BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11
A few months ago Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's upping the ante."We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."
Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term. Most of the members are less well-known.
The group's charges include:
• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen
• No Air Force or Air National Guard jets were sent to "scramble" the hijacked planes, which were clearly deviating from their flight plans, although jet fighters had been deployed for scramblings 67 times in the year prior to 9/11.
• The video of Osama bin Laden found by American troops in Afghanistan in December 2001, in which bin Laden says he orchestrated the attacks, is not bin Laden.
The Scholars group hopes that media outlets around the world will ask experts in their areas to examine the group's findings and assertions. If this were done, they argue,
"one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world."
Source : Here
The 'Academicians' have developed their own web site which can be found here. The site includes a must read (Microsoft word) document here. Also as astutely noticed by Logical Voice you should note the surprise discovery that Bin Laden does not appear to be wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 atrocity at all.
Very intriguing reading.
posted by _H_ at 10:19 pm
48 Comments:
The pre-positioned explosives theory was always the most ridiculous to me. Due to the lack of Star Trek transporter technology in the real world, the explosives would have to be carried in and carefully placed encased in flame retardant, heat-proofed material in a location just above where it was known the plane would strike (note to pilot, don't miss the floor you are supposed to hit). Doing this would take a team of saboteurs several days in the least. And all this would need to be done without one single person who worked in the towers saying, "Hey, why are you guys planting these many tonnes of explosives around the support beams of the tower?"
Conspiracy theorists gone mad. Down right insulting to be honest. While American and British troops are loosing their lives to protect the people back home in their cooshey arm chairs, they should have some respect. No democratic leader in their right mind would kill 3000 of their own people in order to make an excuse to go to war.
They are just apologists of another kind.
I agree Djeb on the 'pre-positioned explosives theory' It is hard to Imagine how they could have been put in place.
To be fair to Steven Jones he never actually claimed that this is what happened. He is the first to admit that he has no idea what happened inside the tower. He presented this view only as a hypothesis based on factors that can be analyzed such as video footage of the towers and the effects on metal under extreme heat environments (which i 'think' is his speciality.)
my understanding of physics certainly is not good enough to confirm or deny such a claim.
But he is a physicist and certainly not a conspiracy theorist so he makes no effort to try and justify how,why,or when such an impossible task could have taken place. If he is correct with his calculations (and its a big if) then we would have to look at what possible explanations could fit such a hypothesis
I certainly can't think of any. As you say its impossible to believe that troops of people carried explosives into those buildings .At the very least it would have taken so many people and so much planning that it would have been impossible to keep quite (especially when so many people died)
But to me the first question is , could the heat generated from the amount of fuel on board those planes actually bring the towers down ? There are examples similar planes hitting buildings and the structure remaining to some degree after. But I have no idea if in the other examples the planes were carrying similar amounts of fuel or not.
I think Professor jones was (in his November paper) asking serious questions. He was not supplying any serious answers. I personally hope that more research is done into the effects of aviation fuel fires upon such structures and obviously calculating the increased impact of such fires based on the mass , speed etc of planes hitting the towers in the way that they did.
more generally on the claims being made by him on Friday that Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen is a view that I think we would be foolish to dismiss out of hand.
For now I will continue to see this as intriguing reading that may or may not contain elements that are accurate and wait to see what sort analysis is done on the work by those better qualified than me to assess.
As for the events of 9/11 in general I feel confident in saying the events did not happen 'exactly' as we were told they did. But I still refrain from taking the claim any further until a lot more investigation into the events takes place.
Probably the truth will only be known long after this current US administration have left office. They clearly lie about almost anything they can get away with so its a real up hill struggle to find any truth in their sea of lies.
The military actions of which you speak, Lennie, have not only (predictably) increased terrorist recruitment, they have increased terrorist acts (and committed such acts themselves in some cases). They are not protecting people in comfy armchairs such as yourself.
Second, many democratic leaders would indeed kill their own citizens for their own gain if they felt they could get away with it. But they would not target "their base" (to use Bush's words) as the 9/11 attacks did. One who comes from the financial elite would not target his own when any attack would do as an excuse for a nation that is willing to go to war on a whim.
Just to add to what I said earlier, the beams in the WTC were encased in sheetrock, not concrete. As such, it is not surprising that they were weakened by the fire to the point that they lost their structural integrity. Additionally, the supports were not redundant enough to withstand the cascading collapse that occurred. Had the building been better build, it likely would have stayed standing. Other buildings such as the Empire State Building (interesting name for a building) have survived hits. However, the Empire State was hit by a fairly small aircraft and it is infamous for its strenght. It is essentially a giant lump of reinforced conrete. It was built before lighter-weight building techniques were developed. You could hit the thing with an Airbus A380f and it would not cause the entire buiding to collapse as the WTCs did.
