0
   

Fury as 75 academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'

 
 
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 07:09 am
Fury as 75 academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'

by JAYA NARAIN, 5th September 2006

The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.

Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.

The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday.

But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated.

Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.

He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.

Prof Jones said: "We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.

"We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."

In essays and journals, the scientists are giving credence to many of the conspiracy theories that have circulated on the internet in the past five years.

They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.

The group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof.

Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes.

He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers.

The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 - a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day - was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.

Professor James Fetzer, 65, a retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota, said: "The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don't have time to take a look at this."

The 9/11 Commission dismissed the numerous conspiracy theories after its exhaustive investigation into the terror attacks.

Subsequent examinations of the towers' structure have sought to prove they were significantly weakened by the impact which tore off fire retardant materials and led the steel beams bending under heat and then collapsing.

Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group.

He said: "To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.

"After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time."

But University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, said experts are unwilling to believe theories which don't fit into their belief systems.

He said: "People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it."

As the fifth anniversary approached, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is urging Congress to reopen the investigation claiming they have amassed a wealth of scientific evidence to prove their version of the terror attacks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,261 • Replies: 26
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 07:43 am
1. If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented?

2. If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes?

3. Why do we say something is out of whack? What's a whack?

4. Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

5. If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

6. If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

7. When someone asks you, "A penny for your thoughts" and you put your two cents in . . . what happens to the other penny?

8. Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

9. Why do croutons come in airtight packages? Aren't they just stale bread to begin with?

10. When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?

11. Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist but a person who drives a race car not called a racist?

12. Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

13. Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

14. Why isn't the number 11 pronounced onety one?

15. "I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence?

16. If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it follow that electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted, cowboys deranged, models deposed, tree surgeons debarked, and dry cleaners depressed?

17. If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?

18. Do Lipton Tea employees take coffee breaks?

19. What hair color do they put on the driver's licenses of bald men?

20. I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a whole lot more as they get older; then it dawned on me . . they're cramming for their final exam.

21. I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny little spoons and forks, so I wondered what do Chinese mothers use? Toothpicks?

22. Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office? What are we supposed to do, write to them? Why don't they just put their pictures on the postage stamps so the mailmen can look for them while they deliver the mail?

23. If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the others here for?

24. No one ever says, "It's only a game" when their team is winning.

25. Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag?

26. Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went nuts.

27. If a cow laughed, would milk come out of her nose?

28. Whatever happened to Preparations A through G?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 07:53 am
Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away

Take a look, if you can stand it, at video footage of the World Trade Center collapsing. Your eye will naturally jump to the top of the screen, where huge fountains of dark debris erupt out of the falling towers. But fight your natural instincts. Look farther down, at the stories that haven't collapsed yet.

In almost every clip you'll see little puffs of dust spurting out from the sides of the towers. There are two competing explanations for these puffs of dust: 1) the force of the collapsing upper floors raised the air pressure in the lower ones so dramatically that it actually blew out the windows. And 2) the towers did not collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the ensuing fires. They were destroyed in a planned, controlled demolition. The dust puffs you see on film are the detonations of explosives planted there before the attacks.

People who believe the second explanation live in a very different world from those who believe the first. In world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S. government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93 did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter. The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.

Rest of article can be found at link above...
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 09:45 am
Absolutely the most compelling reason to believe the koolaid drinking, barking moonbats ... can be found ... HERE!

No, really. He's serious ... and he has the photos to prove it!!! This is but one PROVING his theory of "Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? Who says the defeatocrats aren't entertaining???

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/1_column_structure.jpg
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 09:50 am
The "comments" are pretty funny, too. This one, from MercutioATC:

"Well, I'm convinced...Who am I to argue with a plastic cup of kerosene, a concrete paver and some chicken wire?"



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/rofl.gif

(This entertainment brought to you by the good folks, er, fruitcakes, at DemocraticUnderground)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 10:00 am
I dont belive it was an inside job, because it means lots of insiders would have to know. It would only take one to spill the beans.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 11:14 am
Re: Fury as 75 academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'
Solve et Coagula wrote:
...

The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday.

...


Who is outraged and angered?

"Amusement and ridicule" I could believe.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 12:36 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
I dont belive it was an inside job, because it means lots of insiders would have to know. It would only take one to spill the beans.


It is, of course, nonsense. I am convo\inced that the right is responsible for peddling this garbage.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 12:39 pm
SierraSong wrote:
Absolutely the most compelling reason to believe the koolaid drinking, barking moonbats ... can be found ... HERE!

No, really. He's serious ... and he has the photos to prove it!!! This is but one PROVING his theory of "Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? Who says the defeatocrats aren't entertaining???

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/1_column_structure.jpg


No one is buying this or even taking it seriously enough to rebut except the right-wing kool-aid drinking moonbats. LOL
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 12:39 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
I dont belive it was an inside job, because it means lots of insiders would have to know. It would only take one to spill the beans.


Precisely. That fact alone should be enough to debunk this foolishness, so we can focus attention on the real misdeeds of this administration!
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:02 pm
Solve,

I see you've been banned from "sci.forums.com" !
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:04 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
I dont belive it was an inside job, because it means lots of insiders would have to know. It would only take one to spill the beans.


It is, of course, nonsense. I am convo\inced that the right is responsible for peddling this garbage.
You mean deliberate disinformation to discredit the political opponents of this Republican Administration? Do you think they are that clever?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:09 pm
Further to the banning of solve from sciforums.com....

Quote:
solve is not actually a person it is some sort of low level AI spambot which has now been banned

comment from forum member
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 02:06 pm
....but actually it seems "Solve et Coagula" is one Roger Schreiber born 1972. When he is not qoting Gnostic Christianity he involves himself in conspiracy websites such as this

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/modules/xoopsmembers/
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 02:55 pm
If I found out your real name, would you want me to blab it all over cyberspace? Try applying the Golden Rule here.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 04:00 pm
I've never looked at this newspaper before. Lots of "child sex slave" type of content. Can't find out too much on a quick check of the owner. He's a Brit, pushes a "family values" thing in the paper and has at least one illegitimate child. He's rich.

Who reads these things? God, it's depressing. How can folks be so phukking stupid?

But as regards the eagerness towards conspiracy theories as explanatory tools, you won't find a better piece on this than Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style of American Politics" (you can find it online). This isn't at all a uniquely American phenomenon, but it's well represented in American culture. I had a roommate about thirty years ago who sent away for audio tapes from a Dr. Peter Beeter (or Beater) who, he claimed, had been a CIA staffer for years and who had documentary evidence of a secret base on the back side of the moon where senior political figures from the US govt had been taken and who were then replaced by "organic robotoids". My roommate found some "answers' in all of this.

I frankly detest these 9/11 'inside job' assertions, not merely because they depress as regards human intelligence, but far moreso because they take our attention off of real human and organizational frailties and incompetencies. Paul Wolfowitz isn't an alien and I'm sure he believes sincerely in the notions that led him to push for war with Iraq until he got it. But he and others were trusted too quickly and too easily merely because too many of us are easily frightened and crave such authority figures to lead us.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 04:42 pm
Well, finally a subject we can all agree on then..
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 05:14 pm
Ticomaya

That information was already in the public domain.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/profile.jspa?userID=68633
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 05:28 pm
Almost all.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 10:04 pm
fresco wrote:
Ticomaya

That information was already in the public domain.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/profile.jspa?userID=68633


Ah. Carry on, then.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fury as 75 academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2024 at 03:36:34