Academics doubt official 9/11 version

A month ago I saw snippets of the appearance of Brigham Young physics professor Steven Jones on the Tucker Carlson show. I was totally surprised and asked for a video of the entire show, which they sent me. On the show Jones explained that he had written a scientific paper about his doubts concerning the engineering aspects of the official version of the Twin Towers collapse. So far so good. I didn't even post it here back then.

Now, Jones has teamed up with 49 other academics and former Bush administration officials. All of them are Americans. As far as I know none of them are notorious conspiracy buffs. None has a record of making outlandish political claims. Yet here they are, accusing the government of 'lying about 9/11'. No matter what you think of their arguments, this is a serious matter and I want to know more about these guys and their views.

I can think of a host of reasons why they could all be either stark raving mad or right on the mark, but speculation doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Can anybody add anything worthwhile on the subject, on these fifty people, on the technical aspects, anything?

Here goes:

Deseret Morning News
Saturday, January 28, 2006

BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11

by Elaine Jarvik

Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's upping the ante.

"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."

Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.

They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term. Most of the members are less well-known.

The group's Web site (www.ST911.org) includes an updated version of Jones's paper about the collapse of the Twin Towers and a paper by Fetzer that looks at conspiracy theories. The government's version of the events of 9/11 — that the plane's hijackers were tied to Osama bin Laden — is its own conspiracy theory, says Fetzer, who has studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since 1992.

"Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers," charges a paper written collectively by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group plans to write more papers, and present lectures and conferences.

"We have very limited resources and no subpoena powers," Fetzer said. "What you have is a bunch of serious scholars taking a look at this and discovering it didn't add up. We don't have a political ax to grind." Fetzer has doctorates in the history and philosophy of science. "One of the roles I can play here," he said, "is to explain why a certain line of argument is correct or not."

In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the subject of government surveillance and might get them on various lists of "potential terrorists."

The group's charges include:

• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.
• No Air Force or Air National Guard jets were sent to "scramble" the hijacked planes, which were clearly deviating from their flight plans, although jet fighters had been deployed for scramblings 67 times in the year prior to 9/11. The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group.
• The video of Osama bin Laden found by American troops in Afghanistan in December 2001, in which bin Laden says he orchestrated the attacks, is not bin Laden. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the "real" bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.

The Scholars group hopes that media outlets around the world will ask experts in their areas to examine the group's findings and assertions. If this were done, they argue, "one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world."

The group also asks for an investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, following up on points made in Jones's paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" That paper, recently updated, has been posted on Jones's BYU Web site since last November.

Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned "cutter charges." Proof, he says, includes:

• Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.
• Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."
• No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.
• Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) "are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers."

Neither Jones nor other members of the Scholars group suggests who would have planted the explosives, but they argue that the devices could have been operated by remote control. Jones says he has received thousands of e-mails from people around the world who either support his ideas or think he's "nutty," and he still gets about 30 e-mails a day on the topic.

He continues to do research on cold fusion, which he prefers to call metal-catalyzed fusion "to distinguish it from the claims" of former University of Utah chemistry professors B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, "which we do not accept as verified." He reports that his metal-catalyzed fusion work is going well, with three scientific papers published last year.

Jones will present a talk entitled "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions" at Utah Valley State College at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 1.

Link

If this is all so big, how come these guys are still alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If this is all so big, how come these guys are still alive.

---

I have no idea whatsoever. What I do know is that I am not open to suggestion today. Only to facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I have no idea whatsoever. What I do know is that I am not open to suggestion today. Only to facts.

---

That time of the month again huh, step away from the wardrums mia muca. If they invested time and money into orchestrating such a marvel one would expect that it would have a big fat 'pretty secret' sign slapped on the whole thing. I always heard conspirators are ruthless people, and not sloppy at all.

I find the explosive thing a bit silly, the metal doesn't need to melt to give in. With a nice explosion the skeleton would crumble under it's weight alone. And it would have been a whole lot easier to just load a bomb in the plane anyways. And why would it been necesary for the towers to collapse, 2 planes would allready be a pretty big statement for some propaganda-fun.

Well, I am going to disappont Adrian because I have no facts to offer here. But as an academic myself, I am not sure that 49 academics have any more credibility than 49 other people - at least when not publishing within peer reviewed journals in their own specialist fields. It's not clear that a philosopher, a nuclear fission expert or an economist has particular authority when speaking on the length from Osama's tip of nose to his ear lobe.