As an aside, my background is in physics and I can tell everyone that being a physicist does not preclude one from notions that defy the laws of physics - one I know believes that martial artists could kick down streetlight posts.
Lennie
While American and British troops are loosing their lives to protect the people back home in their cooshey arm chairs ...
How exactly are they protecting me ? Lliving in London and watching people die due to the recent terrorist attack makes it clear we are not being protected by troops in Iraq or Afghanistan ? . If those troops had been guarding the London underground I may see your point. In fact I am being put in danger by the actions of democratically electected governments who are encouraging the recruitment of 'terrorists' by there very actions. How can fighting people in Iraq make us any safer from terrorists at home ?
your a part time policeman so you tell me what in the slightest would the war in Iraq have to do with my safety. I can see that people have died due to it , I fail to see a single example of how lives at home here in the UK , or Spain or Bali have been saved . please elaborate ?
Also what evidence do you have that Bin laden committed the crime in question ? your obviously used to evidence being required so please show me the evidence that Bin Laden was aware of the event and was directly connected to it ?
Please don't point me to his taped confession which has been proven to an accuracy of 95% by independent Swiss research to be a fake(as reported by all the major news networks) for you know as well as I do that such a tape would not stand up to much scrutiny in a court of law.
It is now 2006 so it should be very easy to point me to evidence that directly links Bin laden to the crimes we were told were committed by Bin Laden in 2001 . the FBI have not directly linked him for his top ten wanted status (updated in Nov 2001) clearly states that
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
There is no mention of 9/11 at all .
so please show me what the FBI and millions of others have failed to see ?
As for your 'no democratically elected leader....'
there seems to be so much of history you have missed. to start with Hitler was democraticly elected (albiet under a rather dubious version of democracy) and the burning of The Reichstag is well known as an act commited by a government that was then blammed on the jews.
In general you as a part time constable should no better than most that opinion has very little value unless backed up with evidence. I personally am not claiming that this article is factual. I print it as it is presented and call it 'intriguing reading' . neither am I claiming that Bin Laden is not connected to the crimes on 9/11 . I am stating that no evidence what so ever has been presented that prooves his guilt to a degree that would stand up in a court.
You however have dismissed it , so please supply sources and data to justify your view that you hold. Just saying something is incorrect without providing anything what so ever to justify such a view would be a little foolish don't you think ?
Djeb
I take your point on the physics . Infact a family member is very senior in the institute of physics in the UK and believed that a spider on the wall was a male due to it being 'big'
taking your point on board about the PPET what do you think on the other claims made such as prior knowledge by any element within the administration ?
Of course, there was prior knowledge that an attack was likely as we know from the memo "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." Anything else is speculation. Moreover, it is speculation of conspiracy, which grates on my nerves. The underlying message behind conspiracy theories is that your fate is under the control of a few powerful individuals, so anything you do to try and improve the world is moot. It also implies that there is nothing wrong with the political system itself, it is just infected with bad people. I disagree. I feel that the system itself is fundamentally flawed and purging those individuals will not correct the problem.
hehehe , i thought calling something a conspiracy was a simple way to stop people who think to much from finding out the truth . its an easy way to ridicule people without having to question their theory.
a conspiracy to me is An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act .So surely even if Bin laden did commit the crime we would call such a thing a conspiracy.
to conspire these days brings along connotations such as the ones you mention above.
but one thing for sure , somebody flew those planes into those towers and it must have been planed so we can now safely call the the official story we are told a conspiracy too
I for different reasons dislike the word 'conspiracy' it invokes all of those things you mention but it shouldn't . it should merely represent a secret plan or plot to commit a crime or do harm often for political ends.
there really shouldn't be any connection to taking self responsibility away or for assuming that we all run and start watching the x-files
in simple terms to claim that Bin laden was behind the bombing of the world trade centre is itself literally a conspiracy theory.
on your point of I feel that the system itself is fundamentally flawed and purging those individuals will not correct the problem.
my total agreement
I understand that the mission of the blog is not generally for the two of you to write original longer posts (or so it seems to me), but I find that the various comments are the most interesting parts of the blog because each of you have interesting and developed viewpoints that you express well. I don't always agree with you by any stretch, but I think this blog speaks most eloquently when your personae come through in comments.
I think that you should consider changing the structure of the blog in the following way: Instead of often lengthy summaries of different source articles, just do block quotes of the lede or key paragraph(s) of the article with a link. Then write longer commentaries about the topic along the lines of what you have in this comment thread. I think that this would make for a more interesting and distinctive blog, and it would lessen the impression that you are endorsing the articles you summarize and link to with the "source" link. With shorter extracts and more original commentary in the body of the blog (instead of in comments), it will be easier to see your nuanced viewpoints even if you have linked to something that many readers would discount as a conspiracy site.
