Post documents growth of intelligence since 9/11
By The Associated Press July 19th, 2010 RawStory.com Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, top-secret intelligence gathering by the government has grown so unwieldy and expensive that no one really knows what it cost and how many people are involved, The Washington Post reported Monday. A two-year investigation by the newspaper uncovered what it termed a "Top Secret America" that’s mostly hidden from public view and largely lacking in oversight. In its first installment of a series of reports, the Post said there are now more than 1,200 government organizations and more than 1,900 private companies working on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in some 10,000 locations across the U.S. Some 854,000 people — or nearly 1 1/2 times the number of people who live in Washington — have top-secret security clearance, the paper said.
Post documents growth of intelligence since 9/11
Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11
Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11
A New Study of the Seismic Signals on September 11, 2001 in New York
Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:44 EDT
Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11, according to geophysicist André Rousseau (*)
Doctor André Rousseau, former researcher in geophysics at CNRS and specialist in sound waves, presents us with the results of his analysis of the seismic signals recorded on September 11, 2001 in New York and gives his point of view as a specialist on the question of the destruction of the three towers at the World Trade Center.
[Translated from the original French by SOTT.net]
Seismic signals were recorded on September 11 2001 during the period when the North and South Towers (respectively WTC1 and WTC2) were penetrated and collapsed, as well as during the collapse of Building 7 of the WTC (also known as WTC7), a building which had not been hit by a plane.
Among the seismic data published on this subject, it is the Palisades recording station, located 34 km north-east of Manhattan, which gives us the data most apt for analysis, particularly for determining their source. These wave graphs are taken from the publications of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), as shown in figure 1 and figure 2.
Seismologists are puzzled in their analysis of signals recorded at this time, as the contradictions are significant. They are particularly intrigued by the presence of seismic "peaks" before the collapses (see figure 4). This text focuses on the study of seismic signals and aims to demonstrate that consistency only appears once we leave the official version of events. It gives rise to a new interpretation that renders the assertions of the "official version" null and void.
Study of the Composition of the Different Wave Graphs
The graphs that we have are the following:
- The signals in figures 1a & 1b match the moment when the planes hit WTC1 and WTC2 respectively.
- The signals in figures 2a and 2b match the collapsing of WTC1 and WTC2 respectively.
- The signal in figure 2e shows the collapse of WTC7.
Determination/indetermination of the Temporal Shocks from the Point of Origin of the Signals.
In the five examples, the origin of the signals was attributed, by the seismologists who published the data, to the impacts of the planes and the collapses of the buildings (Kim et al., 2001; Irvine, 2001; Hoffman, 2006). A study of the propagation of such seismic signals really belongs to applied geophysics, which examines the distance of propagation in relation to the nature of the sources. Normally in this type of study, the time of origin is known with great precision (down to the millisecond), necessary in order to calculate the propagation speed of the different waves. That isn’t the case here. In this case, the video used for the North Tower (WTC1) was from a recording made by CNN with a time stamp on the screen (Hoffman, 2006), and the results were compared with the method utilized by Lamont (Kim et al., 2001). A second method consisted of giving an approximate speed of 2km/s for a Rayleigh wave that traversed several stations (see figure 3) situated at various distances from the point of origin. The major inconvenience of this method is that the stations are not situated on a rectilinear line, that the surface terrain – in which the surface waves move – are different, and, moreover, they don’t have the same speed of propagation. The Hudson River is located on a fault line that separates to the west the sedimentary terrains of the Trias and Jurassic, with intrusions of dolerite, all of which are covered by recent Holocene sediment; and to the east, the crystalline and metamorphic formations of the Proterozoic, the Cambrian, and the Ordovician eras that are found there. These last formations are more rapid than those found to the west, which explains why the path WTC-MANY, the only site to the east of the Hudson, was more rapid than all the other paths, situated to the west. The speed of these formations closely depend upon the sedimentary cover traversed. In other words, it isn’t surprising to find that only the stations at Palisades (34 km), at Arny (67.5 km) and TBR (51 km) provide similar results because they are situated on similar geological formations. Also, the enormous indetermination of 2 seconds in the calculations fixing the time origin of each of the signals, attributed by the authors themselves (Kim et al.), oblige us to take some distance from the official conclusions.
Wave Graphs Attributed to the Planes Crashing Into the Towers
In the first place, we must pose a question about the meaning of such signals’ function with the cause attributed to them. Although the cause of the two signals is similar, the crashing of a plane, the magnitude (reflected by the amplitudes) of the two signals is different and the wave generated by the two do not have the same apparent speed (see figures 1a and 1b), even if the Twin Towers could be considered identical in terms of the spatial origin relative to their distance from the recording sites. The calculation of the propagation speeds, as shown in the graphs of figures 1a and 1b, where the origin was fixed according to the corresponding crash, indicates 2900 m/s for WTC1 and 2150 m/s for WTC2: we are obviously dealing with Rayleigh waves. Even if they were considerably amplified, these signals could not have been generated by the crashes into the Twin Towers – the actual waves generated by the crashes were deadened before hitting the ground (assuming that we were dealing with the same (low) frequencies). Frequencies of waves generated by explosions are on the order of Hertz – which is the case here – while those of crash impacts are above 10 Hertz, often around 100 Hertz. Furthermore, the range of the recording instruments cited does not allow for the recording of such waves. As to the theory of the oscillation of the Towers to explain these signals, as defended by Irvine (2001), it doesn’t hold water because in such a case we would have had a "square" signal of long duration and a constant amplitude, while in actuality we observe a "bell" signal, representing a strong and brief explosion, which is particularly evident in the case of WTC2.
To the degree that it is geophysically impossible to have two different propagation speeds for the same wave at the same frequency – because the surface waves are dispersive, which means that their speed depends upon their frequencies – travelling the same path at a few minutes interval, one must bow to the evidence that the supposed origins of the recorded waves are incorrect, and that they are not linked to the crashes but to another origin, such as an explosion, with a non-identical time displacement for the two towers in relation to the impacts of the two planes. As well, the difference in the magnitude of the two signals can only be linked to different parameters relative to the volume of explosives and/or their distance from the surface.
Wave Graphs Attributed to the Collapse of the Towers (fig. 2a, 2b and 2c)
While the Twin Towers have approximately the same mass, the same height and size, and the same type of internal structure (as well as identical points of origin of the wave in terms of distance to the recording station) the signals attributed to WTC1 (fig 2a) and to WTC2 (fig 2b), instead of being similar as one would suppose from the official thesis which attributes the source of the seismic waves simply to the collapsing of the Towers, they are in fact very different from the point of view of their "form", their composition and especially their apparent speed.
In fact, the recording for WTC1 demonstrates the three types of wave characteristic of a brief explosive source ("Dirac" type) confined in a compact, solid material: a P wave with a speed of 6000 m/s, the typical value for a very consolidated crystalline or sedimentary terrain (which is the case in the bedrock of Manhattan), an S wave with a speed of 3500 m/s and a surface wave with a speed of of 1800 m/s (Rayleigh wave). These values match with those registered by an earthquake or seismic drilling.
On the other hand, the recording linked to the WTC2 shows none of the type P or S waves observed for WTC1, but only the surface wave, for which the spreading of the amplitudes over the duration is different from that of WTC1. Relative to the determined origin of the signal, the propagation speed of 2125 m/s (Rayleigh wave) is also markedly different from that of WTC1. This wave seems to be followed by a second Rayleigh wave four seconds later.
We find the same thing in the figure for WTC7 where the calculation of the speed of the wave according to the determined point of origin is similar to a Rayleigh wave with a 2200 m/s speed. Note that the amplitudes are comparable to those of the waves emitted at the time of the crashing into the Towers by the airplanes. This wave seems to be followed by a second Rayleigh wave 6.7 seconds later.
Discussion
The problem of the above-named "displacements" between the time of origin of the seismic waves and the times that the planes crashed into the Towers, particularly that for WTC1, is certainly the key question which is emblematic of all the contradictions of the official version of September 11, 2001. In their publication on the Web (Kim et al., 2001), the LDEO published two different timetables of sources, which are indicated in the table below. The first timetable (LDEO [1]) is that furnished without the published graphs, then the LDEO modified them (LDEO [2]) to obtain coherent seismic speeds. What is the indisputable data here? There are two: the time that the waves reached the Palisades station, which is relatively easy to determine, and the distance from the WTC to Palisades (34 km). If the recorded wave is actually a Rayleigh wave, its speed is around 2000 m/s. Therefore, this wave was created 17 seconds before its arrival at Palisades. Where the problem deepens for the adepts of the official version is that the time for the source of the Rayleigh wave attributed to the crash into WTC1, which officially arrived at Palisades at 8.46.42±1, must in fact be 8.46.25±1! Compare that time with the times given in the first column of the table below.
