If you haven't read the series yet, here it is.

Offer your own comment here.

To the editor ...

I have not read everything on the TLD site yet, but I'm wondering whether there is any plan to investigate the actual collapse of the World Trade Towers — as well as that of WTC Building 7, which usually doesn't receive much attention — in light of the fact that fires don't usually cause buildings to collapse in on themselves that way, the fact that the second tower to be hit collapsed first, and so on.

I know this may not be a political way of looking at the events of September 11, but it is a very practical way of looking at them. So far, the media seem very focused on the planes, but not on the buildings where the real evidence is, or was until the authorities began carting it away at a fast and furious pace!

Silvia Viil
May 25, 2002


Dr. Sniegoski replies

Numerous authorities have explained how the supporting columns of the Trade Towers could collapse under the extreme heat caused by fires resulting from a crash of a fuel-loaded airliner. Such an outcome might have been unlikely but was far from a scientific impossibility. And apparently the towers' designers had recognized it as a possibility. When the towers were planned, their architectural design specified asbestos insulation on the columns, to delay any melting of the steel support girders. With asbestos flame-retardant insulation, the columns could continue to bear their loads for up to four hours of a catastrophic fire, during which time it was expected that helicopters would be used both to evacuate any occupants who had fled to the roof and also to put out the blaze.

However, in 1971, while the World Trade Center was still under construction, New York City banned the use of asbestos. As a result, asbestos insulation was used only on columns up through the 64th floor. The higher floors were built with non-asbestos insulation.

In the years afterward, the man who had invented the wet-asbestos spray fireproofing process, the late Herbert Levine, frequently voiced a warning about the lack of asbestos insulation in the higher floors of the Trade Towers. According to his lawyer and other professionals who knew him, he said, "If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down." [*]

Now, as good libertarians, we do need to point out that it was government meddling that produced a weakened building that was susceptible to destruction. However, it would be hard to subscribe to the belief that the plan to destroy the building originated in its very construction. A conspiracy so vast is just beyond the imagination.

The conspiratorial argument that the Trade Towers were not destroyed by the planes points the finger at the U.S. government — claiming that the government not only allowed the event to happen but actually perpetrated it. I think that this view rests on scanty or nonexistent evidence and serves to undercut realistic criticism of the official line. It is a fundamental Establishment defense tactic to seek out and ridicule the most way-out criticism of an official Establishment story in order to dismiss all criticism. For example, Establishment shills often bring up a few fruity claims by some wackos that the planes and pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor were not Japanese, in order to ridicule the whole argument that Franklin Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the Japanese attack.

Also, as I have written before, it would seem far more difficult to prove a staged event than simply show that the government was probably aware of an attack and allowed it to happen.


Nicholas Strakon replies

I thank Miss Viil for her comments and inquiry.

First, an epistemological observation: the Establishment's established defense strategy of selective ridicule that Dr. Sniegoski refers to is wholly illogical, but that is hardly a defect when, thanks to decades of miseducation by the state schools and the official media, millions upon millions of us are wholly unacquainted with logic!

Speaking of education, I must confess that none of us TLD regulars seems to have much engineering or demolitions expertise (I hope the Security Organs are monitoring this), so a close investigation of the collapse of the WTC buildings may well be beyond our competence. I myself was almost taken in by one fellow's conspiratorial speculations that were circulating widely on the Net a few months ago. They included the provocative claim that jet fuel burns at nowhere near the temperature required to "melt steel." Before I got too worked up, though, a friend with some experience in metallurgy pointed out that it's not the melting point of steel that is relevant, but the softening point, which occurs at a much lower temperature, well within that attained by a fuel fire.

Technical and scientific ignoramusi such as myself run quite a risk of embarrassment when they wade into such deep (or, in this case, hot) waters. After nearly being burned, I intend to be very cautious indeed about posting any scientific or engineering speculation on the TLD site.


On the update of May 20, 2002, "The changing story and the conspiracy of inaction":

The success of the attacks of September 11 should have suggested that the U.S. government is not competent to defend Americans from the enemies "their" government makes for them.

As many libertarians have already noted, however, the result was the opposite: the clamor was for a more powerful state. Some statist writers have even taken to arguing that the attacks prove that Americans need a stronger government.

