I watched a public meeting of Scholars for 9/11 Truth on C-SPAN, called “Theories about September 11.” I wanted to talk about this because a similar meeting took place in Boulder the first week in March of this year, put on by Colorado911.Info. The basic premise for these groups is that 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. government. What this then sets up is the notion that the War on Terror, as it’s been called, is a fiction, an excuse to pursue policies that benefit multinational corporations and oil companies, and to take away our freedoms, which supposedly the powerful have long wanted to do.
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes”
I read this quote in an issue of the Atlantic Monthly. It’s commonly attributed to Mark Twain, but scholars don’t appear to be sure about that. What follows is some history from World War II to provide some context to our present situation.
Conspiracy theories around wars are nothing new. Years ago I knew an old lady, a long-time Boulder resident, who told me in all seriousness that President Franklin Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor (a U.S. Navy base in the Hawaiian Islands) and purposely let them do it to get us into World War II. Others accused him of provoking the attack by putting sanctions on Japan. What was scandalous about this conspiracy theory was people knew it was a surprise attack. The military was caught totally off guard, and around 2,000 Navy personnel were killed on Dec. 7, 1941, the date of the attack. So people were accusing FDR of having the blood of soldiers on his hands. The insinuation was he cynically and cold-heartedly used their deaths to justify what he had wanted all along.
He also supposedly used the war as a way to get us out of the Great Depression. Most historians agree the war got the U.S. out of the Depression, but this was more of a side-effect than something that was planned though some economic historians will disagree about that, saying it was the fiscal/policy reforms of the Eisenhower Administration that really helped us out of it. True, unemployment dropped dramatically during WW II, but what was really going on then was a “command and control” economy. It was impossible to buy a new car, because none were being made. All manufacturing was directed towards the war effort. You could not use money to buy food, or gasoline. Instead everyone had to use a rationing scheme. With the possible exception of the stock market, there was little real economic activity going on, though lots of people had work, and were being paid for it. The real economy began to come back into force once the war ended, but then came runaway inflation. Hardly a sign of a healthy economy.
Prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, there was a strong isolationist sentiment in this country. A lot of people wanted nothing to do with war in general. They figured the Japanese invasion of China was China’s problem, and that Hitler was Europe’s problem. There was even some sympathy for Nazi Germany at the time. This was somewhat understandable, because some knew about Germany’s plight after the Treaty of Versailles, the peace treaty that ended World War I. Germany was decimated, utterly defeated. No one helped them to reconstruct their society. In fact, the allies imposed reparations on Germany, leaving it heavily in debt. Eventually Germany’s currency became nearly worthless. The country went through disastrous inflation. It used to be said that it took a wheelbarrow-full of Deutchmarks to buy a loaf of bread. That was no exaggeration. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to compare it to Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Some felt that the rest of Europe had kicked Germany hard while it was down, and it was unfair. What they ignored was the evil menace that had grown from the ruins, and which was threatening all of Europe and indeed the whole of Western civilization.
World War II had started in Europe in 1939. FDR wanted the U.S. to at least get involved in the European conflict, because he knew if Hitler conquered all of Europe, the U.S. was next. It would’ve just been a matter of time. Due to the political situation in the U.S. the best he could do was get his “Lend-Lease” program passed in 1940, where U.S. military equipment was given to
the allied nations in the war the UK, to help them defend against Germany , Italy, and Japan, for which they ended up owing a debt to the U.S. for decades. He also worried about the Japanese invading the Philippines. Nevertheless, many here said “Stay out out of it!” We did, until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The conspiracy theories followed because the isolationists didn’t get what they wanted, and they thought Roosevelt took it from them on purpose.
A good movie about what was going on in England before the outbreak of war in Europe is “Remains of the Day.” The movie was sold in the U.S. as a movie about an English butler, but there is a much larger story in it. I recommend getting the DVD, watching the movie, listening to the in-movie commentary, and watching some of the extra material. You really get a feel for what the larger story is. Some aspects of it are strikingly similar to the attitudes we see from some Americans and Europeans today, regarding the War on Terror.