The data given by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) comes from radars at ground level and are reliable to one second. If we consider the time of the impact of the plane into WTC1 furnished by the NTSB, 8.46.40 (Ritter, 2002), the only reliable data because it doesn’t come from any hypothesis, there is a hiatus of 15 seconds between the plausible time of the origin of the Rayleigh wave and the time – afterwards – of the crash of the plane into WTC1. What else but an explosion could be the origin for this seismic wave in the absence of an earthquake?
Concerning the generation of the seismic waves following the crash into the Towers by a Boeing, the transformation of the kinetic energy into seismic waves would only make sense if we were dealing with a crash between two full, solid, and in-deformable objects. In this case, the kinetic energy of a moving body would in part be transformed into heat and the rest would be transmitted to the pierced object in the form of vibrations, that is, seismic waves. However that is not the case here because we have two hollow and deformable objects. During the crash, the whole of the energy is transformed into heat and the deformation of the envelopes (exterior walls). In the case where a little mechanical energy would remain, the waves created in the pierced envelope would be quickly dispersed because of the absence of continuity in this alveolar envelope. The necessary condition for the creation of seismic waves by such a crash would be the direct impact of the central columns by a full body. Even if a Boeing engine had succeeded in hitting a central column, it would have been with an energy lessened by the envelope. In conclusion, even if a seismic wave could be created in a metallic column, it would hit the ground in the form of a sound, and as the passage from metal to rock is a refraction that absorbs energy, there wouldn’t be much left to propagate in the ground.
Could the collapse of the towers be the source of these seismic waves? In the case of a crash on the ground that generates seismic waves, the enormous mass of the Twin Towers could hypothetically be taken into account if the Towers had fallen in a compact block, like a meteorite. But in the present case, it was scattered remains that fell, largely transformed into dust, and the fall lasted several seconds. We are far from a Dirac-type force that can create seismic waves; in this case, the magnitudes simply don’t add up.
Given that neither the crash into the tower nor its vibration, nor the fall of debris can be the source of the seismic waves registered 34 kilometres away, and that the low frequencies could not have been provoked other than by explosions, we must research why the wave graphs are different. Various things must be considered. We must distinguish between subterranean explosions, subaerial explosions (close to the ground without touching it) and aerial explosions.
Subterranean explosions are similar to earthquakes in that mechanical energy is transmitted to the earth in the form of volume waves (P and S) – either directly in the latter case, or by conversion of the waves due to a cavity in the former case – and surface waves (Rayleigh and Love), when the signal reaches a solid-fluid interface (in the case of the atmosphere, for example) (Case 1). Aerial explosions give off all of their energy in the air (P waves, or sound waves), and what remains upon hitting the ground – if it hits it – is thus too weak to create volume waves (although there can be surface waves over a small distance) (Case 2). Subaerian explosions give off an energy that splits into sound waves, mainly in the air, and surface waves on the ground. The volume waves dispersed in the air don’t end up lessened on the ground, but surface waves are certainly present (Case 3).
In brief, a subterranean explosion would not be heard in the air, but the ground would shake and initiate a series of waves (volume and surface waves), while if we hear an explosion, it is because it is either "aerial" and doesn’t give a seismic signal, or it is subaerial and surface waves could be generated.
Therefore we can affirm that explosions qualified as "subaerial" were set off close to the base of the Towers simultaneously with the crashes into each by the planes. The sound coming from these explosions would have been mixed with the sounds generated by the impacts of the planes (Case 3). The Towers were thus weakened by the breaking of the load-bearing columns. The explosion at the base of WTC1 was heard by eyewitness Walter Rodriquez (2006) (see also Spingola (2005)).
As to the collapse of the Towers, we must distinguish between WTC1 and those of WTC2 and WTC7. Based upon the tips of waves coming from these last two towers, they underwent a very large "subaerial" explosion (Case 3), heard by witnesses. For example, regarding WTC2, a fireman witnessed an explosion before the building collapsed into an enormous cloud of dust (See [1]), apparently not too far from the base of the tower accompanied by flashes of light and noise, according to an "Assistant Commissioner" (see [2]). Another fireman, present at the base of WTC2, stated there was a large explosion about 20 floors below the impact zone of the plane just before the summit of the Tower collapsed (see [3]). These explosions were too high to generate volume waves in the ground, and the Rayleigh wave recorded probably comes only from the explosion closer to the ground. Among the other explosions heard at the base of WTC2 (Anonymous, 209), one of them generated the second Rayleigh wave four seconds after the first. The same thing happened at WTC7. A witness watching this tower heard something like a "thunderclap" that caused the windows to explode outwards, while the base of the burning building gave way a second later, before the whole building followed the movement (see [4]), aided by a second explosion that generated the second Rayleigh wave 6.7 seconds later.
As for WTC1, the collapse of which began after that of WTC2 in spite of the fact that it had been hit earlier, it was a subterranean explosion (Case 1) that preceded its collapse. This explosion was thus logically not heard by the witnesses outside at 10:28 EDT, except for those located next to the tower (see [5]), but it was "felt" by a camera filming the tower that was solidly on the ground and was shaken by the vibration of the ground at the moment of the explosion (see [6]). On the other and, it is also logical that the many explosions shown in videos in the upper floors before and during the collapse didn’t provoke any seismic waves (Case 2) because of the fragmentation in time of the detonated energy with the multiplication of successive sources, each of which had only a limited force, insufficient to generate seismic waves in the ground.
Even if controlled demolitions do not create seismic waves (aerial explosions), it is useful to compare these observations with seismic data obtained during the controlled demolition of the Kingdome in Seattle (see Anonymous, 2009) and at Oklahoma City (US) (Holzer et al., 1996). The case of the Kingdome is particularly interesting because seismologists expressly asked that the explosions be measured (they wanted to take advantage of the occasion), and those in Oklahoma City were part of a reconstruction using explosives of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building. These two examples fit into Case 3 cited above, with a powerful subaerian explosion and the emitting of Rayleigh waves, and where the falling of the debris had no seismic consequences, even at distances under 34 km (less than 7 km and 26 km respectively). Only the seismic equipment situated close to the source during the reconstruction of the bombing in Oklahoma City reacted to the seismic energy created by the collapse of the building.
The local magnitudes (ML) that the seismologists calculated from the surface waves gave results that consolidate our analysis. Effectively, on the Richter scale, they were higher than 2 for the waves emitted at the moment of the collapse. It is impossible to get such a magnitude only from the falling of the debris, more especially over a duration of ten seconds!! Even if the entire tower had been compacted into a tight ball, it would have necessitated the speed of a meteorite, in any case, more than that caused by the Earth’s gravity, to even approach such a magnitude!! Moreover, we must note that the magnitude attributed to the subterranean explosion at the WTC1 is ML=2.3 – comparable to the earthquake that hit New York January 17, 2001 (ML=2.4) – while the magnitude coming from the WTC2 explosion is ML=2.1, thus weaker, and this disparity – consistent with the explosions described – is particularly appreciable in this logarithmic scale. Given the Twin Towers were of similar height and mass, the falling debris should have generated similar magnitudes, if they were the source of the waves…
Note that applied geophysics knows how to generate seismic waves in the ground, using non-explosive sources such as "weight dropping" – which consists of letting a three ton weight fall to earth – or else using "vibrators" attached to the ground. But the energy of the waves developed in the ground are too weak for the waves to go further than several hundred meters.
The Relation between the Seismic Waves/Process of Collapse
Observation of the collapse of each tower shows they were each different, and this correlates with the corresponding measures of the seismic waves.
The collapse of WTC7 is the one that comes closest to a classic controlled demolition, with the successive collapsing of the floors starting from the base which had been weakened by a subaerial explosion. As for the Twin Towers, they were first weakened by explosions at their base at the moment the airplanes crashed into them. After that we must distinguish between the parts of the building above the impact zone of the planes and those located below. If the seismic waves couldn’t have been generated by the small explosions visible in the floors (which allowed for the gradual collapse from the bottom up to the impact zone) then only a powerful explosion at the base of both buildings could have accelerated the process of total ruin and produce the observed seismic waves.
