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

So...

1. there was not enough time
2. they couldnt find them (in a big sky )
3. F16 pilots would have "agonised" about shooting down a 757

there was (plenty of time)
they could (find them...easily)
they would (obey orders no question)

isnt that the truth?

On that last point fox what on earth do you think an airforce pilot does? Takes off flies around a bit and if he finds an aircraft he thinks might be hijacked thinks oh dear there are people on board, I better only shoot it down a little bit, and maybe it will crash in the sea and they can all swim ashore...oh dear what to do ? I really wish I hadnt become a navy pilot my mum always warned me about situations like this, you know this is terrible I joined to fly planes and fire missiles, not to kill people. I dont think this will look good on my record...

Or do you think he (or she) would have specific instructions, and follow them to the letter?

I don't think it is true that there was enough time or that they could find them easily.

I don't think there is a conflict between "they would obey orders to shoot it down" and "they would agonize over shooting it down".

http://911lies.2truth.com

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11924.htm

EXPERTS CALL FOR RELEASE OF 9/11 EVIDENCE
Scholars for 9/11 Truth supports Judicial Watch

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) February 28, 2006 -- A society of experts and scholars has now joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of videos that are being held by the Department of Defense, which are essential to understanding events at the Pentagon that transpired on September 11, 2001. Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and establishing truths about the events of 9/11, has gone beyond Judicial Watch by calling for the release of other films and evidence that, its officers maintain, are essential to understanding 9/11.

"It is outrageous that the government is withholding this vital information", said James H. Fetzer, founder and co-chair of the society. "This concerns one of the monstrous events of our time and deserves to be in the public domain." The group, whose members include such prominent figures as David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, John McMurtry, Wayne Madsen, Robert Bowman, Webster Tarpley, and Andreas von Buelow, has been speaking out against what its own research suggests has been complicity by elements of the administration in the crime.

They are calling for immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tape as well as video tapes seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit; a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from Flights 11, 77, 93, 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to their location (whether warehoused or otherwise), catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any items from the planes, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of these items.

Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit demanding that DoD release its film footage. In addition, the scholars call for the release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal, or other materials from the World Trade Center, including, but not limited to the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items, catalog of photographs and videotapes of any items from the scene, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of those items.

Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University and a full member of the society of scholars, has emphasized the importance of this material for those studying the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. "This material has the potential to resolve crucial questions about the forces that were responsible for the buildings' fall, including the possible use of incendiaries and explosives", she observed. "It is of great importance that we have access to it."

They also call for release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST; tape recordings of interviews by air traffic controllers, at least some of which were deliberately destroyed while in the possession of representatives of the government; a complete accounting of "terror drills" that were being conducted that morning, which may have been used to mask the attack; the cockpit voice recorders and other "black boxes", three of four of which are reported to have survived the Twin Towers' collapse; and other related evidence.

According to Professor Fetzer, the SEC possesses knowledge of "put options" on American and United Airlines, which are suggestive of advanced knowledge that the attacks would take place; Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta gave very important testimony to The 9/11 Commission, which it chose not to include in its report; and the Secret Service conducted itself in a manner suggesting that it knew there was no serious threat to the President, even following the attacks in New York, while the Commander-in-Chief ignored the unfolding drama.

"We are inclined to believe that these events were orchestrated by the Bush administration in order to instill fear in the American people," Fetzer said. "The use of violence and threats of violence to manipulate a populace based on fear," he observed, "is the definition of terrorism. The release of this vital evidence will help to confirm or to dispel our concerns about what happened on 9/11." Added Wood, "The American people are entitled to know the truth about their own country. If the government has nothing to hide, it should have no objections to releasing all this evidence for experts and scholars to study."

Fetzer also noted today's Zogby International Poll, which shows that 90% of American troops in Iraq believe that they are fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11. "This would be funny if it weren't so sad", Fetzer said. "The administration falsely linked Iraq to 9/11 even though it knew better", he remarked. "Even the Osama Bin Laden 'confession tape' appears to have been faked. We want to know the identity of those who perpetrated these despicable acts."