If it were 49 air crash investigation experts writing about why the Two Towers could not have collapsed just because of the two planes crashing into them, I might sit up and take notice. As it is, I'll just use Adrian's favorite smillie ...:coffeenews:

Well, I hope they are right, just because I'm curious whether or not the entire Bush administration would be executed.

On a more serious note: computer models aren't always accurate, and what happened is seriously complex to model. There might be no accurate simulations available.

I might look in to this a little more if I find the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

And why would it been necesary for the towers to collapse, 2 planes would allready be a pretty big statement for some propaganda-fun.

---

This whole story is one big question mark to me. I mean, what if these guys make it up as they go along -- is it something in the water? Since when is BYU, the excellent Mormon establishment, a hot-bed of conspiracy theorists? Has the former director of the Star Wars defence program suddenly turned into a mouth-foaming idiot?

I mean really..

???

EDIT
@ Simon Appleton. I share your scepticism about their claims. But even if they are bogus, my question still stands: why this line-up of heavy-weights? Why would they go out and attempt to do so much damage to either (1) this President, and/or (2) their country, and/or (3) themselves - not necessarily in that order, as you will understand. It baffles me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I mean really..

???

---

Isn't it obvious? What do these buildings look like? Exactly. This is really all a scheme of the women's emancipation movement, dicks should fall. The statement: ok, we are horrible drivers but look at us fly! Bin Laden was the obvious scapegoat, because, well in 'scapegoat' the word 'goat' can be found. Don't trust them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Isn't it obvious? What do these buildings look like? Exactly. This is really all a scheme of the women's emancipation movement, dicks should fall. The statement: ok, we are horrible drivers but look at us fly! Bin Laden was the obvious scapegoat, because, well in 'scapegoat' the word 'goat' can be found. Don't trust them.

---

Fragony darling, I can think of a million jokes, but not now. Don't you see that either way this is very bad news; an announcement of a complete breakdown in public trust. Honestly, the United States never ceases to amaze me, it is truly the greatest show on earth. Some things I like, some things I do not like - but boy, what a show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Don't you see that either way this is very bad news; an announcement of a complete breakdown in public trust.

---

It is? Just the millionth item that gets more media coverage then it deserves, it would make for a great script though. It isn't even anything new, just different people saying it, if you want juicy conspiracies I would first look there.

No jokes? It really gets to you doesn't it :laugh4:

edit, little add, if America has too much of anything, besides Americans, it are experts. Open any scientific magazine, the fights go on forever.

if I were going to blow somewhere up I think I'd go for something simpler than co-ordinating my boom booms with a bunch of idiots with a death wish who have hijacked some aircraft.

The more insane and complicated people make it sound the less inclined I am to believe it.

A couple of points though:
maybe the video image of bin Laden has been distorted (just think of some online footage you see of people that are stretched and look a little weird).

I have no idea exactly what was in the WTC and how hot it could potentially burn (because I don't know what was in there, I guess that they cannot know exactly what materials were in there either), I'd guess that saying "oh, jet fuel burns at X temperature so the fire couldn't have been hotter than that" is a little daft.

Besides professor in philosophy and english litterature, there are; Architecture and physiological psychology, Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program, Physics Ph.D, Graduate Engineer electronics wide industrial experience, hysics and Astronomy, New York City architect, Physics/ Materials Science, Electrical Engineering, Radar and telecommunications, Engineering Physics, Nuclear Engineering, Software Architect, Professor of Physics, Senior Research Scientist, Electrical Engineering, Electronics engineering, Computational physics, computer programmer, software developer, Materials Science and Engineering Emerging and Fundamental Science, Political Science, Comparative and International Politics, State-sponsored terrorism, Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, RF Engineering.

So I think there is a lot of specialists in the group. These are the most relevant, but there are many others, like journalists and many many more. I agree with Adrian, _why_ would they use all this effort if they at least didnt think themselves, they have a point.

It was the Martians....:dizzy2:

Interesting... for a panel of 'experts', they apparently aren't all that familiar with the basic concepts of combustion...

First, the assertions of the group:

Of the three 'claims' they make:
1) They offer no proof of this assertion (that W was well aware of the impending attacks)
2) Has anyone looked at relevant documents from the FAA & Pentagon discussing the scramble policy in place on 9/11?
3) Even if it's not OBL in that particular video, he has released several more videos and numerous tape recordings of himself to Al Jazeera (you know, the only unbiased news service in the world?) They seem satsified with their accuracy. Apparently, this group does too, if the Dec 2001 tape is the only one they address.