In the case of WTC1, FEMA (Federal Emergency management Agency) implicitly confirms this scenario. They note that "Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building." (FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, chapter 2). As this transmission tower was a lattice of I Beams posed diagonally, called a "hat stress", it connected the walls of the edge to the central structure between the 107th stage and the roof and therefore reinforced the centre structure. It also supported the tower installed on the top of the building. Contrary to the official version which declared that it was the hat stress that transferred the instability of the central columns to those of the perimeter, which then gave out after they were deformed because of the pulling of the floors, the logic of the events forces us to consider that the "rupture" of the central columns came from an explosive "cutting" prior to the collapse of the building.
Conclusion
At the moment of the impact by the planes on the Twin Towers and their collapse, as well as that of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are only created by brief impulses, and (2) that low frequencies are associated with an energy (magnitude) that is comparable to a seismic event, these waves undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes’ impact and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude was insufficient to be recorded 34 km away, and they should have been similar.
However, the composition and magnitude of the seismic signals show significant differences, above all in their propagation speed, even though their paths were identical under identical conditions. This last difference being physically unexplainable in the official version, we must put into question the calculation of the speeds effectuated from the origin shown on the video images. We can only conclude that in reality, the (explosive) source was manually detonated, thus accounting for the variable shift for each origin in relation to the videos.
The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S volume waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves, which are present in all five explosions. The placement of the source of the four other explosions is subaerial, attested by the unique presence of Rayleigh waves. The aerial explosions visible on the videos of the upper floors of the Twin Towers do not produce seismic waves 34 km from the source.
There is a factor of ten between the power of the explosions at the time of the impacts on the twin Towers (as well as at the time of the collapse of WTC7) and the strength of those more powerful ones at the time of their collapse, the subterranean explosion under WTC1 being the one that transmitted the most energy to the ground.
Note as well that the degree to which the surface waves disperse (their speed depends upon their frequency), the duration of the recorded signal is not representative of the duration of the signal at the source.
Finally, the controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio testimony, as well as by observations of their collapse, is thus demonstrated by the analysis of the seismic waves emitted at the moments of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapse.
References:
- Anonyme (2000) : Kingdome implosion seismograms
- Anonyme (2009) : 9/11 Firefighters : Bombs and Explosions in the WTC
- Hamburger R., Baker W., Barnett J., Marrion C., Milke J., and "Bud" Nelson H. (2009) : World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, FEMA, Chapter 2
- Hoffman J. (2006) : Seismic Records of the Twin Towers’ Destruction: Clarifying the Relationship Between Seismic Evidence and Controlled Demolition Theories
- Holzer T. L.,. Fletcher J. B, Fuis G. S., Ryberg T., Brocher T. M., and Dietel C. M. (1996), Seismograms offer insight into Oklahoma City bombing, Eos Trans. AGU, 77(41), pp393, 396-397
- Irvine T. (2001) : The World Trade Center Disaster: A Shock and Vibration Perspective
- Kim Won-Young, Sykes L.R., Armitage J.H., Xie J.K., Jacob K.H., Richards P.G., West M., Waldhauser F., Armbruster J., Seeber L., Du W.X., and Lerner-Lam A (2001) : Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City, Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 82, No. 47, pages 565, 570-571, November 20, 2001
- Ritter J. (2002) : Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 11, NTSB, February 19, 2002
- Rodriguez W. (2006) : 9/11 Hero "last man out", Wednesday, November 7th, American Scholars Symposium, Seattle Center.
- Spingola D. (2005) : William Rodriguez, a 9-11 Survivor
Figures
(Please note that for reasons of readability, these figures are shown without modification of their scales, which have a relation of one to ten between the recording at the moment of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 and those at the moment of the impacts, as well as for the recording of the collapse of WTC7.)
(*) André Rousseau, Docteur d’État, is a retired researcher at CNRS where he studied the relations between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology. He published numerous peer-reviewed articles on geophysics and participated in numerous conferences, including selection committees. In this article he puts forward evidence that the seismic waves recorded on September 11, 2001 in New York are the result of subterranean and subaerial explosions that were part of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7.
Curriculum Vitae
André Rousseau
- Faculté des Sciences de Paris:
– Second cycle en Sciences de la Terre, Géophysique interne et externe,
– DEA de Tectonophysique-Océanographie,
– DEA de Géophysique Appliquée - Université de Rennes 2 : thèse de 3ème cycle
- Université de Bordeaux 1 : thèse d’Etat (voir ci-après). Ancien Chercheur titulaire au CNRS
List of Publications
Theses
[1] ROUSSEAU A. (1971) Géologie du Plateau continental nord-espagnol entre 2°20′ et 3°35′. Considérations théoriques sur l’interprétation d’enregistrements de sismique-réflexion (sparker). Thése 3ème cycle, Université de Rennes, 146 p.
[2] ROUSSEAU A. (1980) Apport de la gravimétrie à la connaissance de la lithosphère du Bassin d’Aquitaine. Thèse d’Etat, Université de Bordeaux I, 98 p., 27 fig. H.T.
Publications
Participation a ouvrage collectif avec comite de lecture
[3] ROUSSEAU A. and JEANTET D. (1997) Some improvements in the processing of borehole acoustic signals for the characterization of geological structures. in "Modern Geophysics in Engineering Geology", editor : D. M. McCann, Geological Society Engineering Publication No. 12, p.75-88, London.
Reviews with Peer-review Committees
[4] DUPEUBLE P.A. et ROUSSEAU A. (1971) Stratigraphie des terrains affleurant sur le plateau continental nord-espagnol entre Santander et Guernica. C.R.A.S.,série D, 272, p.1952-1955
[5] BOILLOT G. et ROUSSEAU A. (1971) Etude structurale du plateau continental nord-espagnol entre 2°20′ et 2°30′ de longitude Ouest. C.R.A.S.,série D, 272, p.2056-2059
[6] ROUSSEAU A. (1976) Carte des anomalies de Bouguer dans la zone sud-orientale du Golfe de Gascogne (densité : 2,3). Bull. B.R.G.M. (2), II, 3, p.285-294
[7] MALZAC J. and ROUSSEAU A. (1978) A "processing density" to calculate marine bouguer gravity free of topographic variations in case of unknown bottom density. Geophysical Prospecting, 26, p.853-867
[8] MALZAC J. and ROUSSEAU A. (1982) Gravimétrie des Pyrénées ariègeoises : quelques conséquences structurales. Bull. Soc. géol. France, (7), t. XXIV, n° 4, p.739-753
[9] LAQUECHE H., ROUSSEAU A. and VALENTIN G. (1986) Crack propagation in mode I and mode II in Slate Shist. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomech. Abst. Vol.23, No.5, p.347-354
[10] ROUSSEAU A. (1992) A new geodynamical model for the seismicity and in-situ stresses of the mediterranean region. Tectonophysics,202, p.183-201
[11] ROUSSEAU A. (1993) How to point out easily the data enclosed in the "full waveforms" (sonic logs). Examples from the Balazuc 1 deep borehole. Publications du BRGM (Documents n°223). VI Symposium international sur l’observation de la croute continentale par forage, p.319-333
[12] ROUSSEAU A. and JEANTET D. (1994) Contribution of the 3-D visualization of acoustic borehole signals (full waveforms) to a quick formation evaluation. Journal of Applied Geophysics,31, p.213-260
Conferences Invitées
[13] ROUSSEAU A. (1987) (communication invitée)
Application of the G.K.S. software to the study of signals : two examples in well-logging data processing. Colloque International de Bordeaux sur le Graphique et l’Image, 5-7 mai 1987, Université de Bordeaux I
[14] ROUSSEAU A. (1987) (communication invitée) Présentation de produit normé GKS : analyse interactive de spectres. Réseau REUNIR : réunion nationale sur la norme CGI, Lille, 6-8 oct. 1987
[15] ROUSSEAU A. (1989) (sur invitation) A new geodynamical model for the seismicity and in-situ stresses of the mediterranean region. International Symposium : Geodesy and Seismology : deformation and prognosis, Erevan (URSS), Oct. 1989
[16] ROUSSEAU A. (1995) (sur invitation) Contribution des diagraphies soniques à la caractérisation des formations géologiques traversées en forage (fracturation, compétence et porosité) et estimation de la qualité de la cimentation. Réunion Technique S.A.I.D., I.F.P. (Rueil-Malmaison), 7 février 1995, intervenant unique
[17] ROUSSEAU A. et MARI J.L. (1995) (sur invitation) Acquisition de données en forage : conséquences sur la modélisation. Journée thématique du Pôle Modélisation du Centre de Ressources Informatiques de Bordeaux I : Sols et sous-sols (6 Avril 1995)
[18] JEANTET D., MARI J.L. and ROUSSEAU A. (1996) (sur invitation) Use of borehole acoustic and seismic waves in environment geophysics. The Internal Congress on Environment/Climate (UNESCO), Rome, March 4-8,1996, p.89
[19] ROUSSEAU A. (1997) (sur invitation) Borehole acoustic signals and formation petrophysics : contribution and limits. EAGO / EAGE / SEG International Geoscience Conference & Exhibition, 15-18 September 1997, Moscow (Russia), abstract C2.5.