Just a thought.
"hehehe , i thought calling something a conspiracy was a simple way to stop people who think to much from finding out the truth ."
It is a very, very hard thing to say what the "truth" of anything is. However, to try to find it, one needs solid evidence. Jones has none. The collapse can be explained as the effect of planes hitting two buildings that were not built as strongly as most skyscrapers. His hypothesis, however, is lacking vital evidence like explosions. It also raises questions that he wisely avoided like why the WTC workers didn't say "boo" when demolitions experts were carefully placing tonnes explosives around the buildings' main support beams over the period of several weeks.
"a conspiracy to me is An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act ."
Yes, I agree. I'm talking about conspiracy theories, though - attempts to find hidden, sinister motives behind events that already have a perfectly logical explanation.
"So surely even if Bin laden did commit the crime we would call such a thing a conspiracy."
Indeed. If he were tried, he would be charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder. Either way, someone, as you say, conspired to fly planes into those buildings. But I'm talking about conspiracy theories, not conspiracies.
"in simple terms to claim that Bin laden was behind the bombing of the world trade centre is itself literally a conspiracy theory."
Indeed. The idea that a guy in a cave is coordinating a plan of attack that the hijackers themselves could pull off using their own brains, cash, flying skill, box cutters and synchronised watches is rather silly to me. It's quite possible that he helped finance it, but for him to plan it would simply be a bad way to manage the operation.
well we have almost reached agreement.
Certainly on all you say about the work of jones you will get no complaint from me.
purely on your description of conspiracy theories ....
The term is often used pejoratively to dismiss 'allegedly' misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors. It is very easy to call something a conspiracy theory and it is just as easy to reject the term as prejudicial, and argue that you are using it in an attempt to evade an analysis of the subject.
It is too vague and over used (in my view) and there is no sure fire system to define what is or is not a conspiracy theory. So if I wish to dismiss something that is said to me I merely have to call it a conspiracy theory to feel I have said something above reproach and beyond question.
For example it is not correct to say that all conspiracy theories are false. but the phrase when used implies the subject under discussion is in fact a false one. where such an assumption is not necessarily true. Hence it has become to me a phrase with more propaganda value than genuine meaning.
even when I hear the words my brain defines the subject as being false , where as 'conspiracy theory' means no such thing by defintion.
It is often used by people as if it has some deep and meaningful conclusion that could be drawn from the phrase but their is none . Calling something a conspiracy theory does not in any way negate the accuracy of the claims being made it merely removes the debate from serious discussion and allows the ridicule of the person outside of the claims they are making
In many ways no different discussing with someone who 'believes' that they may have seen something strange in the sky by using the phrase 'little green men' . such a phrase implies the person is a little crazy and hence you no longer need to take seriously anything else they may say on the subject.
I personally feel that what is important is the scientific accuracy of any claim and not how a person (who is by definition subjective) classifies any given subject and it is much more important to dismiss a theory based on logic and reason than it is to pigeon hole it under a banner called 'conspiracy theories'
now when I become supreme being of the universe I will ban the phrase 'conspiracy theories' to force everyone to treat each claim with the individual analysis that it deserves
how much analysis does a claim deserve ?
well that's a whole new debate I suppose , one that has happened before and ended up with the abuse of the perfectly good words 'conspiracy' and , 'theory'
I know what you are saying, _H_. I agree that the term is used pejoratively. Let me just say that I find institutional theory far more accurate and productive than conspiracy theory.
It seems I have managed to strike a nerve unintentionally. I was referring to the "evidence" and not your thoughts on them.
Djeb: “They are not protecting people in comfy armchairs such as yourself.”
Whilst my armchair is comfy I don’t sit in it for long. Had they not removed his regime it would have come back to bite us in the future.
“many democratic leaders would indeed kill their own citizens for their own gain if they felt they could get away with it.”
I’m sorry you feel that way.
_H_: "How exactly are they protecting me ?"
I believe that if Saddam wasn't removed, or if the Taliban weren't put in check in Afghanistan, then they (Saddams Regime & the Taliban) would eventually gain enough power to become a credible threat. A threat that would have the potential for much more blood shed.
"How can fighting people in Iraq make us any safer from terrorists at home?"
A stable Iraq/Middle East would hopefully mean a more peaceful western world. Unfortunately foreign policy hasn't exactly worked for the last x no. of years...Allowing religious fundamentalists who openly want to destroy Democracy flourish. Our governments have definitely had a part to play in the screw ups. But we have to play with the cards we are dealt.
"Also what evidence do you have that Bin laden committed the crime in question ?"
I never said he did. I just said that a democratic government would not kill 3000 of its own people to start a war.. There is no need to jump on your high horse ;)
"As for your 'no democratically elected leader....'"