In light of the revelations that Washington knew some attack was imminent, it would again seem that it is time for Americans to conclude that their government does not have their interests at heart. I'm willing to place a bet that no such cry is raised, however, and that somehow these revelations, too, will be construed as evidence that "we" need a yet stronger government.

Any takers? Ahhhh ... who am I kidding?

Ronald N. Neff
Senior editor, TLD
May 21, 2002


I see nothing unrealistic in Dr. Sniegoski's assessment of 9/11 causes and effects, and I heartily commend him on his courage to express them, especially his revelation of Israel's possible (probable?) part in the atrocity as well as her other terrorist activities.

Elsewhere, the Lavon Affair, the attack on the USS Liberty, the brutal slaughter of entire Palestinian villages, Baruch Goldstein's more recent killing and wounding of Islamic worshippers while they were at prayer, etc., are all "forgotten" by the mainstream media as they applaud Israel's "defensive" retaliation.

Again, there are those of us who do appreciate what Dr. Sniegoski has done and is doing.

Dick Meyer
May 18, 2002


This is very impressive work. It isn't new to me; I've been steeped in this from day one. But Dr. Sniegoski includes a couple of details I haven't seen before, which is great. Good presentation, and I like the hyperlinks to the references.

A couple of friendly points. As to the FEMA guy allegedly admitting to Dan Rather that he was on the scene on Monday, there are several strong objections to Dr. Sniegoski's implications.

The first, which I've seen in a transcript of the Rather interview, is that the man himself corrects what he said, later in the same sentence, saying, "Er, that would be Tuesday night, Dan," or words to that effect. See whether I'm wrong. So even if he is "unavailable for comment" (still?), he is already on record as agreeing with FEMA's later correction of his error, having corrected it himself. So there's no mystery about his "silence" on the matter.

We can all misspeak, and that may apply especially to people who have been up for 48 hours or so. That guy had been working straight through under crisis conditions. No need to invoke Alzheimer's.

Had FEMA really been dispatched to New York on Monday night, think about the implications. There would have been a cover story about how coincidental it was that they just happened to be at a scheduled event with local emergency management authorities. They would not leave such a gaping hole of vulnerability in their claim of complete surprise, since FEMA is directly under the president's command, with its director, Joe Albaugh, a longtime close associate and confidant. How could they have made up such an event? They wouldn't; they'd have arranged that event in advance. This argument is theoretical, of course, but in concert with everyday considerations such as the two above, I'm pretty convinced the man misspoke. Although, of course, someone might nail it down by subpoenaing the FEMA travel records.

As for Vreeland, it would appear there is more to his story than Dr. Sniegoski either knows or considers. The Navy has said that he served four months as a fourth-class seaman before he was dismissed for bad conduct. When his records were subpoenaed, there were 1,200 pages of them. In open court, witnessed publicly and recorded in the court transcripts, Vreeland's attorneys called the Pentagon switchboard on a speaker phone and asked the switchboard operator for Mr. Vreeland, using his first name and middle initial. In a true Perry Mason moment, she told them his office number and verified he was on active duty, with the rank of lieutenant commander. Not to belabor the point, but dismissed fourth-class seamen do not have Pentagon offices.

Give these points some consideration, and maybe think of dropping the mention of the FEMA guy, if Dr. Sniegoski is persuaded that there's less there than he first thought. This case deserves the very strongest presentation, and any weakness will be used to ridicule the central thesis, however unfairly and without actual logical implication for the rest. Dr. Sniegoski is making a very rational argument, and he doesn't need detractions from it.

Also, I disagree with Dr. Sniegoski's take that hypothesizing U.S. government involvement is a lunatic idea. If it's just a tactical consideration on grounds that such a hypothesis renders the whole subject more easily ridiculable and therefore more ignored than now (is that possible?), the variant he recommends attention to, the idea of Israeli sponsorship, is even more vulnerable to such treatment. Not that I find it ridiculous, not at all. However, as Dr. Sniegoski surely knows, the knee- jerk response to any such suggestion would be scathing. Of all the revisionist strains, the one casting suspicion on Israel is the one that is most rapidly and reflexively rejected by officialdom.

That's simply to counter any tactical concern about broaching the subject.