[20] ROUSSEAU A. (1998) (sur invitation) Borehole acoustic signals and formation petrophysics : contribution and limits. International Conference & Exhibition on Well Logging, SPWLA / EAGO / RGUNG, 8-11 September 1998, Moscow (Russia), Technical Abstracts F2.1.
[21] JEANTET D. and ROUSSEAU A. (1998) (sur invitation) A new method for calculating acoustic body wave velocities. First results. International Conference & Exhibition on Well Logging, SPWLA / EAGO / RGUNG, 8-11 September 1998, Moscow (Russia), Technical Abstracts B1.7
[22] ROUSSEAU A. (1998) (sur invitation) Diagraphies acoustiques et pétrophysique : présentation historique. Réunion Technique commune S.A.I.D.-Association Française des Techniciens du Pétrole, section Exploration-Gisement, 1 décembre 1998, I.F.P. (Reuil-Malmaison) : Apport des diagraphies acoustiques aux études pétrophysiques. Application aux réservoirs fracturés, anisotropie et modélisation. Lettre de la SAID n°129 (mars-avril 1999), Paris, p.3-4.
[23] ROUSSEAU A. et JEANTET D. (1998) (sur invitation) Vitesses ultrarapides des ondes de pression en domaine d’anisotropie de contraintes horizontales (formations compétentes). Réunion Technique commune S.A.I.D.-Association Française des Techniciens du Pétrole, section Exploration-Gisement, 1 décembre 1998, I.F.P. (Reuil-Malmaison) : Apport des diagraphies acoustiques aux études pétrophysiques. Application aux réservoirs fracturés, anisotropie et modélisation. Lettre de la SAID n°129 (mars-avril 1999), Paris, p.55-67.
[24] ROUSSEAU A et BARAUD R. (2003) (sur invitation) Caractérisation des décharges abandonnées par une méthode géophysique : le radar géologique. Présentation des Projets de Partenariat Recherche/Industrie (Conseil Régional et DRIRE d’Aquitaine), Pau, 17 juin 2003. Actes, Pôle Environnement Aquitain, p.26-30.
Congres et Colloques Avec Comite de Selection
[25] ROUSSEAU A. (1982) Structural deductions concerning the lithosphere of the Aquitaine Basin from the gravimetry of the vertical intrusions. Proc. of the 17th general assembly of the European Seismological Commission, Budapest, 1980. Rev. of the Hungarien Academy of Sciences, p.549-555
[26] ROUSSEAU A. (1989) Représentation 3-D de signaux acoustiques. Assemblée Générale du Club GKSBx, Montpellier, mai 1989
[27] ROUSSEAU A. (1990) Caractérisation géométrique de failles rencontrées en forage dans un granite, à l’aide d’une visualisation en 3-D des signaux acoustiques ("full waveforms"). Colloque : Diagraphies et Mécanique des terrains, Bordeaux, nov. 1990, p.67-88
[28] ROUSSEAU A. (1991) Apport d’une visualization 3-D des signaux acoustiques pour l’étude des terrains traversés par forage. Soc. Géol. Fr.-Soc. Int. Stéréologie : Journée du 8 février 1991, Paris. Objets géologiques : description quantitative et modélisation, p.77-80
[29] ROUSSEAU A. (1992) Contribution of the 3-D visualization of acoustic logs ("full waveforms") to the geological interpretation. VI Intern. Symp. Continental Scientific Drilling Programs, Paris, April 1992, P.227
[30] ROUSSEAU A. (1992) Using of 3-D sonic images ("full waveforms") in order to distinguish the main zones and characterize them ; the example of the deep borehole Balazuc 1 (Ardèche, France). VI Intern. Symp. Continental Scientific Drilling Programs, Paris, April 1992, P.229
[31] ROUSSEAU A. and JEANTET D. (1993) Contribution of the 3-D visualization of acoustic borehole signals (full waveforms) to a quick formation evaluation. Intern. Symp. on Applications of Geophysics to Environmental Problems, Lausanne, April 1994, p.56-57
[32] ROUSSEAU A. and JEANTET D. (1994) Caractérisation des fractures par visualisation 3-D des diagraphies acoustiques. Réunion Technique S.A.I.D., Schlumberger (Montrouge), 5 avril 1994 : Diagraphies et formations fracturées.
[33] ROUSSEAU A. and JEANTET D. (1994) Some improvements in the processing of borehole acoustic signals. 30th Annual Conference of the Engineering Group of the Geological Society (Liège, sept. 1994) : Modern Geophysics in Engineering geology, p.243-260
[34] JEANTET D. and ROUSSEAU A. (1995) Body wave dispersion in formations crossed by boreholes : consequences on velocity calculation. Proceedings of 1rst Meeting Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, European Section, 25-27th Sept., Torino (Italy), p.222-225
[35] ROUSSEAU A. (1996) Characterisation of formation heterogeneities by new parameters of borehole acoustic waves. Proceedings of 2nd Meeting Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 2-5th Sept., Nantes (France), p.31-34
[36] ROUSSEAU A. (1997) Two causes of the deformation of borehole acoustic full waveforms : resonance and distortion. EAGE 59th Conference and Technical Exhibition, 26-30 May 1997, Geneva (Switzerland), extended abstract P177
[37] JEANTET D. and ROUSSEAU A. (1998) A new method for calculating acoustic body wave velocities : First results. Proceedings of IVth Meeting of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, 14- 17 September 1998, Barcelona (Spain), p.613-616.
[38] JEANTET D. and ROUSSEAU A. (1999) 3D visualisation of borehole acoustic signals using animation techniques. GEOVISION 99, International Symposium on Imaging Applications in Geology, University of Liège (Belgium), p.133-136.
[39] ROUSSEAU A., BARAUD R., and JEANTET D. (1999) 3D imaging processing of borehole acoustic signals applied to GPR signals. GEOVISION 99, International Symposium on Imaging Applications in Geology, University of Liège (Belgium), p.205-208.
[40] ROUSSEAU A., BARAUD R., and JEANTET D. (1999) Contribution of the 3D display of GPR signals in a noisy environment. Proceedings of Vth Meeting of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, 6-9 September 1999, Budapest (Hungary), Gr5, 2p.
[41] ROUSSEAU A., and JEANTET D. (1999) Signaux acoustiques en champ total (full waveforms) et pétrophysique. Journées Scientifiques de l’ANDRA 1999, Nancy, 7-9 déc. 99. Résumé des Conférences et des Communications par Affiches, p.67-69
[42] ROUSSEAU A. (2000) Consequences on body wave velocities of the stress distribution modifications around a borehole. EAGE 62nd Conference and Technical Exhibition, Glasgow, Scotland, 29 May-2 June, Abstract D-43.
[43] ROUSSEAU A. (2001) Relationship between acoustic body waves and in situ stresses around a borehole. EAGE 63rd Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,11-15 June 2001, Extended Abstract M-029.