I am aware of Hitler. There always exceptions to the rule. As nuts as I think Bush is, I don't believe the American establishment would ever allow that to happen.
"You however have dismissed it , so please supply sources and data to justify your view that you hold. Just saying something is incorrect.."
I said it was insulting. I didn’t say it was incorrect, nor did I dismiss it. Believe it or not I am a scientific man. I do believe in tangible evidence to prove hypothesise. There is however a point at which any person can justify a certain set of circumstances by interpreting the data in a certain way. The Labour government can for example spin any data they want to give a positive outcome. I am merely saying you will always find someone who can twist the truth. I tend to go with the main stream. But this does not mean I am not open to other suggestions. I'm sure if the theories were more credible they would be more publicised by now.
This can explain how a pilot could indeed hit the floor they were supposed to hit.
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/WitnessesLink.htm
Here are some more supporting the explosives theory:
http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.ann.thompson.intermediate.explosions.wmv
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv
http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
CBS News Channel Eyewitness Describes 'Secondary Explosions' in WTC:
The following clips originate from CBS Channel 2 in New York. The reporter is in a helicopter as the WTC Towers collapse:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042704secondaryexplosions.htm
Louie Cacchioli, 51, a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. Was quoted as saying:
"We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"
Source:
http://prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.htm
Here is some video evidence of explosions going off just a few floors below the collapsing upper floors:
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/wtc-2_demolition_waves.mpg
This reporter's video was shot just before and during the collapse of the South Tower:
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem4/911.wtc.2.demoltion.west.below.wmv
Quicktime video of squibs ejecting vertically as the North Tower collapses above them:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/squibs_and_streamers.mov
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, January 25, 2001. Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, died on 9/11/2001 in the World Trade Center attack.(Video of the Demartini interview):
http://www.freepressinternational.com/wtc_11152004_manager_88888.html
10 minute video presentation by MIT Engineer/Research Scientist, Jeff King talking about the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings:
http://reopen911.org/video/cte_07.mov
"Whilst my armchair is comfy I don’t sit in it for long. Had they not removed his regime it would have come back to bite us in the future."
To do what? Getcha? Iraq would have launched an attack against Britain? Be serious. It would take a country that devastated (pre-2003 war) a century to build itself up to a level anywhere near strong enough to threaten Britain.
'many democratic leaders would indeed kill their own citizens for their own gain if they felt they could get away with it.'
"I’m sorry you feel that way."
We already know that they are perfectly willing to put them in harm's way improperly equipped. We also know they they have, on paper, planned to kill their own on U.S. soil (ie. the March Plan) for propaganda purposes.
"I believe that if Saddam wasn't removed, or if the Taliban weren't put in check in Afghanistan, then they (Saddams Regime & the Taliban) would eventually gain enough power to become a credible threat. A threat that would have the potential for much more blood shed."
Quite literally your opinion. That is to say, zero supporting evidence. They always were a threat to their own population, but if the governments of the first world didn't like that, they shouldn't have supported them. The most powerful countries were perfectly happy to have them around as long as they followed orders. The brutality of these states was of no concern to them. Case in point, current U.S. and UK support for Islam Karimov's regime. You've heard of him - the guy who boils his opponents to death; the guy who sends out the army to kill protesters. A guy like that is pretty dangerous. Then why support him?
"A stable Iraq/Middle East would hopefully mean a more peaceful western world. Unfortunately foreign policy hasn't exactly worked for the last x no. of years...Allowing religious fundamentalists who openly want to destroy Democracy flourish. Our governments have definitely had a part to play in the screw ups. But we have to play with the cards we are dealt."
The effects of the war were predictable and predicted. I give you the FBI:
"[A] war with Iraq could trigger new domestic terrorism risks."
Or perhaps Jean-Louis Bruguiere, "the French judge who is the dean of the region's investigators after two decades fighting Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorists," who said "Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it."
"Allowing religious fundamentalists who openly want to destroy Democracy flourish."
You very well could be speaking of allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Jordan, etc.
Phishy:
thanks for all the links , excellent range of video sources and well worth examining .
Lennie:
I would (and will) take issue with the points made in your reply to me , almost all of them , but forcing you to reply to two people at once is a little unfair so if you are still willing to debate your points after you have concluded your discussion with djeb I would be delighted to take you up on the points made to myself .
Thank you for returning to clarify your view
Voice:
With you all the way
Anonymous:
thanks for the critic , I will have a ponder on your thoughts , as for debating with Djeb we agree so often that it would become very boring , this thread was a rare moment of minor differences of opinion . I cant see it happening that often
but thanks for your view of our site , I appreciate that
For those that believe that America or any other nation wouldn't kill a few thousands of their own people (or by inaction allow to be killed) for political or monetary gain, wake up!
