Debating With Larry Silverstein's Friend Andrew G. Benjamin

The following is an email exchange I had with Andrew G. Benjamin earlier this month. I did not obtain permission to post the emails, but I don't have to.

Comments in red were not sent in the emails.

Andrew G. Benjamin:

I may have some useful info. Can't figure out if you a pro 9-11 Conspiracy, that is are you a Truther? Or the opposite, you reject the conspiracy theories? Thanks ahead. A

John-Michael P. Talboo:

Hello,

I am a bit of both. I reject many of the theories, but accept much of the hard evidence. I'm curious about the info.

JM

Andrew G. Benjamin:

Hi Mr. Talboo,

I was there on 9-11, wroking in the Municipal Building right across the little park from City Hall. Earlier I was a member of Giuliani's Economic Development Committee, Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget. I drew up the plans for the city's resurrection after the Dinkins Administration.

Moreover, I've know the Silversteins for decades. They stayed at my home the summer after 911 for three months.

I was in Manila when Operation Bojinka took place, specifically when it was busted, here covered by another friend who was Bill Clinton's special assistant on Iraq, Laurie Mylroi:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

Iraqi agents were arrested in Germany just prior to 9-11 near Atta'shome.Check the dates:

http://www.nci.org/iraq/iraq-frg-ap3101.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1196283.stm

Because I was in the center of the action, so to speak, I'd be interested in the "hard evidence." Kindly let me in on it.

John-Michael P. Talboo:

Correction: I accept all of the hard evidence, not "much" of it, which is all over my blog if you search around, but I'll give you a few things.

In November 2007, Patty Casazza, one of the four New Jersey widows known as the "Jersey Girls" who helped instigate the formation of the 9/11 Commission, revealed that whistleblowers told her "the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets." Let's look further into this outrageous claim: Whom could she have meant by "the government?"

David Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former president Bill Clinton, stated that at the behest of several FBI agents he had attempted multiple times to warn US Attorney John Ashcroft, along with other federal officials, of the impending attacks weeks before they occurred, only to be stalled and rebuffed in each attempt.

As summarized in the books The War on Freedom and The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, who personally corresponded with Schippers, "According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the 11th September attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information."

The FBI command, however, cut short their investigations threatening the agents with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized this information.

Ahmed has stated, "In The War on Freedom, I merely laid out facts and lines of inquiry for an official investigation. The book was the first read by the Jersey Girls, informing their work with the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and is part of the 9/11 Commission Collection at the US National Archives (a collection of 99 books, copies of which were provided to each Commissioner)."

Despite this fact, the account of David Shippers is nowhere to be found in The 9/11 Commission Report.

Thanks to Fran Shure of colorado911visibility.org for putting together the above material with me.

Peer-Reviewed Science:

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

Anders Björkman Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal - 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust...'

James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones - Published in "The Environmentalist"

9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal

Dr. Crockett Grabbe published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition

I forgot to mention that the NIST reports were not independently peer-reviewed.

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7

In raw footage from the upcoming film "911: Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out," produced by ae911truth.org, chemical engineer Mark Basile reveals that he has unequivocally confirmed the peer-reviewed work of an international group of scientists who report to have found remnants of the incendiary/explosive nano-thermite in dust from the WTC on 9/11 in April of 2009.

Basile states his interest was first peaked by official reports, namely Appendix C of the FEMA report that studied steel from the third tower to fall on 9/11 known as Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, and found "melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

Appendix C states, "the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event... It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground... It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."

In 2007 Basile attended a conference by physicist Steven Jones where he spoke of his preliminary findings regarding the nano-thermite. Basile approached Jones afterward and offered to independently look at a sample of dust that Jones had gathered from four NYC residents to either confirm or refute his findings.

Basile reports that the material "really shouldn't be there" and stresses that it "is not normal thermite" that "any kid" could make, but instead is "very very difficult to make" and contains ingredients such as nano-aluminum, which the government limits the sale of.

Basile notes that he obtained a completely independent sample of dust from a NYC museum, which wishes to remain anonymous. 9/11 "debunkers" questioned the chain of custody, which implies the scientists and citizens manufactured this material and faked evidence. I can see why the museum wouldn't want any part in being a conspirator in that crazy conspiracy theory!

This is how my blog treats the issues surrounding Silverstein, it's a fair look at both sides IMO:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/11/larry-silverstein-wtc-7-and-pull-it.html

Andrew G. Benjamin:

Thanks Mr. Talboo. My understanding is that one wall of building 7 had previous to the building collapse had already collapsed, weakening the entire structure. Because I was also involved in the investigations of the first bombing at the WTC, specifically the bombers facility in South Jamaica, and in the redevelopment of the NYC Forensic Labs rather nearby on Jamaica Ave, my information is that no significant explosive material, detritus, remnants, or precursors or other, within any of the towers were detected. Much of the stories were predictably made up. Manufactured. There were government offices within the towers, weapons such as firearms and ammo are excepted.