[44] ROUSSEAU A. (2003). Horizontal stress anisotropy determined from acoustic full waveforms in borehole. EGS-AGU-Joint Assembly, Nice, 6-11 April 2003, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol.5, 03564, 2003, European Geophysical Society 2003
Autres Reunions et Publications Scientifiques
[45] ROUSSEAU A. (1977) Anomalies de Bouguer dans le S-E du Golfe de Gascogne : quelques déductions structurales en fonction du champ gravifique du Bassin aquitain et des Pays basco-cantabriques. 5ème Réunion Annuelle des Sciences de la Terre, Rennes (19-22 avril 1977)
[46] ROUSSEAU A. (1978) Anomalies gravimétriques circulaires : méthode permettant l’unicité de solution avec abaques par la détermination successive des paramètres du cylindre vertical : rayon, profondeur de la base et du sommet, densité. 6ème Réunion Annuelle des Sciences de la Terre, Orsay (25-27 avril 1978)
[47] MALZAC J. and ROUSSEAU A. (1978) Method of computing a "processing density" variable in the horizontal space, for setting up Bouguer gravity free from broken topography. 5th European Geophysical Society meeting, Strasbourg (29 august-5 sept.1978)
[48] ROUSSEAU A. (1979) Calculs des profondeurs et des densités des intrusions verticales du Bassin Aquitain et de ses environs. Déductions tectoniques et structurales sur la lithosphère de cette région. 7ème Réunion Annuelle des Sciences de la Terre, Lyon (23-25 avril 1979)
[49] MALZAC J. et ROUSSEAU A. (1979) Méthode de calcul d’une "densité de traitement" variable dans l’espace horizontal, pour l’établissement d’anomalies de Bouguer affranchies d’une topographie accidentée. 7ème Réunion Annuelle des Sciences de la Terre, Lyon (23-25 avril 1979)
[50] ROUSSEAU A. (1979) Circular gravimetrical anomalies : method permitting to know separately the geometry and the density of a vertical cylinder (unique solution). EOS, American Geophysical Union, vol.60, 32, p.565 (6th European Geophysical Society meeting, Vienne, 11-14 sept.1979)
[51] ROUSSEAU A. (1980) Structural deductions about the lithosphere of the Aquitain Basin from the gravity of vertical intrusions. 7th European Geophysical Society meeting, Budapest (21-29 august 1980)
[52] MALZAC J. et ROUSSEAU A. (1981) Gravity of the Central Pyrenees (France) : an example of its usefulness for resolving some tectonic problems. 8th European Geophysical Society meeting, Uppsala (24-29 august 1981)
[53] LAQUECHE H., ROUSSEAU A. and VALENTIN G. (1984) Crack propagation in mode I and mode II in Slate Shist. 10th European Geophysical Society meeting, Louvain-la-Neuve (30 july-3 august 1984)
[54] AMOKRANE K. et ROUSSEAU A. (1986) Reconnaissance et surveillance par diagraphies soniques et mécaniques. GRECO Rhéologie des Géomatériaux : rapport scientifique 1986
[55] ROUSSEAU A. (1987) A conjectural explanation of some seismic observations in the mediterranean region ; a new hypothesis and its quantitative analysis after comparing the seismicity, the geoid and the Earth’s surface present motions of the mediterranean region. A possible key for seismic prediction in this region. Ed. IUT A de Bordeaux, 49p., 30 fig. H.T.
[56] AMOKRANE K., ROUSSEAU A., AZZOUZ R., FAUGERAS J.C. et BACONNET C. (1987) Structure spatiale de la variabilité des propriétés des sols : fonctions d’autocorrélation et analyses variographiques. GRECO Rhéologie des Géomatériaux : rapport scientifique 1987
[57] MORLIER P., ROUSSEAU A., AMOKRANE K. et DUCHAMPS J.M. (1988) Analyse statistique des diagraphies de forage. GRECO Rhéologie des Géomatériaux : rapport scientifique 1988
[58] ROUSSEAU A., and JEANTET D. (1999) Signaux acoustiques en champ total (full waveforms) et pétrophysique. Poster présenté au 9ème Congrès International de Métrologie à Bordeaux, 18-21 oct.1999
[59] ROUSSEAU A., and JEANTET D. (1999) Peut-on construire des capteurs de pression azimutaux fonctionnant en milieu fluide pour l’acquisition de trains d’onde complets en forage ? Poster présenté au 9ème Congrès International de Métrologie à Bordeaux, 18-21 oct.1999
(Online)
[60] ROUSSEAU A (2005) A New Global Theory of the Earth’s Dynamics : a Single Cause Can Explain All the Geophysical and Geological Phenomena.
[61] ROUSSEAU A (2005) Relationship between acoustic body waves and in situ stresses around a borehole.
[62] ROUSSEAU A (2005) Is the San Andreas Fracture a bayonet-shaped fracture as inferred from the acoustic body waves in the SAFOD Pilot hole?
[63] ROUSSEAU A (2005) Comparative study of P and S wave amplitudes of acoustic logging through solid formations : contribution to the knowledge of in situ stresses and fractures
[64] ROUSSEAU A (2006) Model of horizontal stress in the Aigion10 well (Corinth) calculated from acoustic body waves
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review by Glenn Greenwald
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review by Glenn Greenwald
www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/21/bagram/index.html
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review
(updated below – Update II)
Few issues highlight Barack Obama’s extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world — far away from any battlefield — and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called "Bush’s legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees havewon 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.
<!–break–>
Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram — including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned. Amazingly, the Bush DOJ — in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention — contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (underBoumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee’s Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged. One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, asThe New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team."
But last April, John Bates, the Bush-43-appointed, right-wing judge overseeing the case, rejected the Bush/Obama position and held thatBoumediene applies to detainees picked up outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram. I reviewed that ruling here, in which Judge Bates explained that the Bagram detainees are "virtually identical to the detainees inBoumediene," and that the Constitutional issue was exactly the same: namely,"the concern that the President could move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely."
But the Obama administration was undeterred by this loss. They quickly appealed Judge Bates’ ruling. As the NYT put it about that appeal: "The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort tomaintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight." Today, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Bush/Obama position, holding that even detainees abducted outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram have no right to contest the legitimacy of their detention in a U.S. federal court, because Boumediene does not apply to prisons located within war zones (such as Afghanistan).
So congratulations to the United States and Barack Obama for winning the power to abduct people anywhere in the world and then imprison them for as long as they want with no judicial review of any kind. When the Boumedienedecision was issued in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." ButObama hailed it as "a rejection of the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," and he praised the Court for "rejectinga false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus." Even worse, when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:
As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . . .
By giving suspects a chance – even one chance – to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .
Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody’s right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.
Can you smell the hypocrisy? How could anyone miss its pungent, suffocating odor? Apparently, what Obama called "a legal black hole at Guantanamo" is a heinous injustice, but "a legal black hole at Bagram" is the Embodiment of Hope. And evidently, Obama would only feel "terror" if his child were abducted and taken to Guantanamo and imprisoned "without even getting one chance to ask why and prove their innocence." But if the very same child were instead taken to Bagram and treated exactly the same way, that would be called Justice — or, to use his jargon, Pragmatism. And what kind of person hails a Supreme Court decision as "protecting our core values" — as Obama said ofBoumediene – only to then turn around and make a complete mockery of that ruling by insisting that the Cherished, Sacred Rights it recognized are purely a function of where the President orders a detainee-carrying military plane to land?
Independently, what happened to Obama’s eloquent insistence that "restricting somebody’s right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer; in fact, recent evidence shows it is probablymaking us less safe"? How does our policy of invading Afghanistan and then putting people at Bagram with no charges of any kind dispose people in that country, and the broader Muslim world, to the United States? If a country invaded the U.S. and set up prisons where Americans from around the world where detained indefinitely and denied all rights to have their detention reviewed, how would it dispose you to the country which was doing that?
One other point: this decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which serves to further highlight how important the Kagan-for-Stevens replacement could be. If the Court were to accept the appeal, Kagan would be required to recuse herself (since it was her Solicitor General’s office that argued the administration’s position here), which means that a 4-4 ruling would be likely, thus leaving this appellate decision undisturbed. More broadly, though, if Kagan were as sympathetic to Obama’s executive power claims as her colleagues in the Obama administration are, then her confirmation could easily convert decisions on these types of questions from a 5-4 victory (which is what Boumediene was, with Stevens in the majority) into a 5-4 defeat. Maybe we should try to find out what her views are before putting her on that Court for the next 40 years?