The prelude to our present war happened in similar fashion. Israel had been fighting against terrorist groups for years, like Hezbollah and Hamas. Every time Israel carried out a military offensive against these groups, naturally having to go into civilian areas, Europe and the U.S. either urged restraint, or condemned it for its actions. When U.S. civilians or even U.S. military were attacked abroad by these same groups, our responses were tepid–alright, I’ll say it: pathetic–even though our leaders always talked tough about fighting them. We just didn’t understand the problem. And in a way this could be excused. We had “bigger fish to fry,” namely the Soviet Union. We weren’t going to get sidetracked by fighting some “two-bit thugs.” We had a real threat on our hands: communist expansion, Soviet aggression, whatever you want to call it. The big fear on everyone’s mind here was a nuclear war with the Soviets. Fighting a loose band of thugs would’ve been considered a distraction, and an ill-advised use of resources. We just wanted Israel and its enemies to settle their differences and move on. We thought the notion of fighting over a land area the size of New Jersey was petty anyway, though the U.S. has always been an ally to Israel.
Not even the first, botched jihadist attack on the World Trade Center towers in 1993 caused much alarm in this country. Security analysts became horrified, as the story of the terrorists’ true aims became known, but for the most part the country was asleep. We were enjoying our “peace dividend.” The Cold War was over.
Francis Fukuyama wrote a book called, “The End of History”, declaring that the long train of human history was coming to an end. No more major events or struggles were on the horizon. From here on out it was just gravy for the human race. The people behind the 1993 attack were arrested, charged, and convicted using our civilian courts. Life went on as usual. The difference between the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, which we later learned was committed by Al Qaeda, and the second, was that it worked the second time.
Now, a group calling itself Scholars for 9/11 Truth claims to have the answers for what really happened. The thing that caught my eye about this name is the word “scholars.” It implies legitimacy and careful fact gathering.
Contrary to what one might think, this is not a radical left group. If anything it has more in common with the radical right. I should know. Years ago I fell in with what was called the Patriot movement. I didn’t know what political stripe it was at the time. I went looking for answers, a civics lesson of sorts. I learned some things which turned out to be factual, particularly about our legal system. But most of the focus was on what was called “tax protesting” and the “New World Order.” There were plenty of conspiracy theories, and people talked about getting “out of the system,” which to them meant “not being a slave to the globalist agenda.” They wanted to use gold and silver, or at the very least a barter system, rather than Federal Reserve Notes for money. This was tough, but it was one of their goals. They believed that paying income taxes was voluntary, and hocked seminars and information packages about how to avoid taxes legally, though you had to be careful who you listened to. Some of these people knew “just enough to be dangerous.” Most of this took the form of tax protesting, which involved challenging the IRS. This was risky and could take years. One member of a group I attended regularly told me that one should not enter into this to save money, because you’ll end up spending more money on legal fees than you would if you paid taxes. People who were joining in did it on principle. There was even talk about forming militia groups, but only as a defense against our own “rogue government.” The conspiracy theories were all about fear. It was only partly rational. What I discovered was they could quote you facts all day long. Some of them were experts on these facts. What was problematic was their conclusions, based on these facts. Their conclusions were always based on their interpretations of them, which were usually slanted. There were instances where people just had their facts wrong. I don’t know if it was because they had made it up, or just heard wrong from somewhere else. Being college educated I tried to verify what I was being told. What I found over and over again is the reasons things happened the way they did were for very mundane reasons, not nearly as sensational as the conspiracy theorists made them out to be. There came a point where they ran out of answers for me. Speakers at meetings started sounding like broken recordings. They droned on and on about the “New World Order,” the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, Skull and Bones (a secret society on the campus of Yale University), and how they threatened us all. I eventually came to the realization that if these groups were truly a threat, this group was not going to able to defend any of us against them. So what were we gathering for? The supposed threat seemed enormous, and no one like me was going to be able to thwart it. We used to do public demonstrations from time to time on issues important to us, but eventually we just became a “debating society,” with no real agenda. Informational meetings turned into sales meetings, where people would come up to talk about their wares or some service. Occasionally political candidates came to our meetings looking for support. After a couple years I ended my association with the movement.
Back to the “Scholars for 9/11 Truth.” As I said earlier, I watched their presentation, which took place on June 25, and for the most part it was anything but scholarly. The only presenter there who gave anything close to a scholarly presentation was Dr. Stephen Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University.