The conventional materials for demolitions is bit thermite. Thermite is simply not used for the purpose. Moreover, the source of the materials the scientist analyzed is really unknown. The materials to manufacture thermite are available over the counter. No government permission required. It does not explode. Magnesium as actually better material for the purpose. To penetrate armor for example, magnesium copper shaped charges are used. Not thermite. The testimony does not connect thermite use to building 7, but what makes even less sense is that he did not specify building 7; the listener may be under the impression that he is speaking of the towers themselves. The planes hit the towers fully loaded with jet fuel. A few years ago a small plane hit an office building causing damage very similar to the Pentagon incident. I checked the specs on the plane. It was maybe 1% the weight of the jetliners using less than 4% the fuel.

The problem with these conspiracy theories is that the attack would require conspirators - I would think many - and none of whom stood up.

The testimony of these "scientists," and this is a general thought, I have no proof, is that they're grandstanding. For their five minutes of fame. Nothing will come of it. People so disposed will believe anything.

The fact is, al Q'aeda and associates involved with the first bombing admitted, nay, bragged about it and promised to return. They have.

As for our government, Clinton to be precise, knew about the upcoming attack, that is true. They knew because of the materials found during Operation Bojinka - again, I refer you to the link I sent. There were drawings of planes flying into tall towers. The place to where they intended to return. They have.

Clinton had the drawings. Whether or not he took them seriously is another issue. Even if he had, the problem was Jamie Gorelick whose memo prevented one intel agency from communicating with the other. Yes, we knew they were going to attack, there were field agents who were on individual terrorists' tails. We knew they were taking flying lessons...the tracks are all there.

Lastly, Silverstein did not blow building 7 up, nor order their being blown up; his insurance proceeds did not cover his losses. He's a very good businessman, not an idiot. His primary concern during the horror was to preserve lives.

No one I know got over this horror to this day.

Thanks for your info.

You need to be really skeptical about any of this. The paper and evidentiary trail leading to specific individuals, many of whom did not hesitate to admit to the crime, in fact threatened us with it before it happened, is conclusive. This story is the most documented crime in history. We know who did it and why they did it.

Personally I don't think any American was involved either in planning or the execution of it. More worrying is that today there are some Americans who wold do it!

AGB

I should have added, and no offense is meant, that the links sent are not "hard evidence." In fact they are the lowest class for testimony

http://mattweiner.net/papers/dissertation.html

And Nafeez Ahmed is a Marxist. Not a sin I guess, in and of itself, but it is in line with Marxist plans for unsettling Western civilization. Confusing people about reality. I know, I come from that other side. Escaped to be precise.

In any case, I have no investment in this matter having been there and done that. I tend to disregard "theories" when so many facts slap me across the face. - A

John-Michael P. Talboo:

First off, I think it is important to note that I do not doubt terrorists were involved in 9/11. When the alleged 9/11 plotters offered to confess at Guantánamo in December of 2008 many probably asked themselves: "What does it mean for the 9/11 truth movement?” The answer is nothing; many people make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of grey. Even if we accept that bin Laden and gang were the masterminds of 9/11 it does not negate a slew of evidence indicating that they were allowed to succeed and had their results amplified. 9/11 very well could have been an inside and an outside job.

You state that your "understanding is that one wall of building 7 had previous to the building collapse had already collapsed, weakening the entire structure."

I don't know why that is your understanding.

Larry Silverstein stated that the North Tower's antenna sliced through WTC-7's south face and ruptured fuel lines in the building.

"This video shows the antenna tipping over towards East, maybe Southeast, definitely AWAY from WTC-7."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iA35icy2-c

Furthermore, here is what the NIST report had to say on the matter:

"...Fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7." - (NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii)

"...The damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." - NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii

"Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated." - NIST WTC 7 Q&A webpage

But most importantly they admitted that the building experienced a "freefall drop for approximately 8 stories." Previous to this admission in their final Nov '08 report, their Aug '08 draft report attempted to demonstrate that "there was no freefall." When lead NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder was fielded a question by high school physics teacher David Chandler regarding the issue at a NIST press conference subsequent to the release of the draft report, Sunder stated that "freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." In essence, Sunder admitted that this is impossible absent some external force, i.e., explosives. I submit to you this is why NIST failed to mention their admission of freefall in their list of changes made in the final report. It's either that, or as NIST says, fires "similar" to those "experienced in other tall buildings," caused "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."

NIST's theory is at odds with a large body of historical precedent and the laws of physics. The evidence presented by those in the 9/11 truth movement is not.

