Second Life and 9/11 Truth

A few months ago i was doing the daily news crawl when i noticed a fascinating article announcing that Reuters was opening a news bureau in a 'virtual world' called Second Life (SL), and in doing so would become the 1st international news organization to establish a virtual presence there.

Being a videogame addict and all-around tech enthusiast, i decided to check it out. And after 60 days in-world, all i can say is H0LY CR@P. There's no simple way to describe SL, but it's a virtual wonderland, completely shaped & driven by the imaginations of its residents.

First there’s your ‘avatar’, the digital representation of your virtual self. You’re given pretty much granular control over every aspect of your appearance, from skintone to forehead slope to shoesize to eyelash length. Clothing is straightforward, and since a recent update there are several pre-fab avatars from which to choose, n00b uniforms. But then you notice (or don't) that there are 'templates' available on the internets - not only for clothes, but for skin as well. So anyone who knows Photoshop can essentially build themselves any item of clothing, any 'tattoo', anything you can paint onto a 3d mannequin.

"That sounds great," i hear you asking, "but WTF does any of this have to do with 9/11?"

Well that's where it gets interesting, because not only do you get total control over your avatar, but there's an in-world 3d modeler which is rudimentary (if you're used to Maya or Lightwave) but incredibly powerful (full physics w/ gravity, particles, collision detection, etc.), and is 100% free to use. Not only modeling, but scripting on top of that (using a proprietary language similar to C++), so the objects you build can be animated, and more importantly can interact with anyone who clicks on them, or for that matter anyone who gets close enough to trigger a proximity event.

You can build ANYTHING, from a spork to a skyscraper, add textures, bump-mapping, light sources, etc. and then save it to your personal inventory.

So i started messing around with it, and so far i've built a crude replica of the WTC complex, and a slightly less-crude model of the Pentagon. The idea is this: it's one thing to talk about the impractability of the official version of events, e.g. the pancake collapse theory, and another to show frame-by-frame evidence of individual windows blowing out, in what seems a synchronized, deliberate sequence of events.

It's still another to create an interactive, 3D replica of the Twin Towers, or WTC7, or the Pentagon, or a Boeing 757. Especially when that model can then be imbued with scripts to animate it in time & space, or 'hot-spots' which, when clicked, can pop-up a notecard full of facts about a particular item or event.

Interactive 3d visualization could help to make the obvious plain. It’s such a simple thing to show, in accurate scale, the before & after of the various scenes, complete with the unanswered questions regarding each - and the level of complexity which can be achieved is mind-blowing, the ‘camera controls’ feature allows users to pan 360 degrees around an object, or to zoom in on the tiniest detail.

Anyhoo, that’s my plan at the moment. Rather than bore (or confuse) you with further details, let me invite you to see for yourself. Second Life accounts are free, all you need do is choose a name (whatever you want for the first name, and then one of a hundred pre-determined surnames) and download the client. Once you’re in-world, feel free to contact me (do a ‘people search’ for Skeptosis Link and then send me an instant message), and feel free to join the group i’ve created, ‘9/11 TRUTH’.*

The registered user-base of Second Life has literally doubled every 60 days for the past six months. Nearly $1,000,000(USD) of real-world commerce takes place in-world every single day. If SL is truly the shape of things to come on the web, then a foothold has already been established for 9/11 Truth. Throughout the coming year, i hope to acquire enough virtual real estate to setup fully detailed and info-packed replicas of UA175, AA11, AA77, and UA93, the World Trade Center complex, the Pentagon, even an abandoned strip mine near Shanksville, PA.

I invite you all to join me.