Actor Charlie Sheen got things kicked off, lending his support to the organization. He applauded its efforts to “expose the lies” and tell the truth of what happened.
Alex Jones, the “master of ceremonies” (I guess you could call him) for the event, gave his introduction, basically setting up the premise for the theory. He said that there’s been a long history of governments setting up “false flag” terrorist attacks (ie. terrorist attacks orchestrated by the government). He cited as examples the activities of Kermit Roosevelt (the grandson of president Theodore Roosevelt), who organized the overthrow of the democratically elected leader the prime minister of Iran in the 1950s; the Gulf of Tonkin incident during the Johnson Administration, which Jones claimed had been fully exposed as a hoax, but which provided the pretext for increased involvement in Vietnam; and more recently Operation Northwoods, which he claimed detailed plans, drawn up by the government, to do things like fly remote controlled airplanes into buildings. He also made reference to “the New World Order.”
I did some research on Jones, and he has some traits that I used to find common with prominent figures in the Patriot movement, from years ago. One of the things that set off the radical right was that President George H.W. Bush, President George W. Bush’s father, used the phrase “a new world order” in a few speeches during his presidency. He always used it in the context of global diplomacy and cooperation. The radical right correlated the phrase to phrases that Adolf Hitler used, which had similar wording, but I suspect had a different meaning. They also had an obsession with apparent connections between U.S. leaders and the occult. Being social conservatives, predominantly Christian, they find this threatening.
Jones cited George H.W. Bush’s use of the phrase “a new world order” in his speech, using it to imply a global conspiracy was on the march. Jones also has some DVDs on his web site where he talks about leaders’ supposed involvement with the occult.
In his whole presentation I heard him cite three stories. I’ll provide links if I can find the sources, after I quote from my notes, based on what he said:
- “At least 3 hijackers were training in a secret program at the Pensacola Naval Air station” — Pensacola News Journal. You can see for yourself. Nowhere in the article does it say the program is “secret.” In fact it says the station trains foreign nationals all the time, usually foreign military personnel, though. This information was based on identification information found belonging to the hijackers. The referenced article notes it’s possible that the hijackers stole the identities of real trainees at the station.
- “The dean of the Defense Language School said the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. 3 of the hijackers had high level spy training at the Defense Language school in California.”— San Jose Mercury News. I looked this up on Google and did an archive article search at the San Jose Mercury News’s web site and could find no original source reference to this story.
- “Underwriters Limited wrote about the towers’ collapse.” Here’s what I’ve found. There’s an online article talking about Kevin Ryan, a former employee of UL. He apparently wrote some memos to others saying that something smelled about the official explanation of how the towers fell, and that UL had certified the steel that went into the World Trade Center. He was fired for this, and UL quickly put out a statement saying that they do not certify structural steel. I have not found an article online where UL talks about the collapse of the towers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has conducted a study of the fires in the towers, and as best I can tell is still working on a study of the towers’ collapse.
Dr. Stephen Jones, the physicist from BYU, talked about his observations through lab testing of the steel that came from the World Trade Center, and information from other sources. He said that many of the beams had a sulfide coating on them, from exposure to sulfur. Going on the notion that the collapse of the towers was from a controlled demolition, he has put forward the notion that the sulfur could have only come from an incendiary substance that cuts through steel, and would be very effective in weakening the structure of the building, called Thermate. His theory is that Thermate was planted and ignited, and that’s what brought the towers down in the manner that they fell. He said he asked a demolition expert how much would’ve been needed to bring down the towers, and he was told at least 1,000 pounds, distributed throughout the structure. Now, this may be a stupid question, but don’t you think somebody would’ve noticed that something fishy was going on with people placing mysterious packs of material onto the steel girders of the building, and wiring them up?
