October 30, 2009

By Edward Brotherton

After a 20-minute conversation with Congressman Brad Sherman’s office on Friday, October 10, 2009, I hung up the phone not believing what I had just heard.  Congressman Brad Sherman represents the 27th district, one of the geographically largest districts in Southern California representing around 600,000 constituents.   The congressman’s policy advisor in Washington, Erin Prangley, ignores the question as to how they got there. She kept repeating that the Congressman’s position is expressed by the report published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), as recommended by the San Fernando Valley chapter of the American Institute of Architects.

When it comes to the subject of the September 11th terrorist attacks, it appears that many political offices become a Bermuda triangle, where reports are lost and never seen again along with common sense, logic, basic math skills and the desire to protect the rights of the American people.  To be fair however this political black hole wasn’t created after 9/11.  On September 10th 2001 Donald Rumsfeld gave a press conference where he told the American people that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion dollars. That is no typo – that’s trillion with a “t”. Of course, the next day almost 3000 Americans lives were lost, along with the World Trade Center ,and the issue of the missing $2.3 trillion got sucked away into the 9/11 black hole.

If one could travel into this sucking vortex and come out on the other side one might be amazed at what one would find.  Perhaps E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession for being involved in the JFK assassination, Or the reasons why Lt. Col. Michael Aquino (who founded the Temple of Set Church of Satan) would be allowed to work for the U.S. Army psychological warfare department.
Or perhaps we will find the four black box recorders that supposedly vaporized when the airlines struck the towers, keeping in mind of course that one of the hijackers’ passports survived virtually unscathed and found before the collapse of the towers.  (Maybe we should be making skyscrapers and black box recorders out of paper.)  Or maybe will find the two nano-thermite papers that were delivered to Congressman Brad Sherman’s office.
A nine-member international team of chemists, physicists, and others published a paper in early 2009 entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe” (hereinafter, the nano-thermite paper).  These scientists used the scientific method to analyze samples of World Trade Center dust that could not have been contaminated by cleanup activities at Ground Zero. They found red-gray chips that were attracted by a magnet, examined the various crystalline and non-crystalline structures in the chips, shot electrons into the chips and looked at the X-ray spectra that came out, and heated the samples and watched how they responded. They compares these results to cured paint chips and to known highly advanced energetic nano-materials. They concluded that “the red layer … is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

Pardon the inevitable pun: this is an explosive discovery.
When NIST was confronted with the possibility of thermite or other types of explosive or incendiary material, they wrote that “a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower.  Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.”

One problem with NIST’s statement is its internal inconsistency. NIST claims that office fires, which burn cooler than thermite and cannot melt steel, weakened the steel sufficiently to bring down all three high-rises (including World Trade Center Building 7, which did not get hit by an airplane). Yet NIST claims that “massive amounts of thermite” would have been needed to weaken the Twin Towers’ steel enough to bring them down.
Another problem is that NIST’s denial has not been updated in response to the nano-thermite paper, which made very clear the distinction between thermite and nano-thermite.

This is where you start to hear the sucking sound of the black hole as common sense and logic are being sucked away. Nano-thermite is like regular thermite on steroids. Instead of just burning, this stuff actually explodes with as much energy as conventional high explosives. To pretend that the distinction does not exist, or is not important, is difficult to reconcile with the expertise in nano-thermites possessed by former NIST director Arden Bement and numerous other NIST employees and contractors (see the “Top Ten Connections” paper referenced below).

The nano-thermite paper also roughly estimated that nine tons of nano-thermite remained unreacted in the dust, making it quite reasonable to assume that many additional tons did react, bringing the Towers down. How those tons of advanced explosives were placed throughout the Twin Towers is the responsibility of law enforcement officials to figure out, not that of volunteer scientist-patriots working on a shoestring budget.

Aside from the physical scientific evidence for explosives there are approximately 115 eyewitnesses who discuss hearing or experiencing explosions before, during and after the collapse of the towers and even reports of an explosion in WTC 1 basement before the first plane hit. William Rodriguez, who worked as a janitor in the World Trade Center, gave this testimony to the 9/11 commission.  He gave names of others, who could corroborate his testimony, but the commission never notified them, and the 9/11 Commission Report does not mention William Rodriguez’s testimony.
Another of these witnesses was Barry Jennings; a NYC worker who along with Michael Hess got trapped inside of WTC 7 after an explosion knocked them back and caused the sixth floor stairwell to give way.  He and Hess climbed up to the 8th floor where they remained trapped until several hours later.  Barry gave an interview to the producers of the Loose Change documentary series and discussed the multiple explosions he was hearing while trapped in Building 7.  It is important to note that some of these explosions occurred before any of the towers collapsed.  Jennings also mentioned stepping over bodies while being led out of the building through a hole in the lobby by rescue workers.  This has been portrayed as startling because authorities said that no one died in Building 7. This particular issue would be resolved if it is confirmed, as some have claimed, that the bodies of people who jumped from the Towers had been moved into the lobby to get them out of public view for dignity’s sake.