This is what Barack Obama has done to the habeas clause of the Constitution: if you are in Thailand (as one of the petitioners in this case was) and the U.S. abducts you and flies you to Guantanamo, then you have the right to have a federal court determine if there is sufficient evidence to hold you. If, however, President Obama orders that you be taken to from Thailand to Bagram rather than to Guantanamo, then you will have no rights of any kind, and he can order you detained there indefinitely without any right to a habeas review. That type of change is so very inspiring — almost an exact replica of his vow to close Guantanamo . . . all in order to move its core attributes (including indefinite detention) a few thousand miles North to Thompson, Illinois.
Real estate agents have long emphasized "location, location, location" as the all-determining market factor. Before we elected this Constitutional Scholar as Commander-in-Chief, who knew that this platitude also shaped our entire Constitution?
UPDATE: Law Professor Steve Vladeck has more on the ruling, including "the perverse incentive that today’s decision supports," as predicted by Justice Scalia in his Boumediene dissent: namely, that a President attempting to deny Constitutional rights to detainees can simply transfer them to a "war zone" instead of to Guantanamo and then claim that courts cannot interfere in the detention. Barack Obama quickly adopted that tactic for rendering the rights in Boumediene moot — the same rights which, less than two years ago, he was praising the Supreme Court for safeguarding and lambasting the Bush administration for denying. Vladeck also explains why the appellate court’s caveat — that overt government manipulation to evade habeas rights (i.e., shipping them to a war zone with the specific intent of avoiding Boumediene) might alter the calculus — is rather meaningless.
UPDATE II: Guest-hosting for Rachel Maddow last night, Chris Hayes talked with Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights about the Bagram ruling and Obama’s hypocrisy on these issues, and it was quite good, including a video clip of the 2006 Obama speech I excerpted above:
9/11 Truth conference sparks review at UQAM
9/11 Truth conference sparks review at UQAM
9/11 Truth conference sparks review at UQAM
By: Laura Jakobschuk Post Date: Thu, 27/05/2010 – 4:05pm
Montreal’s largest university is reviewing its room rental policies after a controversial conference. Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin, two prominent speakers for the 9/11 Truth movement, hosted a conference at the Université du Quebec à Montreal (UQAM) May 3.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911 Truth) organized the conference to “reach out to the university crowd,” said Jean-Francois Ranger, the event organizer.
The AE911 Truth website promotes initiating an “open and independent investigation” into the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001.
They claim past investigations into the 9/11 attacks have ignored “sufficient evidence” that the skyscrapers collapsed “not by jet impact and fires, but by controlled demolition with explosives,” according to their website.
“We believe there is a huge need for an investigation into what happened. We have more questions than we have answers,” said Jean-Francois Ranger, the event organizer for AE911 Truth.
Ranger said UQAM was "a random choice" for the conference location. “We approached a few universities," he said. UQAM "had a big hall that we needed."
Julien Tourreille, a UQAM research fellow in strategic and diplomatic studies, said he did not oppose the conference but regretted its association with the university. “I just think it was unfortunate for the university to have had its name associated with this event,” Tourreille said.
“The university did not invite nor organize this conference, but the organizers used the name of the university, which was very clearly mentioned on their flyers, to bring some kind of legitimacy to their event,” Tourreille said.
Some also expressed concerns about the right to freedom of expression over the fallout from the conference. Francine Jacques, head of media relations at UQAM, told a Montreal daily after the conference that the school’s rules about who could present there would be revised.
"The university’s room rental policy is ‘being revised to be more clearly in agreement with the university’s mission,’ " La Presse reported.
"There are some things that we certainly don’t want, and there are others for which the situation is fuzzier, as is the case here," Jacques said.
“Free speech is a major principle and right,” said Toureille, who said he is opposed to the theories presented by the AE911 organization.
“But free speech is not a synonym of lies and denial of ethics. With freedom comes responsibilities; with free speech comes the responsibility to honestly admit that your positions can be wrong or untrue and thus stop promoting those positions or arguments.”
Despite the controversy following the conference, Ranger said the conference itself faced little opposition. “It was a major success,” he said.
“We don’t face as much controversy as we used to. The event was sold out with 730 people attending. A lot of people really wanted to hear what Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin had to say about this topic,” Ranger said.
The AE911 Truth group handed out flyers in Montreal to spread information about the conference. “People were stopping to grab flyers and ask questions. The interest for this information in the streets of Montreal has never been higher,” Ranger said.
Truth Action Ottawa – May 11, 2010 Truth Action and Richard Gage Speaking Event Summary
Truth Action Ottawa – May 11, 2010 Truth Action and Richard Gage Speaking Event Summary
It’s been busy for us the last few weeks! Richard Gage’s visit to Ottawa was a huge success. Here are Richard’s thoughts of the event as we drove him to the airport, along with a slidshow of some of the pictures that we took while he was in town:
We were able to get him an interview on CKCU FM the morning before his talk at Carleton University, which someone was kind enough to make a YouTube video for:
Many thanks to everyone that made this event a huge success. 9/11 eyewitness David Long went way beyond the call of duty to put up hundreds of posters, to the point of getting blisters from the staple gun!
Then came our enormously successful truth action this past Tuesday, May 11th. We had a great location, great weather and a great turnout. Here is TAO member Leon’s first video report (I was finally able to step out from behind the camera):
Here is TAO founder Mark’s report with some photographs:
Welcome to Ottawa and welcome to our Truth Action. We have 300 DVDs to give away at Bank and Somerset, a very busy intersection in downtown Ottawa.
New faces! Always good to see. Welcome aboard!
These actions wouldn’t be the same without John and Margaret 
They really bring a lot to the events and it’s always good to see them.
Leon’s back and he volunteered to do our video this month. I can’t wait to see what he does with the footage!
I bought this shirt at the Richard Gage event. I always buy the shirts!
We had people on all four corners which was great to see. Thanks to everyone that showed up.
Christopher Holmes from ZeroPoint Radio. He brought me a paper from Toronto with a whole page dedicated to Richard Gage/David Ray Griffon. I’ll be scanning that and sending it to AE911Truth so they can add it to their archives.
Shawn was here before I was! I remember when no one used to show up. This is great!
Amer bought the shirt too, I see
May 11, 2010. From all of us in Ottawa Canada, always keep up the fight.
Laura Bush recalls 9/11 panic at White House
Laura Bush recalls 9/11 panic at White House
Laura Bush recalls 9/11 panic at White House
Former first lady details problems with communication system
TODAY books
updated 9:15 a.m. ET, Wed., May 5, 2010
In her memoir, “Spoken from the Heart,” former first lady Laura Bush shares a detailed account of being in the White House during the terrorist attacks. An excerpt.
Goodness in the land of the living
Tuesday morning, September 11, was sunny and warm, the sky a brilliant cerulean blue. The day before, I had hosted a lunch for Janette Howard, wife of the Australian prime minister, while George met with her husband, John. My friends who had come for the National Book Festival had all flown home, and even George was gone, in Florida for a school visit. George H. W. Bush and Bar had spent the night, but they had already left at 7:00 a.m. to catch an early flight. And I had what I considered a big day planned. I was set to arrive at the Capitol at 9:15 to brief the Senate Education Committee, chaired by Edward M. Kennedy, on the findings of the early childhood development conference that I’d held in July. In the afternoon, we were hosting the entire Congress and their families for the annual Congressional Picnic. The South Lawn of the White House was already covered with picnic tables awaiting their fluttering cloths, and Tom Perini from Buffalo Gap, Texas, was setting up his chuckwagons. Our entertainment would be old-fashioned square dancing and Texas swing music by Ray Benson and his classic band, Asleep at the Wheel.
<!–break–>
I finished dressing in silence, going over my statement again in my mind. I was very nervous about appearing before a Senate committee and having news cameras trained on me. Had the TV been turned on, I might have heard the first fleeting report of a plane hitting the North Tower of the World Trade Center at the tip of Manhattan as I walked out the door to the elevator. Instead, it was the head of my Secret Service detail, Ron Sprinkle, who leaned over and whispered the news in my ear as I entered the car a few minutes after 9:00 a.m. for the ride to the Russell Senate Office Building, adjacent to the Capitol. Andi Ball, now my chief of staff at the White House; Domestic Policy Advisor Margaret Spellings; and I speculated about what could have happened: a small plane, a Cessna perhaps, running into one of those massive towers on this perfect September morning. We wondered too if Hillary Clinton might decide not to attend the committee briefing, since the World Trade Center was in New York. We were driving up Pennsylvania Avenue when word came that the South Tower had been hit. The car fell silent; we sat in mute disbelief. One plane might be a strange accident; two planes were clearly an attack. I thought about George and wondered if the Secret Service had already hustled him to the motorcade and begun the race to Air Force One to return home. Two minutes later, at 9:16 a.m., we pulled up at the entrance to the Russell Building. In the time it had taken to drive the less than two miles between the White House and the Capitol, the world as I knew it had irrevocably changed.
