This guy just more or less published the agenda of the 9/11 group we had a thread on, yesterday or the day before. It's rubbish.
They really hope to play to the ignorance of people. Not hot enough to melt steel... pffft. Doesn't need to melt.
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.
This author writes for Common Dreams, a commie web site. 'nuff said. It's crapola.
Jet fuel burns at 2,200 degrees and it was not all destroyed in the fireball. The South Tower fell first because the impact of the United 767-200 was lower, (thus putting more weight on the damaged sections) hit at a much higher speed, and hit at an angle rather than head on like the American 767-200ER did the North Tower.
• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.
There was a show on the History Channel that explained this in great detail. IIRC, WTC-7 had a unique structural design due to the fact it was sitting atop a Con-Ed substation and all it took was for a few steel beams to become week and it went BOOM.
• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?
Many large buildings are designed so that when the time come for them to be destroyed, they will fall into themselves.
• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?
They tried. We don't have aircraft that are capable of hypersonic flight just yet. It takes time to fuel, arm, takeoff and fly to the target. Had Flight 93 not crashed, armed F-16's were on course to intercept and destroy it if necessary.
• 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?
Simply put, because the BBC is full of crap and you're full of crap for believing this dribble.
That's the standard story. In Jones' work he shows the bearing capacity of the internal column structure. In fact the building structural design is more redundant than most other buildings.
That's a long time to wait for a chance to evaluate the purported truth.This train came off the tracks in the second paragraph; so successful have the charlatans in the conspiracy industry been in propagating a nearly complete ignorance of the well-known facts ...
I would guess that the weight of the collapsed buildings created craters.... piles of cement and steel.
A physicist, an economist, a professor of philosophy, a "conspiracist", and Wayne Madsen, who writes paranoid stuff for Daily Kos and prisonplanet.com. Madsen recently wrote an article stating that his "sources" in the Vatican told him that John Paul II thought George W. Bush might be the anti-Christ.
These people are much like the goofballs who thought a team of Arabs brought down the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
People of all stripes and education can be conspirazoids. They will not accept the "official" version of anything, no matter how well documented or researched, and no matter how many structural engineers say the same thing about how, for instance, a building can fall when a large aircraft filled with jet fuel damages the inner core.
Ignore these people. The last thing we need is to feed the nuttiness of somebody like Alex Jones.
But...but...what about the guy who "skiied" down the crumbling building as it fell? Or the back-pack guy? Or the back of the 20-dollar bill when folded?
I had to click the link just to make sure it wasn't from Common Dreams. The fact that it was published as a column in a major US newspaper speaks volumes about the propriety of the editors.
LOL! I agree.
Conspiracy sells... books...lol.
Kennedy is no icon in my mind.
He used mobster ties to steal the election, was demonstrably favored for his television looks over intellectual substance (at least compared to Richard Nixon), caused the abandonment and massacre of hundreds of Cubans, the capture of American spies, started the Vietnam war, cheated on his wife - including at least one incident while hiding from commanders on fulltime nuclear alert.
In his infinite non-wisdom, he chose Lyndon Johnson as his successor - who escalated Vietnam with absurd constraints to assure our defeat. He created urban ghettos nationwide, passed the disasterous Immigration Act of 1965 (with the help of JFK's brother Senator Ted Kopechne).
Only Richard Nixon made real attempts to win Vietnam and finally get out.... But look how history is written, where a man like JFK wins respect even here.
I thought a lot of JFK administration papers are being kept under lock and key for several more decades. More to learn from what went on inside the Kennedy White House than the Warren investigation or other "JFK assassination" papers.
Tell me again you're not a conspiracy nut, okay?
What do I care what his date is. Blaming the US for this. colapse is pure anti american crap. Maybe your both better off at DU.
Where's the footage? If this report is so easily debunked, let's see the evidence.
LOL!
And get back with us.
I love that! Saving it this time.
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.