Quote:

---

Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

---

As for their 'speculation and proof', I only have time to address one:

True, jet fuel would not burn hot enough to melt the steel supports. But paper burns at 351F. Does that mean it's a conspiracy every time somebody melts a beer bottle in a campfire that was started with newspaper? No, it simply means that the paper burned hot enough to ignite something else that burned hot enough to ignite something that WOULD burn hot enough to melt the glass, such as a maple log.

I get really, really tired of all the 'while we have no proof of this, nobody can disprove our claim' conspiracy theories out there. I have neither the time nor the inclination to thoroughly read and debunk each and every one, because at the end of the day, they're symptomatic of a phenomenon... that at the end of the day, many in the United States and Western Europe would rather believe George W Bush was responsible for 9/11 than Osama Bin Laden. Just as I cannot convince a Christian fundamentalist that the world was not created in 6 days, no matter how hard I try and how many facts I use, I cannot convince these people that at the end of the day, America was attacked by muslim extremists on 9/11. If you choose to believe this hooey, so be it, but it fails even my most basic sniff test.

To Sjakihata's question, of why would they do this if they didn't think they were on to something...I simply say when you have an axe to grind, no amount of effort spent towards revenge is considered wasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

It was the Martians....:dizzy2:

---

It was the secert "Death Star" program being tested by the United States. Come on Dave you have to believe the consprisacy that the United States is behind the twin towers collaspe.

I need my tin foil hat to prevent the CIA and NSA from reading my brain waves.

If they didn't include the theory of explosives in the WTC - I just might give the article more creditablity.

THey complain about metal slag but credit explosives.

Now something I don't see in the article nor in the link is the discussion of stress caused by a plane colliding into a building and exploding into a ball of fire, coupled with heat generated by the fire of jet fuel.

Now I am not a physics expert - but I have worked with my father welding and cutting steel many years ago. I have also seen oil rigs (which are made of steel) soften and collapse because of fire.

If the weight above the impacted stressed and now heat softened steel goes beyond the weight capablities of that steel - it leads to collaspe. If the Impact of the weight coming down is greater then the design of the steel remaining then the possiblity of collapse continues down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by link

Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering

(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)


The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.

After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.


Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.

It is possible that the blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.

---

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

@ Simon Appleton. I share your scepticism about their claims. But even if they are bogus, my question still stands: why this line-up of heavy-weights? Why would they go out and attempt to do so much damage to either (1) this President, and/or (2) their country, and/or (3) themselves - not necessarily in that order, as you will understand. It baffles me.

---

Well, my point was that I am not sure the point that they are "heavy-weights" is that germane. They are just people and people can believe lots of seemingly strange things. I don't want to offend our believers, but I think one only has to look at organised religion to see Professors of Astrophystics, Brain-surgery, Dialetical materialism, you name it, believing all sorts of curious stuff about 7 day creations, virgin births, wine out of water, whatever.

Less facetiously, part of the explanation maybe that 9/11 was a terrible trauma, in itself rather bizarre and something psychologically people were not prepared for. The shock and disbelief leads people to obsess over it and come to question the "official" explanation, which appears too mundane and clear-cut for the terrible event. There seem to be parallels with the great conspiracy industry about the assasination of JFK - a similarly shocking event, where the idea that a lone commie could have done it was not nearly as psychologically satisfying as a vast conspiracy involving the CIA, the mafia, the Vice-President &tc as Oliver Stone hysterically put it in his movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Fragony darling, I can think of a million jokes, but not now. Don't you see that either way this is very bad news; an announcement of a complete breakdown in public trust. Honestly, the United States never ceases to amaze me, it is truly the greatest show on earth. Some things I like, some things I do not like - but boy, what a show.

---

Another 49 jackasses coming up with an anti-Bush tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is a 'complete breakdown in public trust'? To you maybe. To me, it's just another bunch of pathetic buttholes. It's sad this guy is still a professor- spewing such obvious drivel. :no:

Quote:

---

A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner. Instead of saving the building, engineers and officials should focus on saving the lives of those inside by designing better safety and evacuation systems.