Unfortunately, Barry Jennings mysteriously died two days before NIST released its final report on the collapsed of WTC 7.  A private investigator was hired to find out what happened. Within 24 hours the private investigator took herself off the case, calling it a matter for the police. She refunded her fee and told the person who hired her never to contact her about this individual again.

Aside from the Barry Jennings interview, Congressman Brad Sherman’s office was presented with this evidence approximately two years ago when Congressman Sherman held a town hall meeting where one of his constituents asked him about the collapse of Building 7 and why there are so many unanswered questions with regards to the September 11th attacks.  The congressman explained that he is not an expert in structural engineering or physics and could not comment on the collapse of the World Trade Center.  He referred to the 9/11 Commission report as a good reference.

Other Commissioners have called it a scam and a disgrace, have said that they were “set up to fail,” and considered referring top military officers for prosecution for obstructing the investigation. Commission lead counsel John Farmer has just published a book in which he says witnesses gave the Commission an account of 9/11 that was “almost entirely untrue.”

Congressman Sherman held another town hall meeting several months later.  Another constituent asked the Congressman about Building 7 again.  He explained that he would be willing to set up a meeting with the San Fernando Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects if some members of the constituency want to discuss the issues with them.  The AIA would then consult the Congressman on the findings. 

I decided that the best thing to do would be to set up a meeting between the local AIA chapter and Richard Gage, AIA, Bay Area architect and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  His organization is dedicated to presenting the engineering facts about what happened to the three high-rises on 9/11. It currently has almost 1000 architects and engineering professionals and over 5000 members of the general public who are demanding a new investigation into the attacks.

I spoke with Erin Prangley, who at the time was the District Director for Congressman Sherman in the Van Nuys office. Erin informed me that the congressman would not be setting up any meetings with the AIA and was told that the constituents would have to do that on their own. I explained to Erin that the Congressman said at the town hall meeting that he would set it up.  She continued to deny the Congressman made any such statement.

Knowing I wasn’t going to get any cooperation from the Congressman’s office, I notified the local San Fernando Valley AIA Executive Director Leslie Nathan. By this time the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 had been released.  I addressed my concerns in a letter written to her around October 2007.  She was kind enough to submit the request to the board of the AIA, where they voted against a meeting with Richard Gage.  When I asked what the reasons were, she cited the NIST report being authorative enough to warrant no further review. I requested a second meeting and Leslie was again kind of enough to submit to the board for consideration.  This time I found out one board member voted for the meeting, but that was not enough; this request was also denied.

I went back to the congressman’s office and met briefly with Erin Prangley again.  I explained that I had made two attempts to get a meeting with the AIA, and both times my requests were denied.   Since this was the congressman’s idea, what should I do?  She said there is nothing she can do. 
“If the AIA doesn’t want to meet with you, then the Congressman can’t force them to.”
I reminded Erin about the congressman telling all of us at the town hall meeting that he would set up the meeting.  She again denied that occurred and ended the meeting.

In the spring of 2008, Congressman Sherman held another town hall meeting in Van Nuys.  I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to explain to the congressman in front of everyone present about my experience with his office being uncooperative. I explained that I had not been able to secure any meetings with the AIA, and I asked, since it was his idea, what should I do? 
He said, “Well, first of all, I said I would set up the meeting with the AIA and it wasn’t meant for you to do that on your own.” 

I said, “That’s interesting, because I explained that to your office and I was told you didn’t say that.”  His head shook in embarrassment and he agreed to allow anyone who has information to get it to his office and he would make sure it got forwarded to the AIA so they can review it.
Immediately several people, including Richard Gage, began to put together a packet detailing some of the anomalies with the destruction of the towers. This packet included information about molten metal being discovered several weeks after the collapse. It also mentioned eyewitnesses who spoke about explosions in the Towers.  Also included was information about thermitic material discovered in dust samples.  This packet was then hand-delivered to the congressman’s office, where it was forwarded to the AIA.