You state that "thermite is simply not used for the purpose," that "the materials to manufacture thermite are available over the counter," that "no government permission required," and that "it does not explode."

However, Basile explicitly stated that the material he analyzed is not regular thermite, but rather nano-thermite, which contains nano-aluminum that the government limits the sale of. And it is explosive. The MIT article "Military Reloads with Nanotech," states that:

Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.

"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.

"Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.

The scientists report that the material found in the WTC dust is mixed in a sol-gel matrix with organic components and as an April 2000 report by Gash et. al. about the sol-gel process states:

"Once dry the (hybrid inorganic/organic energetic composite) material burns very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution of significant amounts of gaseous species."

These materials present a plethora of ways in which they could be used in conjunction with existing demolition technology to achieve a covert demolition.

Tom Sullivan was a former photographer and explosive-charge placement technician for Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was a major player in the removal and recycling of the steel at Ground Zero. While with CDI he personally placed hundreds of explosive charges at the Kingdome in Seattle Washington, which set a world record for the largest structure implosion by volume. He also had an FDNY issued Powder Carrier (apprentice blaster) licence.

In the article "Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee" it is written that:

Sullivan stated that he knew from the first day that the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was a classic controlled implosion. Asked how he thought it might have been done he posited, “looking at the building it wouldn’t be a problem -- once you gain access to the elevator shafts…then a team of expert loaders would have hidden access to the core columns and beams. The rest can be accomplished with just the right kind of explosives for the job. Thermite can be used as well.”

Two days after I sent this reply Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole published a video of experiments he carried out proving that thermite variants can demolish vertically standing steel beams.

You mention that "the planes hit the towers fully loaded with jet fuel."

This is true, but the problem is that there is also a lot of misinformation out there that claims that the type of planes anticipated at the time were much smaller and lighter on fuel, but this simply is not the case. In fact the size and fuel capacity of the anticipated 707s and DC 8s are quite comparable. The WTC Construction and Project Management Frank A. De Martini even stated on the documentary "World Trade Center - A Modern Marvel" that:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded [Boeing] 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

The small difference between a 707 and 757 is surely compensated for if we are to believe this statement. And even if we dismissed it, the difference is more than compensated for due to the fact that the anticipated scenarios made calculations for a 707 traveling at 600 mph, whereas the 767s that hit the WTC towers were said, according to liberal figures, to be traveling at 470 and 590 mph, and according to conservative figures at 440 and 540 mph.

You state, "The testimony of these 'scientists,' and this is a general thought, I have no proof, is that they're grandstanding. For their five minutes of fame. Nothing will come of it. People so disposed will believe anything."

First off, they are scientists. I agree that you have no proof and offer proof to the contrary that this is just grandstanding with the fact that physicist Steven Jones and chemist Kevin Ryan sacrificed their careers for this cause.

You state that, "The problem with these conspiracy theories is that the attack would require conspirators - I would think many - and none of whom stood up."

Here is a blog post written since the following retort where I refine and expand on the points made.

This a priori objection has nothing on empirical evidence. Furthermore, the idea that government complicity in the attacks would require large numbers of people is a notion largely debunked by the intelligence technique of compartmentalization (AKA need-to-know basis).

But some will protest that surely some of these people would have talked. If they assume that people directly involved would squeal, the counter question is simply: "why?" People rarely do things opposed to their own self interest. Hence, conspirators usually rat on their co-conspirators only to receive lesser sentences, they rarely pop up out of the blue and say, "Would you please give me a lethal injection?" In fact, with this mass murder, it is likely that many of the operatives have already received one without asking for it! A real investigation into the events of 9/11 is yet to take place. If and when this occurs, the lesser conspirators or accomplices may be granted immunity, or granted favorable plea bargains in return for turning state’s evidence, leading to convictions of numerous others.

Furthermore, the intricacies of the evidence indicate other ways that the number of people intimately involved in the plot could have been significantly decreased.

As I touched upon above, when it comes to demolition, research scientist Jim Hoffman has pointed out that, "...Explosive devices could have been disguised as or concealed within legitimate equipment, such as smoke alarms or ceiling tiles, and installed by workers oblivious to their surreptitious function. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials."

In regard to how the NORAD stand-down was achieved, many have speculated that inaction by an intentionally AWOL chain of command , combined with the four wargames that were conducted on 9/11, which (seem to have) included live-fly simulations of hijackings, and NORAD radar screens, which displayed false tracks throughout the attacks, caused deliberate confusion. But no matter how it might have been achieved, one thing is clear, it would have only required the complicity of a few high level officials.

With all that being said, it would still be expected that people not directly involved who caught wind of suspicious goings-on would probably talk, and as I've shown, they have.