The US did precisely the same thing at Pearl Harbor, leaving 2400 US servicemen dead, so that they could enter WWII.
As for the comment about the 'maintenance' at the World Trade Center, this had apparently been planned for at least a year or more. How often in your builing do you have maintenance checks, or upgrades? Would you notice. These men would likely be professionals and not have a lunch box with C4 written on it. Just think about the resources that they'd have at their disposal.
How often in your builing do you have maintenance checks, or upgrades?
Not often.
Would you notice.
Every time it has happened, I have noticed. Not everyone is as alert as me, but not everyone is asleep, either.
Furthermore, setting explosive charges takes a lot of work. In the case of the WTC, the sheetrock would be stripped off exposing the beams. Then the explosives would need to be set with redundant detonators: both wired and wireless as they would most certainly receive damage in the crash. Additionally, such charges would make very visible and audible explosions like this.
But why bother with explosives at all? Jets would be enough. The building was build without the standard concrete reenforcement around the support beams. The main support for the building was in the exterior beams - many of which would have been damaged or broken when the planes hit - along with additional support at the core around the elevators. The building used bar joists in the floors to support their weight. In the words of architect Jim Mallot on Sept 13, 2001, "If any part of that system failed in any of its joints, the whole system could fail. And unlike more conventional buildings where you had columns spaced every 30 feet or so each way, this building didn't have any such thing in the interior spaces. So when that aircraft struck -- or the aircraft struck yesterday, the first thing that happened was the impact peeled off all the fire-protective gypsum. And it took about an hour from the time that steel was first struck until the fire in there so weakened the steel... that is collapsed."
Jones makes a stink about the fires not being able to reach 800C (others say only 590 degrees would be needed), I offer the following in rebuttal to that claim:
According to Francis Brannigan author of Building Construction for the Fire Service, "…temperatures in excess of 2000 degrees [Farenheit, 1090C] are the rule in severe fires. The average person has no idea of the temperatures which can be reached in a quite ordinary fire."(Brannigan 1971, p245).
moslem terrorist destroyed it.they'll all die for doing it.every one of them,sooner the better.i hope they run out of virgins for them and have to substitue camels.(most will like the camels better)
how scientific :-)
any Evidence you can show us of any of that ?
nobody else has managed to do so. Maybe when the whole world 'appears' to have it's head up its ass your perspective is in fact a reflection of yourself
I accept your 'opinion' is that 'moslem terrorist destroyed it' but this thread is about the search for 'facts' to proove or not who commited that act .
I appreciate your right to hold the opinion that you do . but it really has no place in this thread unless you can show me evidence that would be considered good enough to be used in a (independent) court of law
djeb, in response to Jim Mallot's take on the structural integrity of the WTC I offer this:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/wtc_11152004_manager_88888.html
Also the fire would have to have burned extremely intense for way more then just an hour.If you want i can post links that support this.
However djeb, I don't believe you bothered to check out any of the links i provided.
"Furthermore, setting explosive charges takes a lot of work. In the case of the WTC, the sheetrock would be stripped off exposing the beams. Then the explosives would need to be set with redundant detonators: both wired and wireless as they would most certainly receive damage in the crash. Additionally, such charges would make very visible and audible explosions like this."
So maybe you can explain how WTC7 collapsed on top of itself, exactly as the buildings in controlled demos fall on themselves.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
When could they have wired building 7?
Are you aware that a skyscraper has never been taken down by fire? Unless of course if you believe the 9/11 comissions report. In which case the WTC would be the very first to do so.
Also why haven't you considered any of the many first hand accounts of explosions going off?
The problem is that making a claim is easy. Disproving it takes a lot more work (one of the reasons I just ax disruptive posts on A Logical Voice, for example).Perhaps when I retire, I can find the time to investigate each claim point by point, including new ones that arise. However, as far as a conspiracy theory that goes completely against institutional theory goes, I feel I've done enough to disprove it already. If people insist on believing it, they insist on believing it. C'est la vie.
How many have read the paper by Jones? Seen the pictures in the links? There are photos of the bulidings in their construction phases - believe me - that core was solid.
The architect said the buildings were designed to take a hit like that, not only once, but twice.
There is enough photographic evidence being shown to give me plenty of cause to want a reinvestigation!
Jones is being cool, evidence says this is possible (explosives), prove me right or wrong - and let the chips fall where they may!
On one video I saw that Bush's brother was head of security in the towers up until Sept. 10th. Evdently security drills were done in the few weeks prior to the attact - that cleared numbers of floors at a time. Coould have been a chance to sneak in contraband. Anyone else see that part?