After several weeks I followed up with the Congressman’s office to find out the status of the report we provided them and they repeatedly didn’t have any answers for me.  I then called Leslie Nathan at the AIA, who informed me that they could not perform a proper analysis of the report because they did not have the resources.  It would cost them close to $50,000.  I then asked Leslie about whether or not the AIA has evaluated the NIST report.  She told me that they have not. 

I then asked, “So you’re saying that that the AIA will not give any recommendations or opinion about the report we gave you because you do not have the resources to do so?”

“Correct.” She said.
“So I assume you won’t be giving any recommendations or opinions about the NIST report since you don’t have the resources to evaluate that either, is that correct?”
“Yes,” she replied. 
I thanked her and notified Erin at Congressman Sherman’s office a few days later. 
Erin informed me that she had received an email from Leslie stating their position about the report. When I asked Erin what to do now since (again) this was the congressman’s idea, and it didn’t seem to work, she stated that there was nothing more that could be done. 
I explained, “Doing nothing is not an option. There is evidence of explosives found in the dust of the World Trade Center and someone needs to explain it.  I’m not trying to add a lane to the 405 freeway or get the name of a post office changed.”  She explained that the Congressman’s position is going be with the findings of the NIST report.  I explained to Erin that the veracity of the NIST report is in questions because it left out key evidence and fabricated some.  She told me that the AIA has recommended the findings of the NIST report to be valid and the Congressman is going to take that recommendation.  This is obviously in direct contrast with the AIA’s most recent position, just given to me via telephone.

More months went by, and in early 2009, the nano-thermite paper was released.  The paper is a detailed study of the red/gray chips that were found in the WTC dust.  These red/gray chips were mentioned in the first paper given to the congressmen’s office and the AIA.  This is the same paper the AIA couldn’t give a more detailed analysis of.  A more conclusive understanding of the substance found in the dust was determined to be an advanced explosive made only in US national laboratories, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  Members of We Are Change LA flew to Washington D.C. to deliver the nano-thermite paper to several members of Congress including Congressman Brad Sherman. WACLA member Stewart Howe hand-delivered this paper to the congressman personally.
In July 2009, I followed up with a phone call to find out the status of the paper and what the congressman’s thoughts were on it.   I was informed that no one knew about the paper and after a few attempts they couldn’t seem to track it down.

About this same time I learned that the congressman was having another town hall meeting.  I went hoping to find Erin and could ask her for an update on what was going on with paper.  When I arrived I had learned that Erin was working in the Washington office now.  So I spoke to the new District Director Matt Dababneh. He didn’t seem to know anything about the paper either.  I wasn’t able to ask the congressman any questions at this meeting, but a few days later I hand-delivered another copy of the paper, along with another paper entitled “Top Ten Connections to NIST and Nano-thermites,” by Kevin Ryan.  Ryan worked for Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel that went into the construction of the World Trade Center.  Kevin turned whistleblower and was subsequently fired after revealing that the steel was certified to withstand temperatures beyond what was mentioned by the FEMA and NIST investigation. 
Ryan’s paper shows that much of NIST’s analysis of the World Trade Center’s destruction was contracted out to a company called Science Applications International (SAIC).  This company is a defense and Homeland Security contractor and has extensive links to nano-thermites, developing and judging nano-thermite research proposals for the military as well as developing nano-thermites itself.  Its subsidiary Applied Ordinance Technology has done research on the ignition of nano-thermites using lasers. 

Thus, the subject of some of these SAIC research projects is the same family of advanced explosives that was discovered in the dust samples by independent scientists and researchers, and appears to be what actually brought down the World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 at freefall speed. It would also explain the previously molten iron-rich microspheres that were discovered in the dust by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and R J Lee Group. It might also explain the molten iron or steel seen for many weeks after the WTC’s destruction, attested to by more than two dozen witnesses, including firefighters, demolition contractors, and WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson.

It is agreed by all parties involved that office fires alone cannot generate the temperatures needed to create molten metal.  So it begs the question, how did this molten metal get there and what generated the required temperatures?    Could it have been the nano-thermite found in the dust samples?

After the delivery of this evidence, I followed up with a phone call, and was told that the material had been forwarded to the congressman’s office in Washington.  I spoke to Erin Prangley who was now Congressman Sherman’s policy advisor in the D.C. office.  I discovered she didn’t know anything about the report. 