Senator Kennedy was waiting to greet me, according to plan. We both knew when we met that the towers had been hit and, without a word being spoken, knew that there would be no briefing that morning. Together, we walked the short distance to his office. He began by presenting me with a limited-edition print; it was a vase of bright daffodils, a copy of a painting he had created for his wife, Victoria, and given to her on their wedding day. The print was inscribed to me and dated September 11, 2001.
An old television was turned on in a corner of the room, and I glanced over to see the plumes of smoke billowing from the Twin Towers. Senator Kennedy kept his eyes averted from the screen. Instead he led me on a tour of his office, pointing out various pictures, furniture, pieces of memorabilia, even a framed note that his brother Jack had sent to their mother when he was a child, in which he wrote, “Teddy is getting fat.” The senator, who would outlive all his brothers by more than forty years, laughed at the note as he showed it to me, still finding it amusing.
All the while, I kept glancing over at the glowing television screen. My skin was starting to crawl, I wanted to leave, to find out what was going on, to process what I was seeing, but I felt trapped in an endless cycle of pleasantries. It did not occur to me to say, “Senator Kennedy, what about the towers?” I simply followed his lead, and he may have feared that if we actually began to contemplate what had happened in New York, I might dissolve into tears.
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the ranking Republican on the committee and one of our very good friends in the Senate—Judd had played Al Gore for George during mock debates at the ranch the previous fall—was also designated to escort me to the committee room, and he arrived just as I was completing the tour. Senator Kennedy invited us to sit on the couches, and he continued chatting about anything other than the horrific images unfolding on the tiny screen across the room. I looked around his shoulder but could see very little, and I was still trying to pay attention to him and the thread of his conversation. It seemed completely unreal, sitting in this elegant, sunlit office as an immense tragedy unfolded. We sat as human beings driven by smoke, flame, and searing heat jumped from the tops of the Twin Towers to end their lives and as firemen in full gear began the climb up the towers’ stairs.
I have often wondered if the small talk that morning was Ted Kennedy’s defense mechanism, if after so much tragedy—the combat death of his oldest brother in World War II, the assassinations of his brothers Jack and Robert, and the deaths of nephews, including John Jr., whose body he identified when it was pulled from the cold, dark waters off Martha’s Vineyard—if after all of those things, he simply could not look upon another grievous tragedy.
At about 9:45, after George had made a brief statement to the nation, which we watched, clustered around a small television that was perched on the receptionist’s desk, Ted Kennedy, Judd Gregg, and I walked out to tell reporters that my briefing had been postponed. I said, “You heard from the president this morning, and Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg and I both join his statement in saying that our hearts and our prayers go out to the victims of this act of terrorism, and that our support goes to the rescue workers. And all of our prayers are with everyone there right now.” As I turned to exit, Laurence McQuillan of USA Today asked a question. “Mrs. Bush, you know, children are kind of struck by all this. Is there a message you could tell to the nation’s—” I didn’t even wait for him to finish but began, “Well, parents need to reassure their children everywhere in our country that they’re safe.”
As we walked out of the briefing room, the cell phone of my advance man, John Meyers, rang. A friend told him that CNN was reporting that an airplane had crashed into the Pentagon. Within minutes, the order would be given to evacuate the White House and the Capitol.
I walked back to Senator Kennedy’s office and then began moving quickly toward the stairs, to reach my car to return to the White House. Suddenly, the lead Secret Service agent turned to me and my staff and said that we needed to head to the basement immediately. We took off at a run; Judd Gregg suggested his private office, which was in the lower level and was an interior room. The Secret Service then told John that they were waiting for an Emergency Response Team to reach the Capitol. The team would take me, but my staff would be left behind. Overhearing the conversation, I turned back and said, “No, everyone is coming.” We entered Judd’s office, where I tried to call Barbara and Jenna, and Judd tried to call his daughter, who was in New York. Then we sat and talked quietly about our families and our worries for them, and the overwhelming shock we both felt.
Sometime after 10:00 a.m., when the entire Capitol was being emptied, when White House staffers had fled barefoot and sobbing through the heavy iron gates with Secret Service agents shouting at them to “Run, run!” my agents collected me. They now included an additional Secret Service detail and an Emergency Response Team, dressed in black tactical clothing like a SWAT force and moving with guns drawn. As we raced through the dim hallways of the Russell Building, past panicked staffers emptying from their offices, the ERT team shouted “GET BACK” and covered my every move with their guns. We reached the underground entrance; the doors on the motorcade slammed shut, and we sped off. The Secret Service had decided to take me temporarily to their headquarters, located in a nondescript federal office building a few blocks from the White House. Following the Oklahoma City bombing, their offices had been reinforced to survive a large-scale blast. Outside our convoy windows, the city streets were clogged with people evacuating their workplaces and trying to reach their own homes.
By the time I had reached my motorcade, Flight 93 had crashed in a Pennsylvania field and the west side of the Pentagon had begun to collapse. Judd Gregg walked alone to the underground Senate parking garage and retrieved his car, the last one left there. He pulled out of the garage and headed home, across the Fourteenth Street Bridge and past the Pentagon, thick with smoke and flame.
In the intervening years, Judd and I, and many others, were left to contemplate what if Flight 93 had not been forced down by its passengers into an empty field; what if, shortly after 10:00 a.m., it had reached the Capitol Dome?
We arrived at the Secret Service building via an underground entrance and were escorted first to the director’s office and then belowground to a windowless conference room with blank walls and a mustard yellow table. A large display screen with a constant TV feed took up most of one wall. Walking through the hallways, I saw a sign emblazoned with the emergency number 9-1-1. Had the terrorists thought about our iconic number when they picked this date and planned an emergency so overwhelming? For a while, I sat in a small area off the conference room, silently watching the images on television. I watched the replay as the South Tower of the World Trade Center roared with sound and then collapsed into a silent gray plume, offering my personal prayer to God to receive the victims with open arms. The North Tower had given way, live in front of my eyes, sending some 1,500 souls and 110 stories of gypsum and concrete buckling to the ground.
So much happened during those terrible hours at the tip of Manhattan. That morning, as the people who worked in the towers descended, water from the sprinkler system was racing down the darkened stairwells. With their feet soaked, for some the greatest fear was that when they reached the bottom, the rushing water would be too high and they would be drowned. A few walked to safety under a canopy of skylights covered with the bodies of those who had jumped. Over two hundred people jumped to escape the heat, smoke, and flames. I was told that Father Mychal Judge, the chaplain for the New York City Fire Department, who had come to offer aid, comfort, and last rites, was killed that morning by the body of someone who had, in desperation, hurled himself from the upper floors of one of those towers.
Video: Bush memoir to revisit 9/11, 2000 election
The early expectation was for horrific numbers of deaths. Manhattan emergency rooms and hospitals as far away as Dallas were placed on Code Red, expecting to receive airlifted survivors. Some fifty thousand people worked inside the towers; on a beautiful day, as many as eighty thousand tourists would visit an observation deck on the South Tower’s 107th floor, where the vistas stretched for fifty miles. Had those hijacked planes struck the towers thirty or forty or fifty minutes later, the final toll might well have been in the tens of thousands.
Inside Secret Service headquarters, I asked my staff to call their families, and I called the girls, who had been whisked away by Secret Service agents to secure locations. In Austin, Jenna had been awakened by an agent pounding on her dorm door. In her room at Yale, Barbara had heard another student sobbing uncontrollably a few doors down. Then I called my mother, because I wanted her to know that I was safe and I wanted so much to hear the sound of her voice. And I tried to reach George, but my calls could not get through; John Meyers, my advance man, promised to keep trying. I did know from the Secret Service that George had taken off from Florida, safe on board Air Force One. I knew my daughters and my mother were safe. But beyond that, everything was chaos. I was told that Barbara Olson, wife of Solicitor General Ted Olson, had been aboard the plane that hit the Pentagon. At one point, we also received word that Camp David had been attacked and hit. I began thinking of all the people who would have been there, like Bob Williams, the chaplain. Another report had a plane crashing into our ranch in Crawford. It got so that we were living in five-minute increments, wondering if a new plane would emerge from the sky and hit a target. All of us in that basement conference room and many more in the Secret Service building were relying on rumors and on whatever news came from the announcers on television. When there were reports of more errant planes or other targets, it was almost impossible not to believe them.