As scientists and engineers, we must not succumb to speculative thinking when a tragedy such as this occurs. Quantitative reasoning can help sort fact from fiction, and can help us learn from this unfortunate disaster.

---

from Why did the World Trade Center Collapse

It seems like every month we have to slap down another 9/11 tinfoil hat theory- why is that?

Before you all begin to think I'm an apologist for the administration (this one or the previous one), there was a terrible conspiracy that happened, right under our noses. If you want to see the US government acting badly (both past and present) go re-read the transcripts of the 9/11 commission. It was a white-washing that reached 3 conclusions:

1) Nobody was really to blame ($^! :furious3: ) A lot of somebodys dropped the ball on this one.

2) Expanding government will somehow ensure it doesn't happen again in the future ???? :help:

3) Anyone questioning policies of the Clinton or Bush administrations that may have exacerbated our weakness and exposure to the threats, will be silenced using all means necessary (see Able-Danger).

9/11 was a catastrophic failure of the security and intelligence services of the world's most prosperous and advanced nation for a prolonged (>8 years) period of time. There were so many dropped balls, it looked like the NY Jets were running counter-terrorism for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

There were so many dropped balls, it looked like the NY Jets were running counter-terrorism for us.

---

Inappropriate I know but:

:laugh4:

edit for typo

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.

This is a brilliant essay. A good read. Thanks for the link AdrianII.
:book:

I think this is very interesting in that it shows that the disbelief is larger than perhaps previously thought. It's not only conspiracy theorists or Anti-Americans that doubt the official version of the 9/11 incident. It's your average Joe but also reknown scientists and journalists. To simply put them off by saying they are insane may be a bit easy.
I like to read conspiracy theories from time to time, but I see them as literature. Alternate realities if you will. I don't consider them to be true but entertaining. The most entertaining ones are of cause those that lack a plausible official version and hence might be true. I don't need to get into the reasons why this "conspiracy theory" could be true, if it is one. :wink:

But I guess my point of view on cts isn't shared by many and there still remains the question of motivation of these scientists. For an intellectual mind game it may prove a bit dangerous for their reputations and future. It is either very courageous or very stupid to come forth with this theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Another 49 jackasses coming up with an anti-Bush tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is a 'complete breakdown in public trust'?

---

Yes, it is. If, among others, former (Republican) White House officials and Air Force bigwigs are involved, it is a sign of a serious breakdown of public trust.

On closer inspection I believe this group has little or no evidence to show for any of their claims. Some of their claims are contradictory, for instance the two claims that (1) Dick Cheney personally 'followed the path of flight 77 to the Pentagon' and (2) that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon.

Their website is anything but convincing and lacks references and reliable quotes on all sorts of topics. They even carry some of the long-discarded Thierry Meyssan stuff (for instance the Pentagon pictures that 'prove' no plane ever hit the building ). I agree with Don Corleone that it smells to high heaven.

I am just TOTALLY amazed that these people would hazard their own reputation and/or that of their country, depending on the point of view of the beholder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I am just TOTALLY amazed that these people would hazard their own reputation and/or that of their country, depending on the point of view of the beholder.

---

Its called book deals.:2thumbsup:

Adrian, I think you're not as aware of the current climate of American politics as you might think if you're 'totally amazed' at the limits to which political opponents will go to discredit their foes. As I said, these guys have an axe to grind. It's not just this administration, either. Plenty that was thrown in Clinton's lap was unwarranted. Nor do politically motivated attacks necessarily mean partisanship. If you want to see some ugly mudslinging, watch the coming fight for the House leadership, all Republicans. The idea of judicious restraint and candor are lost concepts over here, I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I am just TOTALLY amazed that these people would hazard their own reputation and/or that of their country, depending on the point of view of the beholder.

---

You have to consider that the idea that we did it to ourselves, or the jews are behind it, or whatever is actually quite popular in many places outside of the US. A certain french author got quite rich and popular by espousing the same BS did he not? For my part, people like this -who obviously should know better- that spread this nonsense will never get anything but contempt and derision form me. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Its called book deals.:2thumbsup:

---

You've nailed it methinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I am just TOTALLY amazed that these people would hazard their own reputation and/or that of their country, depending on the point of view of the beholder.

---

Maybe America just isn't that bad after all.

And hypothetically, if it happened to be true, then what xiahou?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

And hypothetically, if it happened to be true, then what xiahou?

---

What if, hypothetically, the toothfairy exists?

