Posted on 02/01/2006 8:42:15 PM PST by Anthem
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.
It's really fun when we're all bored at the same time and somebody puts up a thread like this!
If you pour jet fuel (again, a light kerosene) into a pan and light it, will it reach 2200o? No, it won't. And you know it. Look, I don't have toBlissful ignorance of the other combustable materials in those buldings?
I think most sources agree that the jet fuel burned away early on, BUT provided the ignition source by which the REST of the building burned and provided the heat source that finally fatally weakened the inner stuctures and integral construction of WTC bldgs 1 and 2.
I guess he's gone; not going to play anymore. And I've got to go too.
Marking for when I am awake...
_jim is the most interesting FReeper when he comes out to play.
I don't know. I'm making no speculation as to motive, or who is responsible. The point of this article is that the Physics professor has made a good case for the "pulling" of those buildings.
You haven't even looked at Jones' report, have you?
He is. He just doesn't come out enough!
Yes, I have. And it is BOGUS.
Hey, it's what we do best. :-)
Only with some air injection system. Busy with the bellows are ya?
No. But we would have seen the center column coming through roof as the floors fell, and then the possibility of it tipping and falling would exist.
Jones has some mathematical models that he has submitted for peer review. They are not included in this public report. In fact he has largely eschewed publicity after the bow-tied boy on PBS pretended to interview him.
You should have been here the day JFK Jr.'s plane was missing.
*Rolling my eyes*
Yes, drama queens rule in the critical thinking of this nation.
But what to expect when Oprah and the NYT bathhouse boys have been in charge for over a decade.
It's like a giant cult, what's next? Suicide bombs?
I offer no explanations without evidence. That's why I said, in my initial comment above, that a proper investigation would have to determine opportunity, means, and motive. First things first, clearly identify what happened. The NIST and 9/11 reports did't. The ommissions are well documented, and what's included stretches credulity.
I don't think he likes me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.