Gary
Also djeb, here are some "visual audible explosions"
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/squibs_and_streamers.mov
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/wtc-2_demolition_waves.mpg
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem4/911.wtc.2.demoltion.west.below.wmv
Thanks for the latest. The first has no sound and I see no explosion in it.
The second has sound, but all I hear is the collapse and all I see is the rippling way that architect Jim Mallot mentioned in his interview (link above). Same for number three.
How did you disprove anything? Your joking right? When have I once mentioned "conspiracy theories"? Or is that the label that you just gave me?
H, am I a "disruptive poster"? Cause certainly do not want to be where I'm not wanted?
Phishy
You are always welcome here you know that , your not disruptive at all. your views are welcome and always appreciated , you have never once offended me and you know darn well that I would endorse and agree with at least 95 % of what you post.
Djeb doesn't agree with your view on 'this subject' but I can assure you he would agree with about 95 % of what you post.
Please don't be take issue here , we all wish to see the end of the bush regime and we all see the administration as being in serious contempt so this (in my view) is no reason to break ranks with like minded people.
I have always appreciated your visits here and I personally view you as a friend.
I do agree that the evidence in what you have shown contradicts the official version and should be examined. I personally have not ruled out jones paper but as jones himself says he wants experts from around the world to examine his work and find fault with it.
Its a hypothesis under examination and in my views deserves further experiment but until it has been examined by many equally qualified people I have not ruled it in or out.
what is important to me is that apart from this particular issue there are hundreds of important questions that are unanswered about the tragic events on 9/11 . I want to see a new inquiry and I would still hold that view whether this claim is 'exactly' how it happened or not.
Please speak your mind and Djeb will speak his but remember we are all on the same side.
respect and good to see you as per usual .
Gary
"There is enough photographic evidence being shown to give me plenty of cause to want a reinvestigation!"
I am certainly with you there and if there is nothing too it then an open and public inquiry will show that.I am not sure how I feel to be honest but I am sure the answers we have been given by the US government are not accurate and truthful and on that bases I would certainly support the re-opening of the files.
I can tell you I feel sick about the potentials to come from this. I am not an alarmist but I feel the true stripes of those in charge need to be seen, and as you say - if they are clean, so be it. Yet, if they are dirty, better to out them now, rather than later.
Gary
First off STP, I offer my apologies. I was in no way trying to imply that you were a disruptive poster. In hindsight, I should have made a different analogy. I've read all of your posts since I've become a regular here and each time I see one I look forward to it. (And best of all, you are not G.) I, for one, want you here.
On to disproving things. As with any claim, if one can reasonably demonstrate it is false, it is considered disproved. The Earth was believed to be flat by some. That was disproved. JJ Thompson's "raisin bum model" of the atom was disproved, as was Bohr's model (which Bohr knew to be incorrect anyway).
Also, you have not mentioned a conspiracy theory - in this case I prefer to say conspiracy hypothesis. The words are not needed, however. Were the towers to have been brought down by explosives, that would imply a team of people conspiring to place and detonate those explosives. The explosives would not be able to walk in and place themselves.
"The explosives would not be able to walk in and place themselves."
Maybe it was a smart bomb! LOL
Gary
The architect said the buildings were designed to take a hit like that, not only once, but twice.
The architect, Jim Mallot, said at 4 minutes 41 seconds in that the Empire State building withstood it's hit (by a smaller aircraft) because it was built in a different way, ie. concrete encased beams. At 5 minutes 34 seconds in, the interviewer said that "what you are suggesting here is if the building was built in a more conventional way, those several thousand people in each building may still be alive [sic] today," to which Mallot responded "Some of them would have been." He goes on to suggest "another kind of failure". In short, Mallot says the design of the design of the WTC is at fault. He claims that other buildings could have survived, but the WTC was not built as strongly as it could have been.
Phishy, I just want to add that I happen to disagree with you on this point, but am not against you. I certainly hope not only to see you around here, but to see more of you around here - if you can tolerate my occassional unwise choice of analogy.
To everyone else, I won't be back until I get my damned foot out of my mouth...
Well, the way I see it, the only solution is to resurrect the Warren Commission and let them take a shot at it.
When I said architect, I meant the one in charge of the WTC towers design. He had many others working on the design.
To back up - I have done a lot of reading and poking around on this issue and I find a lot of contradicting information being circulated. There is a lot of politics going on here - not good.
I look at the pictures, the construction pictures from way back when, and I say we need to know more. A lot of info we are being fed does not add up.
The thing we need to remember as members of "the public" is that much of the information we get is filtered. In this day and age it is hard to believe your own eyes because images are too easy to doctor.
All I know is that things do not add up - we need to know more - and it will take a non-partisan investigation to get there, if we ever do.
When I saw the live footage I wondered how the buildings could fall so symetrically, straight down.