Scholars for 9/11 Truth maintains its own public web site at www.st911.org. Documentary support for its request is available at www.st911.org/petition/.

I was going to try to respond to one of oralloy's multipart question and answers type response but after scrolling through several of them I can see that one response will do.

It's because oralloy says so...... end of conversation, at least as far as he is concerned.

I say bull mularkey. The whole thing boils down to three supposedly indestructibile buildings that did something that no building had ever done before or since and collapsed into their own tracks.

That alone is enough to question the validity of any explanation given by the bu$h goons. Add to that how hard bu$h fought to not have any investigation and if you don't think something is fishy, then you obviously don't want to know the answers.

But then when we look at the monumental mountain of lies told by this sorry administration and reasonable people have learned the hard way to question every single thing they throw in our face. This is the most corrupt administration to ever get anywhere near Washington DC.

That's the reason I think they are the ones who pulled off Operation 9-11.

No, it is because all the experts have gone over the data and have reached a consensus on how it happened, and they have released their conclusions to the public along with all the evidence.

You might want to look up the NIST report sometime. If I get time later tonight, I'll look up the link and post it.





Who says they were indestructible??

Was it the same guy who said the Titanic was unsinkable?

How many other buildings have had a relatively large passenger jet full of fuel flown into them at high speeds?





I don't think Bush fought the report on how the buildings failed.

I also don't think the scientific and engineering community are "Bush's goons".

I did want to know the answers. That is why I made a point of learning them by reading what the engineers said.

Now I know the answers.

I did some thinking on that, and I don't think the crossed beams in the John Hancock Center would have much of an effect that would save the building.

The multiple-tube design of the Sears Tower might fare a little better.

At any rate, both structures are currently being reinforced after an analysis of the data on how the WTC failed.


I hope Osama's people don't get their hands on some reactor-grade plutonium and make a suitcase nuke. That would drop any skyscraper regardless of its design.

There are too many unanswered questions. You simply do what every other person who does not care to know the truth. You just brush aside legitimate questions and talk about some BS that you read elsewhere.

Magginkat is correct but she missed some key items. Blueflame, with his usual exhaustive research discovered that the Bush Administration in concert with the Israeli Government, set up the WTC affair so that there could be a pretext for invasion of the Middle East to support Israel and acquire the OIL.
Blueflame pointed out that the reason so few Israelis died in the WTC was that the Mossad warned them ahead of time. They told the Jews who were working in the WTC regularly not to go to work on 9/11.

That is the most conclusive evidence anyone could ever have--so few Jews died in the WTC.

You have to ask WHY?

Anon has also indicated that, even if the WTC disaster was not caused by the Bush Administration, the Administration's negligence was partly responsible. Perhaps, but no more responsible than the previous administration which had solid evidence for Six years yet did nothing.

source

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/21/terror/main607659.shtml

quote:

Six years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the CIA warned in a classified report that Islamic extremists likely would strike on U. S. soil at landmarks in Washington or New York, or through the airline industry, according to intelligence officials.

end of quote


This piece of evidence lends credence to the official version of the 9/11 attack. Each element in the evidence--Islamic extremists--US soil---landmarks in Washington or New York--through the airline industry---is consistent with the official version of events on 9/11.


UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE NEO-CONS WERE ABLE TO INFILTRATE THE CIA, PLANT THE EVIDENCE AND BEGIN TO PLAN THE WTC TAKEDOWN.

LOL

"I hope Osama's people don't get their hands on some reactor-grade plutonium and make a suitcase nuke."

I dont think even your current president would be stupid enough to sell them plutonium.

I beg to differ with you regarding the previous administration. While I found much to be pissed off with regarding Clinton, he tried repeatedly to get bills through congress to prevent terrorist attacks. The republicans voted him down every time with Orin Hatch going so far as to call it a joke.

I will try to find the actual article which I think also came from CNN !