No mainstream research has determined where the sulfur came from. Leaving aside this mystery, I distinctly remember shortly after 9/11 hearing that the architect of the twin towers said that he designed the buildings to implode in case of structural failure. He did not talk about incendiary charges, just that he designed the building architecturally to undergo a controlled collapse. This was done to anticipate a scenario where the structure of the building failed, and he said the buildings functioned as designed in that instance. This was done to address the concern that with the towers being so tall, it would be intolerable for them to tip over and crash into other buildings, and onto the streets below in such a failure. I also watched a program on the Discovery Channel on the towers, which explained that according to the forensic evidence the fire retardant/heat insulation foam on the trusses on the floors around the crash sites had all been blown off by the explosions. The airplane fuel burned out fairly quickly, but ironically it was the paper in the building that caught fire and burned for a long period of time, raising the interior temperature to hundreds of degrees. The conclusion presented in the program was that it was this paper fire that brought down the buildings. The intense heat, plus the damage to the buildings’ structural integrity from the airplane crashes, weakened the trusses around the crash sites. The trusses were the only things holding the floors in place. The forensic evidence shows that they detached from the core and exterior walls, fatally compromising the structure. The exterior walls depended on their connection to the core, through the trusses, to hold up the building. Once this link was broken, the cascading collapse began. The exterior walls could not handle the weight of the floors above the crash sites, and the upper floors “pancaked” on the lower ones. The height and the weight of the floors above the crash sites created such force and momentum that the trusses for the lower floors also gave out, causing the same thing to happen as happened on the floors around the crash site. They showed rivets from the building that were sheared off by the force of the floors above. I found the program’s presentation convincing.
With the sulfur coating on the girders being an established fact, I would hope that somebody has explored a more mundane explanation for its presence than to jump to the most extreme conclusion that it was the result of a planted explosive. I’m not saying the possibility should be totally off the table, but I think most rational people would reserve it as a “last resort” explanation, having eliminated all other possibilities. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. [see edit at the bottom of this article]
Dr. Jones referred to Jim Hoffman’s site, WTC7.net, Prof. Cutler at Jounalof911studies.com, and the New York Times, which he says printed an article talking about the mysterious sulfide coating. WTC7.net and Journalof911studies.com subscribe to the theory that the trade towers and World Trade Building 7 were brought down by a controlled demolition. Journalof911studies.com claims it’s articles are peer-reviewed. Building 7 is apparently of particular importance to this group, because of something the building’s owner said. He said that the situation inside the building was too dangerous for rescue crews, and he said, “Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” The conspiracy believers say that this term, “pull,” is jargon within the demolition industry for bringing down a building. The owner of the building attempted to clarify his remarks, saying what he meant was that the rescue operation should be “pulled” out. But the conspiracy believers won’t take that for an answer. They think he’s part of the cover-up or is being pressured to say this. Whatever. I think his explanation makes more sense. He was, after all, talking to the head of the rescue operation when he said “pull it.” The head of the rescue team is not going to know how to set off these supposed pre-planted charges. You’d bring in a demolition expert for that. This theory, and answers to it, are detailed in the Wikipedia link at the bottom of this article.
One of the things that it seems these people forget is that Building 7 only came down after the twin towers collapsed. If they were paying attention to the news coverage, and to the video of the events on the ground, they would’ve noticed that the collapse of the towers sprayed tons of heavy, hot, burning debris into surrounding buildings. These materials were hurled at high speeds, and crashed through the walls of the surrounding buildings.
Shortly after 9/11 I watched first-hand footage taken by rescue workers as they were making their way into one of the towers. As they were making their way up, the other tower collapsed, and it changed everything inside the tower the rescue workers were in. The tower was still standing, but shrapnel and dust had invaded it. It looked like a war zone. In fact, one piece of shrapnel, either from the tower they were in, or from the collapsed one, hit a firefighter and killed him. This was after the shrapnel had come crashing through the tower’s walls. That’s how powerful the impact of the collapse was. The exterior walls of each tower were made of steel, with segments weighing hundreds of pounds. These segments pummelled surrounding buildings as the tower collapsed. Building 7 was potentially the recipient of this heavy, high speed shrapnel from both towers. I don’t know if it was both or just one. The official story is that just this alone was enough to compromise its structural integrity. In fact, every World Trade building in the complex eventually collapsed, presumably for the same reason.
Lt. Col. Bob Bowman spoke next. He basically went on a rant about his conspiracy theory of what happened. He did not cite one source to back up what he was saying. I guess people were just supposed to take his word for it. Oh, and he’s running for Congress in the 15th district in Florida. Can you guess why he was there?
Webster Tarpley, an author, spoke next. He did the same thing. He went on a rant, talking about a few conspiracy theories with the assumption that everyone in the audience knew what he was talking about. He cited no sources for what he said. He also hocked his book. “It’s all in my book.”
