2
   

Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!

 
 
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:07 am
I guess the truth was becoming too much for the Bushie crowd in the old Bush Aftermath thread. Apparently the author 'locked' it to prevent the posting of further truths! Perhaps to prevent the posting of this:



Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor." (Don't forget that Dubya supposedly wrote in his diary that night "We have just had another Pearl Harbor"- If anyone believes that King george wrote that all by his lonesome or even wrote it that night, I have a bridge for sale in the AZ desert)

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.
They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."


UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA James Fetzer 218 724-2706
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 21,079 • Replies: 486
No top replies

 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:19 am
lots of questions there maggin, got any answers?
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:27 am
book marking
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:28 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
lots of questions there maggin, got any answers?


I have an opinion but no I don't have the answers to these questions and they do need to be answered.

However, if they were answered, it might bring down those in the highest positions in the government of the U.S. That, IMO, would be the best thing that could happen to this country at this time.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:37 am
Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Dr. Steven E. Jones

Prison Planet | November 26 2005

Physics Professor Says Science Points To Conclusive Evidence of WTC Controlled Demolition

WTC Collapse: Professor Steven E. Jones
Alex speaks with the suddenly controversial Brigham Young University Physics Professor about his recent realization that the WTC towers were destroyed by bombs and not planes on September 11th.

------------------------------------

Alex Jones: Here's the headline on the Desert Morning News - it's up on Infowars.com - we've also put up there his physics paper he wrote up on this. His hypothesis - he's going according to scientific fact - he's just saying; Ok, well, the evidence, the science, the math, shows this; that it had to be explosives, but I'm open for debate. He's not even saying that's what happened. He's scientifically saying prove your hypothesis that two planes did this, and, I can only commend him for doing this. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/261105jonestranscript.htm
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:39 am
Most of those questions have been answered.

Do you have a link to the BBC report about the terrorists?

Or a link about the air traffic controller interviews? Of course, this work could be reproduced. Why hasn't it been?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:41 am
I've seen a documentary showing how heat from the burning fuel could soften the girders (especially where inadequately insulated) causing them to distort and come away from their mounting brackets. But the collapse of building 7 really is a mystery, unless it was deemed to be in a dangerous state and deliberately brought down. Was it?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:43 am
I think Steven Jones makes a real case for demolition. The interview I posted is well worth the time it takes to read it.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:44 am
This is in the same catagory as the JFK assination. Everyone was sure that the wounds couldn't have been caused by one bullet but science has proven it could have.

Still, people say "That could never happen!"

Why? Because people want to believe what they want to believe. I am not saying that I have answers to the questions but if you want to say things didn't or couldn't happen, show me some scientific research proving it.
0 Replies
 
AliceInWonderland
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:35 am
Just because the questions have been asked does not give them merit, or even suggest that they are the right questions if you are looking for the truth. Posing a question is easy. Looking for answers in an unbiased fashion is not. The neat thing about consipiracy theories is that they live and breath with very little, if any scientific basis. Thanks for posting the article Blueflame1, but really it sounds like the guy was looking at video and running equations. Fine, but equations have a whole laundry list of assumption. Wrong assumptions, wrong result. It's interesting that so many people are more likely to believe the theories of folks who havent' actually examined the physical evidence. We should apply the same degree of skepticism to the conspiracy theorists (probably more, actually) that we apply to the government explanation.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 10:39 am
AliceInWonderland wrote:
We should apply the same degree of skepticism to the conspiracy theorists (probably more, actually) that we apply to the government explanation.
Surely you cannot be skeptical about what happened on 9/11? We all saw it on tv.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 11:23 am
Well then why did these so called experts TELL us what happened?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 12:36 pm
Re: Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!
Magginkat wrote:
I guess the truth was becoming too much for the Bushie crowd in the old Bush Aftermath thread. Apparently the author 'locked' it to prevent the posting of further truths! Perhaps to prevent the posting of this:


As the "author" of the "old Bush Aftermath" thread, I'm at a loss to figure out what power you think I wield over whether that thread is locked or not. I'm not sure why it's locked, but I just feel terrible that you aren't able to spam it up as you would like. It has been locked in the past, usually when visiting leftists such as yourself demonstrate a lack of ability to communicate civilly.

I'm particularly interested in your link to the article you posted:

Magginkat wrote:
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/


It's a link to Yahoo's News site, but I don't find that "news article" there. In fact, I can only find the article in two places on the Net: emediawire.com, and disinfo.com (which points to the emediawire.com article). Now, emediawire.com appears to be a press release outlet, and it appears to me that all that's going on here is James H. Fetzer, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth -- and part time investigator of conspiracy theories, including Who Really Shot JFK? -- has signed up there, and posted this "press release" on that site. (Referring to himself as a "distinguished scholar" was a nice touch, btw.)

So my question is, what's with your attempt to lend this spurious press release legitimacy by attaching the news.yahoo.com link, to make it appear as if this was a story put out by a legitimate news wire?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 12:39 pm
Tico,
You really dont think Mags will admit to lying about anything,do you?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 02:22 pm
Probably not.

Here's a question I saw earlier in the thread:

Quote:
But the collapse of building 7 really is a mystery, unless it was deemed to be in a dangerous state and deliberately brought down. Was it?


It was deliberately brought down. I've seen the PBS interview where Larry Silverstein said that, quote, "the fire department told him the building needed to be 'pulled,'" and so they did so.

Later on he retracted that claim, just in time for the insurance money to come in. But I know what I saw.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 02:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Probably not.

Here's a question I saw earlier in the thread:

Quote:
But the collapse of building 7 really is a mystery, unless it was deemed to be in a dangerous state and deliberately brought down. Was it?


It was deliberately brought down. I've seen the PBS interview where Larry Silverstein said that, quote, "the fire department told him the building needed to be 'pulled,'" and so they did so.

Later on he retracted that claim, just in time for the insurance money to come in. But I know what I saw.

Cycloptichorn
Good so thats one little mystery solved. Building 7 was demolished because it was unsafe. No mystery at all. Why is this not common knowledge?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 02:53 pm
Maggnikat, whatever you do, please don't forget your:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbhead.jpg


Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie , don't leave home without it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 03:46 pm
Quote:

Good so thats one little mystery solved. Building 7 was demolished because it was unsafe. No mystery at all. Why is this not common knowledge?


Because this isn't the official story. And most people never question anything the gov't says, ever. They simply can't be bothered.

I'm not sure why they 'pulled' the building and then later claimed that they didn't. My guess would be the fact that the NYC emergency C&C center for the city was in that building, and the records there had a good chance of not matching the 'official' records later on. But that's just a guess.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 04:06 pm
Please also view my 911 thread : :wink:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60150&highlight=
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 04:15 pm
I posted this link on Zippo's thread as well, but here's the excerpt from the Popular Mechanics article pertaining to the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:

Quote:
WTC 7 Collapse

CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


LINK
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 09:32:44