Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

9/11 ATTACKS Avoiding the hard questions
Miami Herald ^ | Feb. 01, 2006 | ROBERT STEINBACK

Posted on 02/01/2006 8:42:15 PM PST by Anthem

9/11 ATTACKS

Avoiding the hard questions

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.


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: crackpot; dryhump; moonbat; tinfoilnutburger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-158 last
To: A Balrog of Morgoth
--I don't think he likes me.

LOL. I don't think about you one way or the other. I'm very familiar with Howlin and _Jim. Kinda fun to watch 'em bluster.

141 posted on 02/01/2006 10:28:57 PM PST by Anthem (One can not lie their way to the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Anthem
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.

Wow. Thanks. You just told me everything I need to know.

I knew it. "Motive, means, and opportunity". A LIHOP/MIHOP theorist.

Thank you so much. Really.

You should consider using the word "whereas" at every opportunity. It seems to go over really big in those circles.

Let me help you find you way.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road
142 posted on 02/01/2006 10:32:55 PM PST by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Jotmo
Re: Popular Mechanics link.

When I first saw that it was a link to PM, I thought it was the original WTC explanation article. I see that it is a more recent article regarding the myriad of conspriacy theories that are floating around. I noted that PM is quoting new information that replaces the FEMA information. Also, that they never once addressed Jones' work. It's easy to defeat a straw man, especially with unlimited resources. Jones appears to be a bit more robust.


To all: I'm taking the kid skiing tomorrow, so won't be back until the weekend.
143 posted on 02/01/2006 11:18:06 PM PST by Anthem (One can not lie their way to the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth
I'm further from being a Democrat than most Republicans are.

--With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.

So you been whippin' Bush much lately?

144 posted on 02/01/2006 11:56:46 PM PST by Anthem (One can not lie their way to the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Anthem
The center core wasn't capable of standing on its own . . . its stability was based not only on its own strength, but on its connections to the exterior frame.

Think of it like the sides of a truck that strikes a low overpass. The walls seem solid when the trailer is intact, but when a large section of the roof is buckled they suddenly lose their ability to stand up, and they collapse outward when that lateral support is lost.

145 posted on 02/02/2006 3:19:20 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Leave a message with the rain . . . you can find me where the wind blows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Anthem

If the top of the structure had been one monolithic element, then that could have been the case. However, the building is not a single mass but a combination of interconnected individual elements. So when one of the structural elements fails and the structure begins to fall, any angular momentum or lateral forces involved in the failure are far exceeded by the simple vertical force of gravity that causes each piece of the building to fall straight downward.


146 posted on 02/02/2006 3:22:36 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Leave a message with the rain . . . you can find me where the wind blows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Anthem
No wires in an office building? Remarkable. Jones makes a pretty good case for thermite charges.

Have you ever witnessed what they have to do to bring a large building down with charges? You don't hook them up to the office building wiring. The simple fact that it takes weeks to setup and no one noticed charges next to their desks should be reason enough for you to ignore this nonsense. You do know you are buying into enemy propaganda when you buy into this stuff, right?

147 posted on 02/02/2006 5:50:36 AM PST by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Anthem

He's a NUCLEAR physics professor! Not a structural engineering professor. He might as well be a baker for all the insight being a nuclear physics professor brings to this case.


148 posted on 02/02/2006 6:00:57 AM PST by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Anthem

Hope you had a good ski trip!


149 posted on 02/02/2006 6:03:36 AM PST by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
''I am a professional philosopher"

Alrighty then. You must have the expertise.

Don't bother beating me with that "scholar" label, I am already properly cowed by your status as "philosopher", and will humbly bow to your superior knowledge.

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.''

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure you wouldn't find a single engineer either. Someone with your brainpower must certainly be correct about that.

150 posted on 02/02/2006 6:18:27 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Wayne Madsen

Wayne Madsen spent three days online insisting that President Bush's Thanksgiving trip to Iraq didn't happen when it actually DID happen, but involved waking all the soldiers up in the middle of the night to eat Thanksgiving dinner before breakfast, and then lying about it.

All because of an obvious (to normal people, anyway) typo in the Washington Post.

151 posted on 02/02/2006 6:26:59 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart

Scares me to death that a nutcase like Madsen was actually in the United States intelligence services.


152 posted on 02/02/2006 6:45:57 AM PST by sinkspur (Trust, but vilify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
Have you ever witnessed what they have to do to bring a large building down with charges?

And I love how they transition that to proof of thermite charges.

One itty-bitty problem, however - you cannot control thermite the way you can control high explosives. Explosives cut beams instantenously. But thermite burns. So you could not precisely control when the thermite would cause a beam to fail the way you can use split-second timing for high explosive charges to cut beams - and even then, a lot of manual cutting of beams is done prior to the implosion to weaken them. No dealing with that fact, either.

So on the one hand, they are saying that the fact that the WTC fell into its footprint is proof of a controlled demolition. But then, when confronted with the lack of wiring to control a controlled demolition, they say that proves thermite was used - but thermite would not be a means to create a controlled demolition. So they contradict themselves. Another WTC theory gets its throat slit by Occam's razor.

But you can't hit these people with facts - they just see that as proof that you're hoodwinked and they have the truth.

153 posted on 02/02/2006 7:41:32 AM PST by dirtboy (My new years resolution is to quit using taglines...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Parts of building don't just TIP off.

Hey. Didn't you see that part in "Armageddon" where the building is struck by a meteor, and the top fell off. What more evidence do you need?

More science Hollywood style.

154 posted on 02/02/2006 9:40:24 AM PST by Jotmo ("Voon", said the mattress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Another WTC theory gets its throat slit by Occam's razor.

Nicely played, sir.
155 posted on 02/02/2006 10:17:05 AM PST by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Anthem
I'm further from being a Democrat than most Republicans are.

Yet, you manfully defend a key component of the LIHOP/MIHOP moonbattery.

Kook on the left, kook on the right. Not much of a difference of late.
156 posted on 02/02/2006 10:20:38 AM PST by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Scares me to death that a nutcase like Madsen was actually in the United States intelligence services.

You'd be surprised. I served in the Intelligence Corps of the Army and there were some real weirdos. A whole lot of Dungeons and Dragons playing Wiccans.

157 posted on 02/02/2006 10:37:23 AM PST by jmc813 (John Shadegg for Majority Leader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Anthem

I just fart at the fire, gets it real hot.

(BTW my tag line is not directed in your general direction)


158 posted on 02/02/2006 7:25:34 PM PST by CJ Wolf (To Zot or Not That is the question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-158 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson