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.
heh... I just love that look of utter despair & disgust.
And John Kerry's!
ROTFLMAO! You READ my mind! My fav. Next graphic, we're bringing out the old horse award!
I'm dying here!
You really need to stop now; you're embarassing yourself.
I do too! ROTFLMAO!
I agree that Madsen is a left wingnut. He's not doing anything but trying to get in front of cameras. It's Jones' work that has "pulled my coat". The Theology/Philosophy professor, Ray Griffin, has some interesting and well reasoned work. I haven't looked into Fetzer yet.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm
Title:
NIST Tests Provide Fire Resistance Data on
World Trade Center Floor Systems
Partial excerpt:
The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently reported that results from a series of four fire resistance tests conducted in August 2004 on composite concrete-steel trussed floor systems typical of those used in the World Trade Center (WTC) towers showed that the test structures were able to withstand standard fire conditions for between 45 minutes and two hours. The tests--which were conducted at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) facilities in Northbrook, Ill., and Toronto, Canada--are part of NIST's building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster on Sept. 11, 2001.
The 1968 New York City building code--the code that the towers were intended but not required to meet when they were built--required a two-hour fire rating for the floor system.
...
"The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected," Sunder says. "Our investigation's final assessment of how the floor system performed in the WTC fires also must consider factors such as the combustible fuel load of the hijacked jets, the extent and number of floors involved, the rate of the fire spread across and between floors, ventilation conditions, and the impact of the aircraft-damaged towers' ability to resist the fire."
This line shows how stupid the author is. As a successful hardworking Gen-Xer I take offense to his insults and stopped reading at this point.
Already read it, thanks. Used to believe it too. Saw the PBS Frontline story (talk about a left wing source).
Can you point out where the AIR STARVATION is on this picture?
STOP IT! ROTFLMAO!
It's my understanding that the fire might have not been as bad if the Towers had been built using asbestos.
No wires in an office building? Remarkable.
Jones makes a pretty good case for thermite charges.
The Theology/Philosophy professor, Ray Griffin, has some interesting and well reasoned work.Oh lovely; a gardener who does 'root canals' on the side.
Does your wife's manicurist do front end alignments on all makes and models of automobiles too?
Asbestos was used but was stopped about 1/2 way up. After that, different fire proofing was used.
As to whether or not asbestos would have made a difference, it is hard to tell. Most of the fire proofing was blown off by the force of the impact and asbestos probably would have been as well.
Is that an old 20?
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.