettered initial. far too straight for too many pixels
A portion of the title block revisions table of A-A-139.TIFF[and] title block revisions of the table on
A-A-140.TIFF also has the same anomaly with its characteristics.
Sheet A-A-141.TIFF has the same anomaly but twice. ..
Comparison of the initials of the revisions tables of 99 and 139 show the same initials circled in blue are suspicious and could be the same numbers copied and pasted perhaps after being separated from their accompanying triangular detail numbers and being altered by scaling. blurring or distorting. The date appears as the same quite often in the "REVISIONS"
The plans are actually 1964 plans that have had their date altered to appear as 1967 or during construction. Since there is no approval by the chief of the planning division it is certain the plans are not actual construction drawings.
Clearly the anomaly in the revisions table should not be there and the table is free of most clouding where there should be more than usual. Slice lines of graphic manipulations appear in A-A-13.TIFF.
It seem very likely that a revisions table was scanned and dissected then reassembled into a graphic which matched the title block of the WTC 1 preliminary set then pasted in. The entire file could then had been rescaled or saved at another resolution to hide the splices.
The .dxf files are useless and mostly nonsense. One file "wtc1_2000.dxf" is a product of the "LZA Technology A Division of The Thornton Tomasetti Group" and appears to be the beginning of an effort to analyze the plane impacts as the impact area of flight 11 is shown.
Since the WTC2 plans are missing it is clear that is because the WTC2 plans only show the concrete core and cannot be used to deceive the public as to the actual construction of the towers by representing them as having 47 steel core columns. The concrete core of the towers is documented with images from 9-11 here .