The damage was asymetrical - it should have toppled. The very first thing I wondered was where are the F-15s? We are supposed to be a guarded country!
One of the hijacked planes, if not all, flew around for way too long without any intercept! (after controllers awareness)
I saw the programs on A&E last night about the air controllers. The Air Force was never mentioned as being around - or even asked to be. The exception to that was the incident in Alaska with the Korean jet that I had not even heard of before. F-15s went out on that one, and it was the false alarm!
Remember when Payne Stewart's jet went off course the Air Force went right up to see why! As I understand it they scramble very often on false alarms. Payne Stewart was not a false alarm, neither was Sept. 11.
I can't say what it is, because I do not have enough accurate information - but something aint right! It's just plain obvious by what we did not see! (as well as what we did see)
Gary
Hype, I'm a little confused. If conspiring is how to get things done, how come I shouldn't cal this a conspiracy? (Actually, I'm calling it a conpiracy hypothesis.)
I have not read not seen all the info on the bomb hypothesis, but I have seen what was posted here and more and haven't seen anything that needs the bomb hypothesis to explain it. A friend once gave me a creationist video to watch and what I found on it were exceedingly weak arguments (and outright manipulation of biologists quotes) attempting to prove Biblical literalism. I don't need to read every such essay nor see every such documentary to say that creationism is hookum.
Gary, I have seen the construction photos. But eyeballing them does not tell me much. I get a lot more information from Jim Mallot's explanation of the building's construction.
When I saw the live footage I wondered how the buildings could fall so symetrically, straight down.
The damage was asymetrical - it should have toppled.
Personally, I was shocked. I thought the top might topple, but was horrified to see the whole works go. After seeing the first, I knew that the second might go, which of course it did. This, however, is explained in Jim Mallot's interview. For more on the collapse, please see The sequence of structural events that challenged the forensic effort of the World Trade Center disaster.
On the planes not being intercepted, it is neither here nor there with respect to the hypothesis that bombs were planted in the building. (On the planes, you might find the following intersting interesting. Payne Stewart's jet was intercepted by an already airbourne F-16 from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base [Source].)
You are right, the intercepts, lack of, and the demolition potential are not necessarily related.
The lack of intercept at all concerns me very much. What does/could that mean?
By the way, Larry Silverstein admitted that WTC7 was "pulled". I just wonder how they got so much explosives in place so quickly, when such a succesful drop takes days of planning. And, just how does one plant explosives in a building with fires in it? And is that the desicion of the fire department to make? Aparently Silverstein thought so.(but then he was well insured)
Gary
On jet intercepts:
The implication is that there is something “inexplicable” about jets flying from a base that is not the closest to an airborne target. Others have questioned why the mission was assigned to National Guard pilots rather than regular Air Force pilots. The issue is not whether or not an airfield is an Air Force Base or an Air National Guard Base. These are designations that are unrelated to whether or not an airfield is tasked by military authorities to scramble a jet interceptor in between five to ten minutes, which is the goal. Whether or not the scrambled jets are piloted by regular Air Force or the Air National Guard is also not important. At any given moment, the base tasked with scrambling jets may not be the closest base to a particular target.
Active fighter and interceptor jet bases are often located near the ocean, to allow for sonic booms during numerous training missions to happen over the ocean, thus reducing complaints from encroaching suburbs near other bases. This is the case with Otis and Langely.
Pilots are not sitting in their aircraft prior to a scramble order; they are sitting near their jets in what is called a “ready room.” They need to get to their jets, go through at least a basic systems check, power up the jet engines, taxi to the proper place on the runway depending on the winds, and then take-off. There is nothing “inexplicable” about this process taking six minutes.
Unlike Star Trek and Star Wars, the U.S. military does not have craft that can take off and reach maximum speed instantaneously. Jets cannot immediately hit their top speed if the pilots wish to survive the G-forces from rapid acceleration.
Any researcher can make a mistake, but in this case Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel refuse to admit they made a mistake, and have come up with more and more tortured explanations for their theory. At Political Research Associates our policy is to post our mistakes and corrections on our website, including a correction for a mistake I made on a Pacifica Radio interview concerning 9/11.
Among those who have challenged the Bykov / Israel article is progressive activist and military expert Stan Goff, (who is a frequently a critic of my work). Here is part of Goff’s critique from an online discussion list:
Bykov / Israel:
“ Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon. On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews.”
Goff:
“ Saying they were combat ready does not mean there was a stand-by status in effect. In other words, what was the status of the crews. How many were on stand-by, and what was their spin-up time? Ten minutes? Thirty minutes? One hours? Two hours? Is anyone actually suited up and ready to fly? If so, how many, and what are their standing orders? What is their primary mission?”
Bykov / Israel:
“ Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C.”