* UPDATE - 06/15/07
as of this date my group '9/11 TRUTH' has been disbanded. i made the mistake of leaving enrollment open to the public. this attracted a crowd of unknown entities, 'people' whose motives were indiscernable and whose participation was non-existent. if any of you folks out in the Real World are still interested (and don't worry, it's painfully obvious that you aren't) there is a new group. IM me for details.

surprise...

another Open Letter

this time, straight to NIST. comments and co-signers welcome.

mailto: wtc@nist.gov, michael.newman@nist.gov

hello -

i've been following your investigation with great interest over the years, and first i want to thank you for sticking with it, and for the NCSTAR documents that have been released thus far.

i have been struggling with one issue in particular, and i realize that i've contacted everyone but NIST, so here goes:

NIST NCSTAR1-3 states that "no steel was recovered from WTC7", and that properties for the steel in that building will be based on "literature and contemporaneous documents".

the recent update to your FAQs (#14) now says that: "While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

taking those two sections of quotes together, it seems that you still have not examined any of the A36 steel from WTC7.



in late 2001, Professors Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (wpi.edu) had and examined samples of steel from WTC7, performing an Initial Microstructural Analysis which served as the basis for FEMA Report 403, Appendix C (Limited Metallurgical Examination).

these examinations revealed a high degree of erosion in the steel, an inexplicably high level of sulfidation, and someone from WPI remarked that the steel had been reduced to 'swiss cheese'...

-

that was nearly five years ago, and i find it remarkable that, while FEMA definitely had steel from WTC7, and the steel was then definitely transferred to WPI for metallurgical examinations, NIST was not notified of the steel's existence, NIST is not aware of FEMA and/or WPI's possession of the steel, and since the Spring of 2002 noone from NIST has tried to obtain the A36 steel samples from these entities.

i have attempted to contact WPI numerous times to inquire as to what has become of the steel since 2001, but have not received any replies to my queries.

if you could please contact FEMA and/or Professor Jonathan Barnett @ WPI (jbarnett@wpi.edu), perhaps you could discover who has custody of the steel, obtain it, and examine it for your report.

there is no need to rely on "literature and contemporaneous documents", because the steel from WTC7 exists. this will save you the trouble of relying on 'hypothetical blast scenarios', and instead allow you to focus on physical evidence.

the "literature", for instance, will not exhibit the post-eutectic 'swiss cheese' erosion that is already well documented.

thank you for your time, and i will look forward to your reply.

sincerely,

skeptosis[at]hotmail[dot]com

an Open Letter in search of signatories

this seems to work well enough for brent bozell, so i thought i'd re-purpose the 'protest by form letter' meme.

as you may or may not know, Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services (and implosionworld.com) recently released a PDF devoted to 'de-bunking' some of the demolition-related 9/11 conspiracy theories.

i studied the paper, and compared it to the FEMA and NIST reports, and found some inconsistencies which prompted me to contact the International Society of Explosives Engineers (in which Protec enjoys membership) - because, from what i've read, it looks as though Protec is violating a few parts of the Society's Code of Ethics.

i just got a reply from ISEE.org, saying that they won't review my comments unless i give them my name, address, and phone number... it's not an outlandish request, of course, but at the same time i fail to see how my contact information could affect the contents of FEMA 403, NIST NCSTAR 1, Blanchard's paper, or ISEE's code of ethics.

-

in case any of you are brave enough to cast off anonymity and personally identify yourselves, i have included the contents of my original email below, which you are free (and encouraged) to send.

thanks for your time, and good luck.

skeptosis


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

mailto: isee@isee.org

subject: re: Protec Documentation Services



Sirs -

I am writing with a comment about an organization which claims membership in your organization, Protec Documentation Services of Rancocas, NJ.

Protec recently released a paper, 'WTC COLLAPSE STUDY', on its sister-site 'implosionworld.com'.

Having read the paper, and having compared the statements therein with the US Government's official positions on the issues addressed, I have reason to believe that Protec has failed to comply with at least two of the ISEE Fundamental Principles and Fundamental Canons listed on your website's Code of Ethics page.

ISEE Fundamental Principle #1:
ISEE Members uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of humankind.

I am not an expert in explosives, structural, or fire protection engineering, but I am definitely a member of 'humankind'.

After comparing Protec's statements regarding the WTC collapses with the statements of experts contracted by FEMA and NIST, I feel that rather than 'enhancing' anything, Protec has instead misrepresented and obfuscated the facts.