You say that their testimony is not hard evidence, which is true in a sense. I understand the many problems with witness testimony. But what their testimony is hard evidence of is the failing of the 9/11 Commission to fulfil its mandate of providing a “full and complete accounting” of the events surrounding 9/11.

That being said, the link he provided me states that, "testimony is defined, strictly, as utterances that are meant to be believed on the teller’s say-so alone."

However, what I provided with Casazzaa and Schippers actually fits the description of corroborating testimony/evidence.

As defined on Answers.com, "corroboration consists of either other evidence OR another witness's testimony backing up and substantiating whatever evidence or testimony that precedeeded it."

The problems I was citing about witness testimony concerns things that happen fast and/or are tramatic. This corroborating testimony, however, concerns people learning of very specific 9/11 prior knowlege in the FBI and it is coming from very credible people independantly of one another.

So while it's not hard evidence in the forensic sense, it certainly isn't the "lowest class for testimony."

As a further example of this I offer FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who on August 8, 2009 affirmed under oath on a video taped deposition that the "FBI received information in April 2001 from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset that Osama bin Ladin was planning attacks on four to five cities with planes. Some of the people were already in the country, and the attacks would happen in a few months."

In November of 2007, Patty Casazza, revealed that they had to surprise the commission with Edmonds due to the lack of response to her requests to testify. In the end, Edmonds was relegated to a footnote in the report, and contrary to a promise made to Casazza by the Chairman of the Commission that all the whistleblowers brought to the widows by Edmonds would be heard, most were not.

Here is a statement from Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer:

The original 9/11 Commission inquiry became an exercise in bureaucratic ass-covering and obfuscation of accountability.

I had no intention of joining the ranks of 'whistle blowers'. In 2003, when I made my disclosure to the 9/11 commission regarding the existence of a pre 9/11 offensive counter-terrorism operation that had discovered several of the 9/11 terrorists a full year before the 9/11 attacks my intention was to simply tell the truth, and fulfill my oath of office. Unfortunately, this was a minority view.

Instead of supporting the search for the truth, members of the Bush/Rumsfeld Department of Defense did everything within their power to destroy my 20 year career as a clandestine intelligence operative simply to try to discredit me and my disclosure.

You bring up Operation Bojinka; I think oilempire.us said it best:

While the “blowback” thesis is tempting to believe, given the intense anger that US policies have created in the Middle East over many decades, blowback is inadequate to explain the actual events of 9/11. Blowback still assumes that 9/11 was a surprise attack.

A precursor plot to 9/11, Operation Bojinka, was stopped in 1995 when terrorists in the Philippines were caught planning simultaneous hijackings of up to a dozen planes. Bojinka was probably merely blowback -- but whether it was more than this or not, it clearly shows that the US "intelligence community" knew about the threat of a 9/11 type event years before it happened.

Thanks for the discussion. Can you ask Larry who he was speaking to on 9/11 because this is what FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander) on 9/11 had to say.

"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it."

Andrew G. Benjamin:

No one found explosive residue.

John-Michael P. Talboo:

Because they didn't look.

End of debate.

While I was searching around for more info on Mr. Benjamin I found that he had posted two comments supportive of the website islam-watch.org using the email he contacted me from. The website features a permanent picture of the Twin Towers being hit on 9/11 in the right-hand corner, and claims that Islam has a "hateful and violent core." So, Islam's violent nature is responsible for 9/11.

Never mind that extensive polling data indicates that the majority of the more than one billion Muslims in the world have an opposite interpretation of the Quran. If they didn't they would be a whole lot scarier than peanuts, but they're not! And never mind that according to professor of political science Robert A. Pape, the first complete database of suicide terrorism around the world from 1980 through early 2004 showed that over half the terrorists were secular and over 95% were trying to compel a modern democracy to withdrawal combat forces from their country.

Really never mind numbers often cited concerning how many people Muslims have killed in the last 1,000 years, because not only are they greatly exaggerated, but completely irrelevant.

The pertinent statistics are ones such as these, which estimate that one million plus Muslims have been killed by the U.S. in the past 30 years, many times arguably without justification, which equates to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost, and those numbers do no not take into consideration many things that would make the figures even more heavily slanted. Furthermore, the larger issue at hand is U.S. empire-building.

As the hip-hop group Dead Prez states:

you wanna stop terrorists?
start with the u.s. imperalists
ain't no track record like america's, see
bin laden was trained by the c.i.a
but I guess if you a terrorist for the u.s
then it's okay

Exact transcript of the onscreen text in the Wonderful World segment.

If the warnings hadn't been ignored, if NORAD had done its job, and the laws of physics weren't broken, not even Osama's CIA training would have led to those 3,000 people being killed.