Goff:
“ Do you have documentation that states this is their mission?”
Bykov / Israel:
“ They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city.”
Goff:
“ I myself have questioned this, but the question remains, what was their actual status? Did they actually maintain ‘hot’ crews and craft? If the answer is no, it could concievably take well over an hour to get a bird aloft.”
According to the Bykov / Israel article, the failure to stop the attacks was evidence of an order to “stand down” from persons high up the chain of command:
Bykov / Israel:
“ This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.”
Goff criticized the claim by Bykov / Israel that the events of 9/11 proved complicity by government officials in the attacks:
Goff:
“ Wild generalization. You haven’t yet established what the procedures are. Yet you conclude they 'failed.' Whereupon you conclude it was done on purpose. Raising the question is one thing. But answering your own question without all the facts is another. The question of the actual alert status at Andrews, and the question of the FAA-USAF-NORAD procedures, and the question of whether anyone might have fucked up any of those procedures, are all open.” Source.
On 7 World Trade Center, I would direct you here. Or to An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7, which states that
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.
Here's the way I look at it. We pay the military to be at the ready, to react quickly to protect us. We pay them to do that.
If they are not ready - or effective at that - then we have a much larger problem than figuring out 9/11 !
Personly, I call "bull shit" on any one who trys to say it takes a long time to scramble. I have seen the documentaries about our readiness. Ready rooms are pretty damn ready!
Granted, there was some degree of stand down during the Clinton years, as he did cut military money to help the budget - but I strongly believe we still had plenty of readiness!
So - even if they were not that ready in the ready rooms - what about the missle batteries around the Pentagon? They are damn near automatic and very quick - and charged with the defense of our military leaders - ie the Pentagon.
What happened?
I want to know, and this is just absurd:
Goff:
“ Saying they were combat ready does not mean there was a stand-by status in effect. In other words, what was the status of the crews. How many were on stand-by, and what was their spin-up time? Ten minutes? Thirty minutes? One hours? Two hours? Is anyone actually suited up and ready to fly? If so, how many, and what are their standing orders? What is their primary mission?”
Give me a ^&*((&%^$ BREAK!!
We PAY for BETTER............
Gary
Desire and reality are not always the same thing. The amount of money you spend on your taxes has relatively little to do with the speed with which planes are able to scramble.
Additionally, belief is irrelevant. Only fact is relevant. As such, you have not rebutted what I have posted above.
" The amount of money you spend on your taxes has relatively little to do with the speed with which planes are able to scramble."
I agree, yet if we are not getting what we expect we have a bigger problem - as I said. Maybe that is my point.
On facts, I said I had seen tv documentaries about readiness, practice scrambles "Patrolled air space" over sensitive areas and such. I did consider that to mean it was a fact. If that is no longer true, then we have that bigger problem.
Am I to take it that you find it OK that those planes were flying, obviously hi-jacked, for so long with out a defense put up against them?
Gary
How do you respond to this:
http://www.st911.org/
Gary
"Am I to take it that you find it OK that those planes were flying, obviously hi-jacked, for so long with out a defense put up against them?"
Have I said something to suggest that I think it is ok? I have said that the facts are not known and in the absence of facts, there is no reason to take one speculation over another.
" How do you respond to this:
http://www.st911.org/"
At this time I can only respond that it will not load for me.
It loads now. I respond by asking if you have something specific you want me to look at. I will not waste my time critiquing an entire site.
Conpiracy and conspiracy theory (or in this case conspiracy hypothesis) are not the same thing.
Yes, when people plan in secret, they are, by definition, conspiring. This is not the same thing as a conspiracy theory (hypothesis). Moreover, because people conspire does not mean that a given conspiracy theory is therefore correct.
As for the 9/11 "theories," I'm not giving them the credit of being "theories." I'm calling them hypothesis. And when you say that "only serves those who would want to hide the conspiracy," you are assuming that the hypotheses are correct. If not, there would be no way for me to serve anyone by assigning any linguistic tag to them. I can only be "on that side," if "that side" were actually shown to exist.
Furthermore, by asking "why are you on that side?" you are not only assuming that "that side" exists, you are trying to emotionally manipulate me into your position. And you top it of with flattery to try and get the job done.
Please, I have not done anything unreasonable here. I have merely asked for evidence. There is no need to accuse me of something or try to manipulate me into some position. If these hypotheses can be demonstrated to be fact, I will support them. Until they are, I will not join in on this speculation.
I haven't reviewed the "evidence"?
Fallacy. Ignoring the counterevidence. Scroll up. I have addressed every point raised here.
I have no problem with conspiracies. I have problems with conspiracy theories.
As I said before, if these hypotheses can be demonstrated to be fact, which they have yet to be, I will support them.
Post a Comment
<< Home