As to facts supportive of the hypothesis, there is the Northwood project, wherein the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved and proposed to President Kennedy a campaign of false-flag terrorism on U.S. soil, aimed at American citizens and the U.S. military, which could be blamed on Castro, riling up the American people and bolstering support for a U.S. invasion of Cuba. Their plan included crashing commercial airliners or large military drones (flown by remote control), which might be substituted for actual commercial craft by radar merging. Would our military endorse such a thing? They did, by unanimous agreement of the Joint Chiefs.

Then there is the statement from a certain Springman, long a State Department official in Saudi Arabia, explaining that he was repeatedly ordered to issue visas to unqualified parties to enter the United States. When he complained, he found it wasn't ordinary criminal visa fraud but a CIA operation, under which foreign nationals, mainly Saudis and other Arabs, were brought to this country for flight training. The Florida flight schools that the supposed 9-11 terrorists attended appear to have been intelligence cutouts, and four of the alleged terrorists augmented their private training with training at U.S. Air Force bases, where they lived long enough to list the base as their mailing address and to reflect the same address on their driver's licenses.

It isn't too hard a stretch to think that elements of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, perhaps together with mercenary elements, may have penetrated and controlled extremist organizations, working with partner/protégé foreign intel agencies such as Mossad and the Pakistani ISI — all collaborating, all doing their part.

And the overlaying matrix, blending with the oil and Israeli interests into an unholy brew, is one factor Dr. Sniegoski neglected to discuss: the control of world drug traffic. The global dominance of Afghani poppy production, and the opium and heroin it creates, brings many interests together. The American side has been involved for decades, as far back as World War II. The ISI is a creature of the CIA, dating from its battle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and it was the head of the ISI who had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta. When that was revealed by Indian intelligence, the FBI checked it out, the evidence was solid, and the United States forced his resignation.

Phillip A. Schuman
April 25, 2002


Dr. Sniegoski replies

I thank Mr. Schuman for his comments. I am always glad when someone reads my work. I guess I present a rather moderate "conspiracy" version, proposing the likelihood of foreknowledge rather than a staged event. The former would be far easier. Moreover, there would seem to be the most evidence for an Israeli connection to 9-11. In fact, it is hard to explain the actions of the Israeli spies without making some connection to 9-11. Yes, Israel is a taboo topic. But that such a taboo exists would tend to make Israeli involvement even more likely, as I point out in my most recent piece.

Regarding the FEMA official's statement, I pointed out that it had been cited by "conspiracy" thinkers but was of "uncertain validity." I don't think I presented that as any hard evidence for prior knowledge. However, I think the misstatement is sufficiently interesting to deserve an explanation — i.e., just when did FEMA arrive on the scene?

I might add that all of the material I included might have a "non-conspiratorial" explanation. But it certainly is very suggestive and does deserve greater investigation.



Regarding Dr. Sniegoski's article, The Roberts Commission, redux," I find no fault with his analysis of why the Bush adminstration would not welcome an independent commission investigating 9/11. Such a investigation would indeed be rife with risk, given that the Bush presidency hangs by a thread expertly woven by a Jewish press. Clearly, only his support of Israel is saving George W. Bush. Should the Jewish press turn against him, his public persona could come undone in a matter of weeks, given his obvious stupidity.

In retrospect, it wasn't Reagan's ability to connect with the common man that enabled him to defeat his Democrat enemies. It was his relentless support of emigration for Russian Jewry and his willingness to sell arms to Israel and do Israel's bidding in the UN that enabled him to escape a daily dose of negative press.

I recall vividly Time magazine's touting Reagan for president during the 1980 campaign. The magazine claimed to desire an American Renewal and painted Reagan as the engine of such a renewal. In fact, it was Jimmy Carter's evenhandedness with respect to the Palestinians that irritated Time, so much so that it was willing to abandon the Democrat Party.

It was in 1980 that many Zionists discovered neoconservatism and began to infiltrate the Republican Party.

Today, conservatism is synonomous with support for Israel. How did that happen?

Ah, when you control the press, you control everything, including the ability to wrest control of the press from you.

I fear that, from now on, we will always have the Jews with us and America for Americans is a thing of the past. Too bad.

George Josiban
Hamilton, New Jersey
July 9, 2002

Editor's note: I apologize to Mr. Josiban and to Dr. Sniegoski for the untoward delay in posting this letter. — NS, August 20, 2002


To the series.