Prof. James Fetzer spoke next. He’s a retired philosophy professor, specializing who specialized in computational cognition at the University of Minnesota. He founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Gee, given the subjects they talked about, wouldn’t it be better to be a professor of physics, like Dr. Jones, or civil engineering, or architecture? Would a professor of philosophy have anything valuable to say on this subject? You know, something scholarly? In my opinion, no.
He made a series of accusations. I’ve included what I’ve found, though I don’t have time to answer every one of them. I’ll include some counterpoint links at the end by people who have done much more thorough research, though they won’t answer all these accusations:
- None of the hijackers appeared in passenger manifests. Every look-up I’ve done online on the passenger manifests always lists the hijackers separate from the passengers. So just based on documentary evidence it’s difficult to argue against this. This is a weak reference, but it’s all I’ve got at this point. There was a movie produced a couple years ago, called “D.C. 9/11,” for HBO. It’s out on video. It’s based on interviews with the Bush Administration done by 3 journalists: one liberal (Mort Kondracke), one conservative (Fred Barnes), and one independent (don’t know the name). It’s a dramatization of what happened inside the Bush Administration from September 11 to September 22, I think. It shows an American Airlines flight attendant calling her airline using an in-flight phone, during the hijacking. She names the hijackers on her flight, based on the passenger manifest, and where they were sitting before the attack started. The movie shows that the list was then passed on to George Tenet at the CIA, and finally to President Bush.
- No autopsy was done on the bodies. I can find no online references to refute this. I can only speculate that at least in the cases of the planes that crashed into the twin towers, that the bodies were incinerated and crushed. First, by the explosion from the planes crashing into the buildings, and then by the collapse of the buildings. Some people may have in effect been cremated. There are people who were known to be trapped in the buildings, but whose remains have not been found, except perhaps for small belongings, like wristwatches. An extremely meticulous sifting operation was set up to go through all of the remains and try to identify victims. In a lot of cases the only remains found, if any, were small body parts. Sometimes all they had to go on was DNA identification. It’s not realistic to conduct an autopsy in those cases.
- 5-7 of the hijackers have turned up alive in the Middle East. He said they were interviewed by the Guardian and the BBC. There is a link below that goes into this in more depth. It looks like this was a case of mistaken identity.
- Special Agent Flagg of the FBI said the FBI knew almost immediately who the hijackers were, because apparently one of them had left luggage at Logan Airport, containing the list of all of the names. He thought that was too convenient. All I can say here is judge for yourself.
- The hijackers could not have flown the planes. He said they were “low-grade operatives” who, to use a phrase, couldn’t tie their own shoelaces. All I can say to this is that according to eyewitnesses who saw Flight 93 from the ground before it crashed, the plane was flying very low, and erratically. According to the flight recorder the plane continuously lost altitude, after the point where the hijacking starts. This is a testament to the hijackers’ lack of skill. And of course it took no skill at all to crash the plane into the ground. This is just one example. Some might wonder how the other planes could’ve made their targets. One thing that was common about all of them is that their targets were huge. One might say hard to miss. It’s unlikely that Flight 93 was headed for the White House, because it’s too small. It’s easy to miss it from the air. More likely it was headed to the Capitol building. Again, a large target.
- The cell phone calls that were reported could not have happened at the altitude and speed the planes were flying. He even made fun of the Bingham family’s recollection of the event, that they received a call from Mark Bingham, who identified himself. He was incredulous that the family believed the man at the other end of the line was telling the truth. What he neglects is that some of the callers used the in-flight telephones, which are on the backs of all the seats. People can make calls on them at any altitude or speed. They cost a lot to use, but what did the passengers have to lose at that point? This sort of thing could be easily confirmed by call records (on a cell phone), or the credit card record (for the in-flight phone). This may not be public record, even if revealed as evidence in a trial.
- The evidence showing that the passengers on Flight 93 used a drink cart in their attempt to crash through the cockpit door came from the cockpit voice recorder. He said in a “well duh!” tone of voice that this device does not record voices in the passenger cabin. Given that there was a lot of yelling going on, and the voices purported to be coming from the passenger cabin were muffled, I find it plausible that some of the noise from the passengers had “leaked through” the cockpit wall, and reached the cockpit microphone. If someone wants to do a scientific test of this, be my guest.