It's not true- the facts and evidence are irrefutable.

I would argue that also that all of the hullabaloo in the media and in certain circles to the contrary, it shows that freedom of speech is alive and well here in the land of E. Pluribus Unum. You could make the point that so long as such vehement (though insubstantial) attacks against the administration persist, clearly the thought police haven't worked out all the kinks in their system just yet.

oops

the FBI crashed through my door yesterday. 10 seconds after I'd said "Al Quaeda" in an international telephone call.

free speech my bum.

:furious3:

Edit: this really happened.

Edit: no, honestly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

And hypothetically, if it happened to be true, then what xiahou?

---

Seriously, Sjakhata, what if, hypothetically of course, it was determined that in fact, it was a master plot, ordered by Göran Persson , carried out by SÄPO, motivated by an overwhelming desire to acquire yet even more Turkisk peppar? What if, hypothetically, it turned out to be the work of Dr. Doom, and the Fantastic Four just didn't get there in time? Before we can offer serious speculation, we need credible scenarios posed.

mabye they are correct about the fire and fuel and collapsing but pray tell how will they explain the insentive to attack the pentagon and possibly another site in DC. does there conspiracy theory extend to attacks on other sites that were not so catostrophic, the pentagon was struck and a plane went down in pennsylvania, where is the conspiracy over those, did anyone see unexploded bombs being carted out of the washington monument later that day?

There's no shortage of equally ludicrous conspiracy theories for the Pentagon too- rest assured. Or haven't you heard? It was really a missile! :dizzy2: :wall:

None come to mind over the flight that went down in PA- but Im sure they're out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

On closer inspection I believe this group has little or no evidence to show for any of their claims. Some of their claims are contradictory, for instance the two claims that (1) Dick Cheney personally 'followed the path of flight 77 to the Pentagon' and (2) that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon.

Their website is anything but convincing and lacks references and reliable quotes on all sorts of topics. They even carry some of the long-discarded Thierry Meyssan stuff (for instance the Pentagon pictures that 'prove' no plane ever hit the building ). I agree with Don Corleone that it smells to high heaven.

I am just TOTALLY amazed that these people would hazard their own reputation and/or that of their country, depending on the point of view of the beholder.

---

They don't say that "no plane" hit the Pentagon but that it was smaller vessel like an "A-3 Sky Warrior". So there's no contradiction of claims.
Also the 3 peer reviewed papers (and everything else I've seen) on the front page are all referenced. The evidence seems as strong as that of the official reports. :wink: And the "Thierry Meyssan stuff", as you call it, is actually not brought up again but treated differently. Iirc Meyssan's conclusion was that a rocket propelled grenade/whatever was fired. They do agree with him though that it can't have been a 747.
I don't know if you have read this article:
Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

I quote it for our convenience. I think it's a very interesting point.

Quote:

---

1. "Conspiracy Theories"

We need to come to grips with conspiracies. Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All they require is that two or more persons collaborate in actions to bring about illegal ends. When two guys knock off a 7/11 store, they are engaged in a conspiracy. Most conspiracies in our country are economic, such as Enron, WorldCom, and now Halliburton as it exploits the opportunities for amassing profits in Iraq. Insider trading is a simple example, since investors and brokers collaborate to benefit from privileged information. Ordinarily, however, the media does not describe them as "conspiracies".1 The two most important conspiracies in our history are surely those involving JFK and 9/11.

One fascinating aspect of 9/11 is that the official story involves collaboration between some nineteen persons in order to bring about illegal ends and thus obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory". When critics of the government offer an alternative account that implicates key figures of the government in 9/11, that obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory", too. But what matters now is that we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as "conspiracy theories". It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as a "conspiracy theory" in favor of the other. The question becomes, Which of two "conspiracy theories" is more defensible?

There is a certain ingenuity in combining "conspiracy" with "theory", because the word "theory" can be used in the weak sense of a speculation, conjecture, or guess to denigrate one account or another for political or ideological reasons without acknowledging that "theory" can also be used in the stronger sense of an empirically testable, explanatory hypothesis. Consider Newton's theory of gravitation or Einstein's theory of relativity as instances. The psychological ploy is to speak as though all "theories" were guesses, none of which ought to be taken seriously. Various different cases, however, can present very different problems. Evidence can be scarce, for example, or alternatives might be difficult to imagine.