--Example 1--
a refutation of the assertion "they [the WTC Towers] fell straight down into their own footprint"

"PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance."

This statement is at odds with NIST NCSTAR1, page 196:
"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. ...the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass"

-

ISEE Fundamental Canon #3:
ISEE Members shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

Clearly, Protec's release of this paper constitutes the issuance of a public statement, and a portion of the paper seems at best misleading, if not outright untruthful.

--Example 2--
a refutation of the assertion "A steel-framed building has never collapsed due to fire..."

"PROTEC COMMENT: ...The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire."

This statement is at odds with FEMA Report 403, Chapter 5, page 1:
"Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings."

-

--Example 3--
an excerpt from a page on the implosionworld website:

"DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY 'IMPLODE'?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities."

This statement is disingenuous, as it purposefully does not address the collapse of WTC7, which is described in FEMA 403, Chapter 5 as an 'implosion' on three separate occasions.

Page 30: "...this would explain why the building imploded..."
Page 31: "...the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion."
Page 31: "Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded..."

-

I trust that the above examples are sufficient to demonstrate that Protec Documentation Services is in a state of non-compliance with the above-referenced ethical standards of ISEE, and that being the case I urge you to reconsider Protec's membership in your organization.

My sole motivation in this regard is to ensure that the public record of September 11, 2001 remains untainted by mis-characterization of the events that occurred on that day, especially by self-proclaimed experts in the field of explosive demolition.

Thank you for your time, and I will look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

[name]
[address]
[phone#]

an Open Letter to Professor Jonathan Barnett

Months ago, I was involved in a brief correspondence with Jonathan Barnett, a professor of Fire Protection Engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Dr. Barnett (along with others from WPI) performed the 'Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7', the results of which became FEMA 403 Appendix C (pdf).

The correspondence began after I discovered a mis-attributed quote in one of Dr. Frank Greening's papers at 911myths.com, 'Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster' (pdf), which seemed to suggest that FEMA Report 403 had blamed 'acid rain' for the extreme sulfidation and erosion of structural steel at WTC7.

Once it had been determined that the quote actually came from an interview in the Spring 2002 edition of 'Transformations', WPI's alumni newsletter, the 911myths paper was updated and I subsequently received the following email from Professor Barnett:

The major issue Mr. Skeptical is that you ASSUME the worst.

Dr. Greening is a thoughtful scientist. Instead of celebrating his work you zeroed in on a minor point.
The world would be a far better place if we assumed people meant well and that what you see is what you get.
Even your penname, is a reflection of strife and lack of trust in people who have done nothing to earn this view of them. I feel sorry for you and others like you who go through life like this.
One of the reasons I spend a lot of time in Australia is that by far the vast majority of Australians assume you are fair dinkum unless you prove otherwise. You might try starting over and work from that viewpoint.
You'll find it refreshing, your health will improve, and the world will be a better place.

Until then, you will have my prayers as I pray that you find peace in your soul.

Jonathan

---------------------------------------------

I wrote the following reply to Professor Barnett, including what seemed to me a series of simple, straightforward questions regarding WPI's analysis. That was three months ago, and Prof. Barnett has still not replied, leaving these questions unanswered. After re-sending the email last week, I decided to also post it here so that anyone else who's interested can follow up with WPI, NIST, and/or FEMA...


Professor Barnett -

I appreciate your sentiments, and I share your wish for the world to be a better place than it is.

True, the world might actually be better off if we all assumed that people meant well. Especially if there were some grounds upon which to base such an assumption. But in the absence of any proof that people mean well, assuming that they do just lulls you into a false sense of security. And assuming that ‘what you see is what you get’, when there’s little or no reason to do so, will accomplish the same thing – to foster an unwarranted sense of well-being and complacency.

Frankly, if the last five years have shown us anything, it's that far too often what you get is what you DON'T see.

For instance, in the 'WYSIWYG' world that you describe:

- It would not have taken the angry, tearful insistence of 9/11 victims' families to convince the President to launch an investigation into the events of September 11th.