I told her, “This is the second time this nano-thermite paper was submitted to you, and both times it has disappeared.  The congressman has even had one handed to him directly.”

She said, “We’ll look into it and see if we can track it down.”

I went back to the Van Nuys office and spoke to Matt about what happened to the paper.  He didn’t know and couldn’t find it either. 
“Can you get me another copy of the paper?” Matt asked.

“No, I’m not going to do that. You need to find the two we already gave you. I’m tired of giving your office information, only for it to be lost or never read by the Congressman, or anyone else in your office.” 

I gave them some more time and then followed up with Matt about the paper.  After several attempts at reaching him, I got Matt on the phone. He informed me “the Congressman’s policy people are reviewing the report.”  I was thankful and hung up the phone.  After about a month and half I made several attempts to reach Matt again, only to find out he was on vacation. 

I called the Washington office to find out who the congressman’s policy people are.  I got forwarded to Erin Prangley where after some niceties she explained that she is the congressman’s policy person and she admitted to never seeing the paper.  She apologized that Matt told me otherwise, and I began to discuss the details of the paper to her.  She explained that the Congressman’s position has not changed and is still relying on the AIA recommendations to use the NIST report as the authorative source for information regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center.  I asked her “How do you explain the explosives found in the dust?  It’s there, someone has to explain that.”  She explained that NIST looked for explosives and determined that so much of it would be needed it would be highly implausible that anyone can access the columns in the towers undetected and plant explosives.”  Even though Turner Construction shows had completed re-fireproofing and putting in a new sprinkler loop in August of 1999 on the 88th floor.

I told her, “NIST does not say they looked for explosives. They just said they considered the possibility of explosives.  These other groups of scientists actually looked for it and did the job that NIST should have done and they found it, it’s there.  Someone has to explain that.”
She said, “But it wasn’t enough to bring down the towers.” 

“The question is ‘how did it get there?’” 

“It could have been contaminated.” She said.

“If you had read the paper, you would know that the contamination issue was addressed in the first few pages.”

I asked her about the molten metal.  She referred me back to the NIST report. I explained that the NIST report doesn’t address the molten metal.  We were both getting very frustrated and I continued to ask her about how explosives got there.  She then said, “Explosives were found but not enough to bring down the towers.”  I asked her show me where that is located in the NIST report.  She said she couldn’t remember exactly where it is.  I then said, “So explosives were found, but not enough to bring down the towers.”  “Yes” she replied.  She then reiterated that the Congressman’s position is with the NIST report as recommended by the AIA.  I asked once more, “So not enough explosives were found to bring down the towers?”  She said, “Exactly.”

Prangley admitted that she had read only the executive summary of the NIST report, and said that their office doesn’t have the time or resources to go through it point by point.  This of course is inconsistent with her saying that NIST considered explosives and ruled them out; NIST discussed that only in its online FAQ, not in any official report.  She also explained that she is not herself an expert and cannot speak to the veracity of the NIST report.

Be that as it may, it is unacceptable that a member of Congress does not take his constituents seriously when they present relevant, widely corroborated information that deals with our national security. Tne congressman seems to be keeping himself shielded from the facts to the point of stupidity. Sherman has advisors and people he goes to for opinions on important matters, but when it comes to the issue of 9/11, they fail him.

A member of the U.S. House of Representatives should have the ability to confront these matters head-on, not just pass them on to others who themselves admit they can’t give an informed opinion.  It’s not only the Congressman’s job to represent the people in his district on matters that may be important to them.  It’s just as important to inform the members of his constituency on matters they may not be privy too, so that they may be an informed populace and have sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise from a specific issue.   As for the explosives being found in the dust and the 9/11 issue in general, when will Congressman Sherman educate himself and stop putting his staff and other organizations in the way to deflect responsibility. 

Edward Brotherton is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force where he served with the 60th Security Police Squadron at Travis AFB.  In 1994 he participated in operation Sea Signal providing humanitarian relief for thousands of Haitian and Cuban refugees at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.  He became a political activist after becoming aware of the gross corruption that has become the business of government.  He currently is working on a book called “How to Pick a President: The Layman’s Gguide to Eternal Vigilance.” He is also writing his first feature-length screenplay. He is a member of several organizations, including:

We Are Change Los Angeles

9/11 Truth Los Angeles

Veterans for 9/11 truth

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Oathkeepers Los Angeles

edbrotherton@gmail.com


Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.