George had tried to call me from Air Force One. It is stunning now to think that our “state-of-the-art” communications would not allow him to complete a phone call to Secret Service headquarters, or me to reach him on Air Force One. On my second call from the secure line, our third attempt, I was finally able to contact the plane, a little before twelve noon. I was grateful just to hear his voice, to know that he was all right, and to tell him the girls were fine. From the way he spoke, I could hear how starkly his presidency had been transformed.
We remained in that drab conference room for hours, eventually turning off the repetitive horror of the images on the television. Inside, I felt a grief, a loss, a mourning like I had never known.
A few blocks away, in the Chrysler offices near Pennsylvania Avenue, a group of White House senior staff began to gather. After the evacuation, some of those who were new to Washington had been wandering, dazed and shaken, in nearby Lafayette Park. By midafternoon, seventy staff members had congregated inside this office building, attempting to resume work, while Secret Service agents stood in the lobby and forbade anyone without a White House pass from entering. Key presidential and national security staff and Vice President Cheney were still sealed away in the small underground emergency center deep below the White House.
As the skies and streets grew silent, there was a debate over what to do with George and what to do with me. The Secret Service detail told me to be prepared to leave Washington for several days at least. My assistant, Sarah Moss, was sent into the White House to gather some of my clothes. John Meyers accompanied her to retrieve Spot, Barney, and Kitty.
Then we got word that the president was returning to Washington. I would be staying as well. Late in the afternoon, I spoke to George again. At 6:30 we got in a Secret Service caravan to drive to the White House. I gazed out the window; the city had taken on the cast of an abandoned movie set: the sun was shining, but the streets were deserted. We could not see a person on the sidewalk or any vehicles driving on the street. There was no sound at all except for the roll of our wheels over the ground.
We drove at full throttle through the gate, and the agents hopped out. Heavily armed men in black swarmed over the grounds. Before I got out, one of my agents, Dave Saunders, who had been driving, turned around and said, “Mrs. Bush, I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry.” He said it with the greatest of concern and a hint of emotion in his voice. He knew what this day meant for us.
I was hustled inside and downstairs through a pair of big steel doors that closed behind me with a loud hiss, forming an airtight seal. I was now in one of the unfinished subterranean hallways underneath the White House, heading for the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, built for President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. We walked along old tile floors with pipes hanging from the ceiling and all kinds of mechanical equipment. The PEOC is designed to be a command center during emergencies, with televisions, phones, and communications facilities.
I was ushered into the conference room adjacent to the PEOC’s nerve center. It’s a small room with a large table. National Security Advisor Condi Rice, Counselor to the President Karen Hughes, Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, and Dick and Lynne Cheney were already there, where they had been since the morning. Lynne, whose agents had brought her to the White House just after the first attack, came over and hugged me. Then she said quietly into my ear, “The plane that hit the Pentagon circled the White House first.”
I felt a shiver vibrate down my spine. Unlike the major monuments and even the leading government buildings in Washington, the White House sits low to the ground. It is a three-story building, tucked away in a downward slope toward the Potomac. When the White House was first built, visitors complained about the putrid scent rising from the river and the swampy grounds nearby. From the air, the White House is hard to see and hard to reach. A plane could circle it and find no plausible approach. And that is what Lynne Cheney told me had happened that morning, a little past 9:30, before Flight 77 crossed the river and thundered into the Pentagon.
At 7:10 that night, George strode into the PEOC. Early that afternoon, he had conducted a secure videoconference from Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska with the CIA and FBI directors, as well as the military Joint Chiefs of Staff and the vice president and his national security staff, giving instructions and getting briefings on the latest information. Over the objections of the Secret Service, he had insisted upon returning home. We hugged and talked with the Cheneys a bit. Then the Secret Service detail suggested that we spend the night there, belowground. They showed us the bed, a foldout that looked like it had been installed when FDR was president. George and I stared at it, and we both said no, George adding, “We’re not going to sleep down here. We’re going to go upstairs and you can get us if something happens.” He said, “I’ve got to get sleep, in our own bed.” George was preparing to speak to the nation from the Oval Office, to reassure everyone and to show that the president was safely back in Washington, ready to respond.
By 7:30 we were on our way up to the residence. I have no memory of having eaten dinner—George may have eaten on the plane. He tried to call the girls as soon as we were upstairs but couldn’t reach them. Barbara called back close to 8:00 p.m., and then George left to make remarks to the nation.
We did finally climb into our own bed that night, exhausted and emotionally drained. Outside the doors of the residence, the Secret Service detail stood in their usual posts. I fell asleep, but it was a light, fitful rest, and I could feel George staring into the darkness beside me. Then I heard a man screaming as he ran, “Mr. President, Mr. President, you’ve got to get up. The White House is under attack.”
We jumped up, and I grabbed a robe and stuck my feet into my slippers, but I didn’t stop to put in my contacts. George grabbed Barney; I grabbed Kitty. With Spot trailing behind, we started walking down to the PEOC. George had wanted to take the elevator, but the agents didn’t think it was safe, so we had to descend flight after flight of stairs, to the state floor, then the ground floor, and below, while I held George’s hand because I couldn’t see anything. My heart was pounding, and all I could do was count stairwell landings, trying to count off in my mind how many more floors we had to go. When we reached the PEOC, I saw the outline of a military sergeant unfolding the ancient hideaway bed and putting on some sheets.
At that moment, another agent ran up to us and said, “Mr. President, it’s one of our own.” The plane was ours.
For months afterward at night, in bed, we’d hear the military jets thundering overhead, traveling so fast that the ground below quivered and shook. They would make one pass and then, three or five minutes later, make another low-flying loop. I would fall asleep to the roar of the fighters in the skies, hearing in my mind those words, “one of our own.” There was a quiet security in that, in knowing that we slept beneath the watchful cover of our own.
Waking the next morning, I had the sensation of knowing before my eyes opened that something terrible had happened, something beyond comprehension, and I wondered for a brief instant if it had all been a dream. Then I saw George, and I knew, knew that yesterday would be with us, each day, for all of our days to come.
Excerpted from “Spoken from the Heart” by Laura Bush. Copyright © 2010 by Laura Bush. Excerpted with permission by Scribner, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
© 2010 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36943246/ns/today-today_books/
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2010 MSNBC.com
Richard Gage AIA speaks on worldwide press conference
Richard Gage AIA speaks on worldwide press conference
On 19 February 2010 a press conference was held concurrently in 19 states, 3 continents, 6 countries, 38 cities and 48 locations, as more than 1,000 architects and engineers worldwide now support the call for a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center on September [...]
On 19 February 2010 a press conference was held concurrently in 19 states, 3 continents, 6 countries, 38 cities and 48 locations, as more than 1,000 architects and engineers worldwide now support the call for a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
The Sydney press conference (pictured above) was held outside St Mary’s Cathedral.
On today’s show Richard Gage AIA, founding member of Ae911truth.org, joins us to discuss all matters pertaining to the the 9/11 truth movement and the growing demand for a truly independent, subpoena powered investigation.
As of the date of posting, 1046 registered architects and engineers have now signed the petition.
In the second half of the show we bring you the audio from the Sydney press conference and a recent TV interview with NYC CAN Outreach Director Manny Badillo.
Source: www.truthnews.com.au
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth teams w/AE911Truth – double header in SF Bay Area dynamic interactive format: Exposing 24 9/11 Myths
City/State: San Rafael, CA
Date: Fri, May 7, 2010
Time: 7:30 pm
Topic: Investigating 9/11: Fire Fighters, Architects and Engineers examine the destruction of the World Trade Center
Speakers: Erik Lawyer & Richard Gage, AIA
Venue: Marin County Civic Center
10 Avenue of the Flags
San Rafael, CA 94903
City/State: San Leandro, CA
Date: Sat, May 8, 2010
Time: 7:30 pm
Topic: Investigating 9/11: Fire Fighters, Architects and Engineers examine the destruction of the World Trade Center
Speaker: Richard Gage, AIA & Erik Lawyer
Venue: The BAL Theater
Location: 14808 East 14th Street,
San Leandro, CA, 94578