Moreover, there are several reasons why different persons might arrive at very different conclusions in a given case. These include that they are not considering the same set of alternative explanations or that they are not employing the same rules of reasoning. The objectivity of science derives, not from transcending our human frailties, but from its inter-subjectivity.2 Different scientists confronting the same alternatives, the same evidence, and the same rules of reasoning should arrive at all and only the same conclusions about which hypotheses are acceptable, which are rejectable, and which should be held in suspense. And, in the search for truth, scientific reasoning must be based upon all the available relevant evidence, a condition called the requirement of total evidence, and is otherwise fallacious.3

---

BTW, to all those that frequently refer to tinfoil hats: a study at Stanford (Iirc) has lately found out that if there was such a thing as CIA mindreading then wearing a tinfoil hat would almost certainly amplify the ability to read ones mind. Ironic, isn't it? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

None come to mind over the flight that went down in PA- but Im sure they're out there.

---

I think I once heard about a "theory" claiming that flight 93 has been shot down by the military (apparently the same military, that - according to other conspiracy theories - was prevented from shooting down the NY planes ... :juggle2: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I think I once heard about a "theory" claiming that flight 93 has been shot down by the military (apparently the same military, that - according to other conspiracy theories - was prevented from shooting down the NY planes ... :juggle2: )

---

Of course! It all makes sense now! The Air Force shot down flight 93 in case it ever came to light that they didn't shoot down the 2 New York planes when they could have. The perfect cover! By the way, all reports to the contrary, Francisco Franco is alive and well in a convalescent home in Michigan, just waiting for his 'next big opportunity'. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

Also the 3 peer reviewed papers (and everything else I've seen) on the front page are all referenced. The evidence seems as strong as that of the official reports. :wink:

---

Peer-reviewed my foot. I remember reading the first one by Steven Jones back in 2005. It merely states that the buildings had prepositioned charges. It does not state that the U.S. government positioned them. The second is not peer-reviewed at all; it is just a lecture and a very bad one. The third is only a chapter for an upcoming book on a supposed 9/11 conspiracy, and it is not peer-reviewed either. It has no substance, it quotes Meyssan and Jones and speculates about what might have hit the Pentagon: a small plane, a fighter jet, a cruise missile, an unmanned aeroplane, anything really. As evidence for the wild claims made on the site this is pure cr@p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

And the "Thierry Meyssan stuff", as you call it, is actually not brought up again but treated differently. Iirc Meyssan's conclusion was that a rocket propelled grenade/whatever was fired. They do agree with him though that it can't have been a 747.

---

Sorry, but that is essentially Meyssan's contention. And they literally quote Meyssan's stuff over at http://www.asile.org.

Most of their claims are nothing more than thinly veiled speculation, most of their sources contradict each other. Just look closely and you will see what I mean. Here is an example of how it 'works'.

They posit the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scholars for 9/11 Truth

(17) The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"

---

The footnote supposed to substantiate this claim refers to a passage in an article on NewScience.com. Here it is:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NewScience.com

Classic demolition

The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.

"If there's any good thing about this it's that the towers tended not to weaken to one side," said Taylor. "They could have tipped onto other buildings or into the river across the West Side highway."

The collapse of the WTC towers mirrored the strategy used by demolition experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but also on several consecutive floors about a third of the way up the building.

The explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors in a snowballing effect.

On Tuesday, the impacts of aeroplanes on the higher floors replaced the explosives. The collapse of the higher floors caused the floors below to be crushed. "It cascaded down like an implosion," says Taylor.

The lack of collapse in higher stories was one reason why the 454 kilogram bomb detonated in the underground garage of the World Trade Center in 1993 failed to destroy the building.

---

So what Taylor was saying to NewScience.com was that it looked like a classic demolition because the planes replaced the usual explosives higher up in the building. In essence, Taylor says the additional explosive devices that the 'Scholars' speculate about were not necessary at all!

Their site is replete with such contradictions.

This theory is nothing new (well at least to me) I've heard of it in other sources, not in so much detail, but still.