9/11 ATTACKS
Avoiding the hard questions
http://tinyurl.com/db4hq

ROBERT STEINBACK

I was 8 years old when President John Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas in 1963. If grace favors me, I'll be 62 when documents related to the assassination are released to the public, and 84 when the Warren Commission's investigative files into the tragedy are finally opened.

That's a long time to wait for a chance to evaluate the purported truth.

It's a blot on the presumed sophistication of the people of the United States that any aspect of an event so dramatic and shocking should be kept from us. Perhaps it's true, to abuse the line from A Few Good Men yet again, that we can't handle the truth. But there cannot be genuine resolution as long as such critical information remains concealed.

Transformed by 9/11

Since Kennedy's assassination, Americans have lurched between demanding to know and plugging their ears: The Pentagon Papers, My Lai, the King assassination, Watergate, Iran-contra, the savings-and-loan debacle, Monicagate. Lately, however, it would seem the public's verdict is in: Don't tell us. Keep us in the dark. We don't want to know.

This is the worst possible time for probe-ophobia to grip us. Our nation was irretrievably transformed by 9/11 -- and yet there remain troubling questions about what really happened before, during and after that day. Rather than demanding a full and fearless vetting to hone in on the truth and silence the conjecture about 9/11, many Americans remain unwilling to peer into the microscope.

An online cottage industry of theorists, theory debunkers and debunker debunkers has flourished since 9/11. Sometimes the flimsy theories are easy to spot -- come on, if the four passenger jets didn't crash where it appears they did, where did they go? More often, though, the cases aren't so obvious.

A group of experts and academicians 'devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, `letting the chips fall where they may,' '' last week accused the government of covering up evidence that the three destroyed New York City buildings were brought down that day by controlled demolition rather than structural failure. The group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has a website, www.st911.org.

Unanswered questions

The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present.

''I am a professional philosopher who has spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,'' group co-founder and University of Minnesota professor James H. Fetzer told me. ``When I come to 9/11, it's not hard for me to determine what is going on. This is a scientific question. And it is so elementary that I don't think you can find a single physicist who could disagree with the idea that this was a controlled demolition.''

The group asks, for example,

• How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

• Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

Our current probe-ophobia is due in part to the political landscape: When one party holds all the cards, any call to investigate an alleged abuse of power or cover-up -- no matter how valid -- will look like a partisan vendetta. Those in power never want to investigate themselves.

Maybe that's politics; he who holds the hammer drives the nails. But the outrage of 9/11 transcends party affiliation.

We need all the outstanding questions answered -- wherever the chips may fall.

I think you are wasting your time Magginkat trying to get to the bottom of 911. It happened and 3000 people died. Isnt that all you need to know?

Steve, did you read Oralloy's link at all?

I found it to answer your questions in great detail - and it doesnt give any justification for your conclusions.

Huh?

I'm with Oralloy.

The conpsirators seem hellbent on posing the same "unanswered questions" over and again.

But they seem entirely uninterested in what people found who actually took the trouble to read up on and assess what the answers to those questions so far have been.

In fact, whenever someone dares try to answer one of those fearsome "unanswered questions" - for example by quoting some "BS that he read elsewhere" like, say, the 9/11 Commission Report - he's sure to be summarily dismissed as just "brushing aside" the questions.

Answering brushing aside. It seems like the conspirators have a veritable need for these questions to remain unanswered. They dont want them answered, for it would rob them of the opportunity to speculate, allege and posture.

no, well just scanned it. Official US govt report I believe.

how did a mixture of kerosene and air produce temperatures that could actually melt steel?

I studied metallurgy at Sheffield University more years ago than I care to recall.

(HERES THE LATEST -Amigo *Peace, justice, truth*)


14 MARCH 2006

PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
James H. Fetzer

We are here because we believe that a profound injustice is being perpetrated in the Courthouse behind us and that the American people deserve to know. We are here because we have made discoveries that suggest the wrong parties have been accused of monstrous crimes and that the American government knows better.

Three of us will speak and present our findings. The second speaker will be Colonel George Nelson, USAF (retired), who will address the crash sites from the perspective of an expert on crash investigations. Our third speaker will be Philip J. Berg, Esquire, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

I am James H. Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an association of academicians and experts dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about the events of 9/11. We have been dismayed at the incapacity of the mainstream media to come to grips with even the most elementary aspects of 9/11.

I am McKnight Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota and teach on its Duluth campus. I have spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. I am a former Marine Corps officer who is no longer willing to listen to one lie embedded within another from our own government.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a non-partisan organization, which has been created in order to take rumor, speculation and especially politics out of research on these events and to place their study on an objective and scientific foundation. Among the more prominent members of the roughly 200 members of the society are:

• Robert M. Bowman: Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who is a former Air Force Lt. Colonel with 101 combat missions;

• Morgan Reynolds: a Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis;

• John McMurtry: Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus Elect, University of Guelph, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and the author of six books dealing with public policy issues;

• Wayne Madsen: Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist, a former communications security analyst with the NSA, a former intelligence officer in the Marine Corps and a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center; and,

• Andreas von Buelow: Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of the German Parliament for 25 years.


Our members include physicists and mechanical engineers, pilots and aeronautical engineers, and others from an enormous range of backgrounds. We have made very significant discoveries that we are reporting to the country today. Unless I state differently, everyone I mention today is a member of this organization.

According to the official account, the impact of aircraft combined with fires that they ignited were responsible for the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York City; a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon; and, after its passengers heroically sought to regain control, Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvannia. That's is the official story. That's what our government has told us.

On the basis of our own research, we can state categorically that the official scenario is false, not merely in its specific details but in its most general features. The towers did not fall from aircraft impacts and collateral fires; no Boeing 757 appears to have hit the Pentagon; and Flight 93 is a mystery.

Frank DeMartini, project manager for the WTC's construction, who died on 9/11, explained long ago that the towers were designed with sophisticated load-redis- tribution capabilities, where the impact of aircraft on the buildings would be "like sticking a pencil through mosquito netting". The planes did not cause the towers to crash. If the planes were not responsible, perhaps it was the fires.

Laws of nature cannot be violated and cannot be changed. It is thus of great significance that the melting point of steel is approximately 2,800*F, but the highest temperature attainable by jet fuel fires is 1,800*F, 1,000* too low to have caused melting to occur. Perhaps therefore the steel simply weakened.

Kevin Ryan, then employed by Underwriters Laboratory, wrote a letter to the NIST explaining that the steel used in the buildings had been certified up to 2,000*F for up to six hours before it would even have significantly weakened. But, by his estimate, the fires only burned at around 500*F and, as even the government has acknowledged, one tower fell in less than an hour, the other in 1 and 1/2.

There are several signs that the fires did not cause their fall. Most of the jet fuel was consumed in gigantic fireballs when the planes hit the buildings and the fires were starved of oxygen. One of the "smoking guns" of 9/11 thus turns out to be the billowing black cloulds of smoke, which indicate that these fires were oxygen-depleted and therefore were not burning at high temperatures.

A 1975 fire in WTC1, moreover, lasted for more than three hours at far higher temperatures and consumed 65% of the 11th floor, yet the building did not fall. If the fires had burned hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel, then, since the fires were distributed non-uniformly, the affected floors would have sagged and fallen, gradually and asymmetrically, a very different scenario than the simultaneous and complete collapse that occurred at the rate of free fall.

Steven Jones, Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University, has determined that the collapse of the buildings, including their fall at the same rate as a grand piano would have taken had it been released from the top at the same time, beyond the impact of the planes and the modest fires required tremendous energy of precisely the kind produced by controlled demolitions. His best guess as to the explosives used is that they were probably an enhanced form of thermate.

Some forms of thermate have an astonishing capacity to cut through steel at temperatures in excess of 5,000*F, which would explain the surprising pools of molten metal that were discovered in the subbasements of the Twin Towers three, four and five weeks after their collapse, which could only have been produced as effects of extremely high temperatures and not from the fall of the buildings.

Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer from Clemson, has studied alternative models of their collapse and has found that, for them to have come down so rapidly, there cannot have been any resistance between one floor and the next, which means that tremendous explosives had to have been used to blow out one floor under another. And, indeed, in some footage of the towers' fall, you can even see them go off.

The second and more important "smoking gun", therefore, turns out to be those enormous clouds of dust, which were created by the pulverization of the concrete flooring material into very fine particles, and steel beams being tossed outward and even upward by extraordinary forces. This did not happen as a result of the impacts nor was it an effect of the fires. It required a separate and powerful cause.

David Ray Griffin, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, has noticed a peculiar omission from The 9/11 Commission Report, which is that it completely ignores the collapse of a third steel-structure high rise building in the WTC, which was WTC7, a 47-story building of remarkably robust constuction. This building fell at 5:25 PM, some eight hours after the WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed.

Larry Silverstein, who leased the WTC, reported during an interview that he had suggested to a fire official that, since there had already been so much death and destruction, perhaps the best thing to do would be to "pull it". He said they made the decision to pull and they watched it come down. "Pulling" is a term in construction for bringing a building down by a controlled demolition.

What is most striking about this event is that WTC7 was hit by no aircraft at all and had only a few small fires. It is striking that, if these three fell as a result of fires, it would be the first time in the history of structural engineering that had happened. Notice, moreover, for WTC7 to be "pulled", it had to be the case that those explosives were already present in the building. And if that was true of WTC7, then perhaps it was also true of WTC1 and WTC2.

Indeed, there are multiple reports of unusual "security lapses" in the Twin Towers during the two weeks before 9/11. Sections of floors were shut off and normal security practices were breached, while teams of "engineers" were given free access. Professor Jones has estimated that it would have taken 40 men only 10 trips each to plant sufficient thermate to bring one of them down.

Other discoveries by members of the society are less dramatic but are equally telling. Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and a pilot, for example, has explained why it would have been impossible for persons at their meager stage of training to have piloted these aircraft at high altitudes using only instrument controls and have successfully navigated to their intended targets.

A. K. Dewdney, a mathematician and computer scientist from the University of Western Ontario, has conducted a series of extensive tests using a variety of cell phones on several general aviation aircraft and discovered that it would have been impossible to have established stable cell phone connections at the speeds of 500 knots and altitudes of 30,000 feet that were involved. So even the heroics of the passengers on Flight 93 appear to have been but a fantasy.

What this means is that the wrong parties have been accused of the monstrous crimes committed on 9/11. The country appears to have been hijacked, not by a group of 19 Islamic fundamentalists under the control of a man hiding in a cave in Afghanistan, but by a gang of neo-conservatives right here in front of our very eyes, who have used special effects and propaganda to deceive us. To now discuss the crash sites, it is a pleasure to introduce Colonel George Nelson, USAF (retired), who will comment on that aspect of the official story.

. . .

It is now my pleasure to introduce Philip J. Berg, Attorney at Law, Former Deputy Attorney General, former candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor, and the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, who represents William Rodriguez, a 9/11 eyewitness, in a RICO lawsuit pending against George Bush, Dick Cheney and 53 other other Defendants in Federal Court, Southern District of New York.

. . .

One final observation. The administration appears to have resorted to the use of violence and threats of violence to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate us for political purposes. If you check it, you will discover this is the definition of "terrorism". So what we have discovered is that the American government has been practicing terrorism on the American people. We believe the American people are entitled to know.

Alexandria, VA

I love this manufactured "news" in the form of a Press Release issued by James Fetzer, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth -- and part time investigator of conspiracy theories.

don't forget these quacks.


• Robert M. Bowman: Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who is a former Air Force Lt. Colonel with 101 combat missions;

• Morgan Reynolds: a Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis;

• John McMurtry: Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus Elect, University of Guelph, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and the author of six books dealing with public policy issues;

• Wayne Madsen: Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist, a former communications security analyst with the NSA, a former intelligence officer in the Marine Corps and a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center; and,

• Andreas von Buelow: Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of the German Parliament for 25 years.