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.
Now, now, even though the 9-11 conspirators just eliminated the art of blacksmithing, don't let that get in the way of the truth getting out!
This dude really needs to find a life
Occam's razor slit his throat.
Yeah...lol.
This is such crap as to be laughable.
Hey, guess what . . . believe it or not, that's exactly how tall buildings collapse -- controlled demolition or not.
"But there cannot be genuine resolution as long as such critical information remains concealed."
We saw the 'critical' information. Case solved.
It's called pancaking.
There are a couple of legitimate questions here. For example, I've long suspected that the design of the buildings was one of the contributing factors in their collapse. The external lattice frame that was used in their construction was an innovative design element back then, and I suspect the buildings would have stood a much better chance of surviving the impact and fire if they were constructed with a standard internal column/beam frame.
Not at all difficult to fly into a specified altitude. The computers can land the planes these days. We don't know what survived the collapse becuase it was hauled away under tight security.
There's no investigation since the root cause of 9/11 is because of Clinton's inaction against terrorism suring his administration.
All this other planned demolishing nonesense is just that.
No way are you getting this from your article. Find out the facts from a structural engineer first and come back, with some real facts. Let the experts tell you what happened and what couldn't possibly have happened. Why can't you believe people who actually put buildings up and bring them down for a living instead of conspiracy theorists?
Check the poster's signup date before you start that crap.
How did the Twin Towers fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Most fires don't get hotter than 900 to 1,100 degrees F. The World Trade Center fire may have reached 1,300 or 1,400 degrees F. Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature.
3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they crashed into the floors below. With the weight of the plunging floors accelerating, the exterior walls buckled.
Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the Twin Towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, they were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.
No, in fact at 1300o it loses 80% of its strength. Jones dealt with that. Read the report.
The terrorists didn't take lessons in landing the planes. They didn't know how to use the comptuters in the planes to land them. Those are proven facts. We don't know what survived the collapse becuase it was hauled away under tight security.
And a thousand news cameras.
In the report he shows the upper portion twisting and beginning to fall. What happened to that angular momentum?
Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the Twin Towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, they were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.
Back in the day, Michael Rivero was a regular poster on FreeRepublic.
When he turned into a jew hating kook, he was banned. He's still out there if you want to find out what really happened.
Your really into this aren't you? Until Jones gets a degree in structural engineering and about 10 years of pratical work under his belt, my cursory read will have to do.
Well I'm going to bed.
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.