- President bush's initial choice to head the 9/11 investigation would not have been Henry Kissinger, the man who once said "It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but what is perceived to be true..."

- Sibel Edmonds would not still be under a gag order imposed by former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, preventing her from disclosing to the public what she discovered while working as a translator for the FBI.

- In the minutes following the 1st WTC impact, FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley's request for a warrant to question Zacharias Moussaoui, or to examine his laptop, would not have been denied on the morning of 9/11, during which time she claims to have been told "we were to do nothing in Minneapolis until we got their (HQ's) permission because we might "screw up" something else going on elsewhere in the country..."

- We would not still be waiting, five years later, for VP Cheney to disclose the participants in, and details from, his infamous "Energy Task Force" meetings.

and, most recently,

- DHS would not have just cut my city's anti-terror funding by 40%, with no explanation and no transparency into the decision-making process.

-

I know that in your capacity as a Professor of Fire Protection Engineering @ WPI, the above examples are outside your bailiwick. I also realize that they fall outside of the scope of Dr. Greening's papers.

I only mention them to illustrate the present culture of obfuscation and suppression of information, particularly re: 9/11, that has descended over the country since the bush Administration took office. The same culture that has given rise to the skepticism I share with a host of others, among them 'thoughtful scientists', retired military officers, former government officials, etc.

In fact, my 'penname', skeptosis, is nothing more than a combination of Greek elements meant to signify 'the process of thinking'.* Just to be clear, it's the 'strife' that has led to the 'thinking', not the other way around.

-

The 'lack of trust' which you observe in my statements was initially prompted by Dr. Greening's mis-attribution of the 'acid rain' quote. This would've been innocuous enough had that quote not served as one of the main points of introduction in his paper, "Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster", a paper which seems to shout "ANYTHING BUT THERMITE!".

My initial reaction to the mis-attribution appeared in a heated exchange on a weblog, in which I claimed incorrectly that the quote was 'fabricated' and 'falsified', and that Dr. Greening 'lied'. I have since revised my statements, both on the blog in question and within this correspondence.

However, my skepticism was compounded by the fact that Dr. Greening has chosen to publish his papers exclusively on a website devoted to debunking 9/11 'myths' (911myths.com), rather than publishing them in ANY scientific journal, whether in America or Canada. Were these papers to undergo a rigorous peer review, and then find their way into such a publication, I (and many others) would certainly be 'celebrating his work'. Unfortunately, the fact that these papers appear NOWHERE ELSE on the internet besides 911myths.com has led me to question the merits of his papers' assertions and conclusions.

-

Lastly, while I appreciate your concerns for my health, and your offers of prayer, my skepticism would be considerably diminished if you could instead answer the following questions, which should hopefully demonstrate that the only 'agenda' i'm pursuing is the truth:


(1) What became of the sample of A36 steel from WTC7, which was used in your (WPI's) initial microstructural analysis?

(1a) Was it transferred to a Federal Agency?

(1b) If so, to which Agency, and when?

(1c) If not, why was it not released to NIST, which states in NCSTAR 1-3 that “no steel was recovered from WTC7”?

(2) Doesn't NIST's reliance on "literature and contemporaneous documents", rather than actual samples of the eroded steel from WTC7, severely hamper the Institute's ability to investigate the true cause of the collapse of WTC7, and call into question the validity of the Institute's (as yet unreleased) findings?

(3) If, in fact, acid rain or ocean salt are to blame for the sulfidation of the steel beams of WTC7, at what point would these beams have been exposed to these elements in such quantities to have compromised the structural integrity of the entire building?

(Professor Biederman's quote in the Spring 2002 Transformations article, "a lot of water on a burning building will cause sulfuric acid...", seems to imply that there was a significant amount of water on or around WTC7 on 9/11. I live in Manhattan, and was here on 9/11, and can assure you that there was no precipitation on that day, acid or otherwise. Additionally, according to FEMA Report 403, Chapter 5, "due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY" at WTC7. So i am curious as to the proposed source of the 'lot of water' in this case.)

(4) If, in fact, ASTM Grade A36 steel is so astonishingly susceptible to sulfidation in the presence of ocean salt, why on earth is A36 Steel the (API RP2A) standard construction material for steel plates and structures in offshore oil platforms, which are totally and constantly exposed to ocean salt, and, to a lesser extent, sulfur compound (SO2) emissions?

(4a) Has steel from the many offshore platforms which have burned over the years ever exhibited the post-eutectic 'Swiss cheese appearance' observed in the WTC7 sample?

(5) Is WPI's 2002-03 Stoddard Fellow Erin Sullivan still examining the WTC7 sample as part of her graduate studies, as was suggested by the Spring 2002 Transformations article?

(5a) If so, when will the results of this additional analysis be published?


Thank you again for your time. Regardless of the outcome of this correspondence, I appreciate your taking the time to reply to my emails, and I am eagerly looking forward to the day when I can write under my own name rather than a pseudonym.

sincerely,

skeptosis[at]hotmail[dot]com



* technically, if 'the process of thinking' was what i was going for, i would've chosen the name 'cogitosis'. 'skep' as a root is more accurately look/consider/examine. which is even more appropriate than i'd originally hoped.

Press Release

Hello world.

this may not be much of a 1st post, but here goes - it's the press release sent out in conjunction with the upload/release of the video:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: skeptosis[at]hotmail[dot]com
Website: http://www.myspace.com/skeptosis



‘Conspiracy Theory’, a 9/11 Music Video

New York, NY July 5, 2006 — A music video entitled ‘Conspiracy Theory’ has been placed on MySpace.com and YouTube.com, offering a concise, multi-layered, and thoroughly researched summary of the events of 9/11, and the countless discrepancies between the ‘official story’ (put forth by the bush Administration et al.) and eyewitness accounts and testimony. The roughly 6-minute video was produced anonymously by an individual known only as ‘skeptosis’ (a pseudonym composed of Greek elements to represent ‘the process of thinking’). The video was uploaded on July 4th, 2006, the 230th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, in the hopes of returning the United States to the goal envisioned by the Founding Fathers: a land free from “a long train of abuses and usurpations” by an increasingly despotic government.

The song itself was entirely written and performed by ‘skeptosis’, with the obvious exception of audio excerpts from various media broadcasts, the 9/11 Commission testimony of Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, and President bush’s address to the World Congress Center in Atlanta, GA on November 8, 2001. The video was compiled from various sources including contemporaneous films, media broadcasts, still photos, and flash animation.


In Memoriam

The song and video are dedicated to those who lost their lives in the disaster of 9/11, to the first responders who were poisoned by the air at Ground Zero in the aftermath of the attacks, and to those who continue to lose their lives & limbs in the two wars (Operation Enduring Freedom & Operation Iraqi Freedom) which were spawned by the events of 9/11.

The song and video are dedicated in particular to the memory of Pat Tillman, who believed the ‘official story’ so strongly that he enlisted in the US Army shortly after 9/11, only to be murdered in Afghanistan in a dubious case of ‘friendly fire’, and to have his heroism dishonored by the US Government, which lied about the circumstances of his death even as he was being ‘awarded’ with posthumous medals and promotions.

For additional information, contact: skeptosis[at]hotmail[dot]com

Video Title: Conspiracy Theory
Video Length: 5:41
Video Format(s): Streaming WMV (myspace), Streaming MPG (youtube)
Video Location(s):
MySpace - http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=898501331&n=2
YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WohURF13efU

Song Title: Conspiracy Theory
Song Length: 5:13
Song Format: Streaming WMA, Downloadable MP3
Song Location: http://www.myspace.com/skeptosis

‘skeptosis’ (skeptosis[at]hotmail[dot]com) is the pseudonym of a New York City resident who has chosen to remain anonymous. any and all contacts or inquiries should be directed exclusively to the email address above.

# # #

Conspiracy Theory