- The released voice recordings of the hijackers in the cockpit were faked. The voice recordings showed them saying “Allah akbar,” which translated means “God is great,” just before plunging to their deaths. A Muslim scholar who is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth said that a true Muslim facing imminent death would only say, “There is but one god, and Muhammad is his prophet.” He accused the government of “getting its script wrong.” This is his weakest charge. Who said these hijackers were “true Muslims”? This judgement is totally subjective.
- Zacharias Moussaoui admitted to a different plot when he was first interviewed, to fly a plane into the White House to extort the release of a Muslim sheik who had been captured in 1993. No comment on this.
- An FBI agent who had Moussaoui under observation before the 9/11 attacks warned his superiors 70 times that he was probably involved in a terror plot, and that he might’ve been training to fly a plane into the World Trade Center. The agent said it was a lucky guess. Dr. Fetzer didn’t take this as evidence that warnings were ignored, but rather that the government knew all along that no hijackers were involved in the attack. Huh. I thought he was going to say that this proved that the government knew relevant information about the terror plot, but did nothing to prevent it. But then, that would go against their predominant theory: There were no hijackers.
Fetzer concluded with a statement saying that the government knew Moussaoui wasn’t a terrorist, and was keeping people like him “in reserve” for their cover story, and that the terror attack was a “matter of policy.”
Fetzer cited little source material for his accusations. He just stated them as facts. See what I mean? Not a scholarly presentation.
There was a central theme throughout the presentation: There were no hijackers. The planes were flown by remote control–just as outlined in Operation Northwoods. This I think is the weakest charge they make. The natural question that comes to mind is, “Okay then. What the hell happened to all the passengers on those flights??” In fact, in a brief Q&A session that happened afterwards, someone from the audience said that he believed that 9/11 was an inside job and had tried to “educate” others about this. He said that a couple of questions most people asked him were: “What happened to the original planes?” and “What happened to the people on them?” Sounds logical to me, in a “well DUH!” kind of way. 🙂 Talk about a hole you could drive a truck through! Alex Jones responded, saying that people needed to stick to the facts that they have and not get into matters that are debatable. He also claimed that the military industrial complex orchestrated the attacks and that he had evidence to support this notion. Basically he was saying that it didn’t matter that nobody knows right now “what happened” to the passengers, or the original planes. Well this conspiracy theory is going to be pretty hard to sell if no one can answer those questions. That’s like saying that a block of material was chopped into a bunch of little pieces, but the collective mass now weighs less. This just doesn’t make sense. There’s a little thing called conservation of matter. You can’t just make the people on the planes go away. Too bad it gets in the way of these people’s fantasy world.
This was mentioned a couple times, and it seems to me they would’ve had more credibility if they had just said they wanted it, and left out all the sensational stuff. They said that there has never been an official investigation of the 9/11 attack. They may have an arguably legitimate beef. I thought the 9/11 Commission covered all this. I haven’t read their report, but I heard that they told the story from beginning to end how Al Qaeda organized the attack, the steps they went through, etc. Maybe they didn’t cover the actual attacks on the buildings, the collapses of the buildings in the World Trade Center complex, etc. Anyway, NIST is studying that now.
Links to further resources:
9/11 conspiracy theories at Wikipedia – This is an exhaustive article on conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. It includes information about the supposed “surviving” hijackers.
Hunt the Boeing! – Discusses conspiracy theories about the destruction of one side of the Pentagon in 9/11, and gives evidence showing that Flight 77 really did crash into the building.
A Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, at AboveTopSecret.com – Further evidence about Flight 77.
Edit: I did a look-up online at the New York Times’s web site for the article that Dr. Stephen Jones referred to, about a sulfide coating on beams from the World Trade Center, or Twin Towers. I found a single article, dated 12/23/03 that talked about lawsuits that were filed in California by dairy farm workers who said they were exposed to hydrogen sulfide gas. It makes reference to the twin towers, but only to describe what it was like in one incident for a man to get crushed by a large bail of hay. Maybe the web site doesn’t have every single article published in the hardcopy newspaper. If anyone knows different, please let me know.