Quote:

---

Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

---

This is interesting. A while ago I published here a little article about an american photographer (I don't remember his name). He was the only one who was allowed to enter ground zero before the incident (he also worked regularilly on the nuclear reserves). The interesting part is this: he was persecuted for the murder of his wife, the case was desisted. Reopening it will imply ne bis in idem (judging over the same case twice). Well after the desistence he took a flight to here (Argentina). The authorities took him in custody because of other charges. Inmediatly the authorities of USA called and asked for his personal belongings, specially his camera. The charges were droped (the charges from our part of course). After a while he begun to complain about other photographers chasing them (he and his new wife), actually showing some of this photographies. The authorities denied the extradiction. And that was the end of the story for now. Anyway just an observation that might add more to this theory.

Surely the demolition explosives would have to be placed at the point of impact or most of the building would have to be wired and then only the ones in the zone of the impact detonated?

Surely someone would notice this... have you seen how long it takes to wire a skyscaper for demolitions, the amount of wiring involved and how precise they have to be.

====

Paper starts to ignites at a certain temperature... this is not the temperature that it then creates... it adds to that ignition temperature.

So paper ignites at 351, but the new temperature will be 351 + the amount of energy released in the exothermic reaction. Shredded paper will produce more heat quickly then a wound up newspaper.

In addition the configuration of the flame (where the combustabiles are located and the oxygen supply) and where you place an object in the flame will change how much temperature there is on the object. With bunsen burners you will get a transparent zone in the flame and a blue outer flame... or with a different oxygen setting a yellow flame.

With the planes crashing at high velocity it would have created an aerosol which burns very quickly and with massive heat... the shredded paper scenario.

====

Steel melts at at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
Stainless Steels are around 1420 to 1440 degrees C.
Iron melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F).

Steel is an alloy of Iron and other elements. Hence different steels will have different melting points as they are combined differently. However more often then not Steel will melt at a lower temperature then Iron.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Same thing applies to ice cream... vanilla is equivalent to 'iron', chocolate to 'steel'... chocolate will tend to be softer then vanilla in the same fridge.

====

Aviation fuel can burn at up to 2600K (2300 Celsius). Plane turbines are limited to about 1900 K and to stop massive amounts of NOx in the atmosphere the upper limit is about 2100K.

In other words aviation fuel can burn about 800 degrees above the melting point of steel.

====

In conclusion these academics facts are incorrect. Which in turn means that their theories based on these facts are also incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Surely someone would notice this... have you seen how long it takes to wire a skyscaper for demolitions, the amount of wiring involved and how precise they have to be.

---

Not if it was closed to public visit.

Quote:

---

With the planes crashing at high velocity it would have created an aerosol which burns very quickly and with massive heat... the shredded paper scenario.

---

This is very true. I questioned it myself when I read the excerpt.

Quote:

---

Aviation fuel [/URL]can burn at up to 2600K (2300 Celsius). Plane turbines are limited to about 1900 K and to stop massive amounts of NOx in the atmosphere the upper limit is about 2100K.

---

Sorry, the K is for Kelvin? Then 2600K is beneath 2300 Celsius and beneath 2500 Farenheith.

K is for Kelvin... C for Celsius, F for Fahrenheit.

2600K = 2300 C = 4200 F.

Link to a temperature calculator

Kelvin starts 0 at -273 C.

The core was weakened and buckled. Then floors fell and a chain reaction started. You can't efficiently build building able to stop that.

I still have not seen an answer as to why NORAD sat on its hands, and why jets were not scrambled. That is the question that needs answering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Seriously, Sjakhata, what if, hypothetically of course, it was determined that in fact, it was a master plot, ordered by Göran Persson , carried out by SÄPO, motivated by an overwhelming desire to acquire yet even more Turkisk peppar? What if, hypothetically, it turned out to be the work of Dr. Doom, and the Fantastic Four just didn't get there in time? Before we can offer serious speculation, we need credible scenarios posed.

---

Wonders why we Swedes get pointed out in an answer to a Danish member. :juggle2: Kudos on the correct use of åäö though (it is taken from somewere else, right?) :2thumbsup:

Anyway, if it is some grand conspiracy theory then it has to be quite big as it seems that no American organisation can keep thier mouths shut for this long. It always comes out, eventually.

And as Simon was into, it's a possibillity that they really can't accept that a bunch of clumpsy suecidal maniacs is avalable to do that kind of damage.
No, it has to be something larger, they say.

But you can always wonder why so few heads flew, when it was the (second?) biggest intelligence failure in US history and that because of sheer incompetence :inquisitive:

Pape: I love you.:knuddel:

Is it a platonic love or is it lust for his flesh?

I don't know, science talk makes me all tingly.

:2thumbsup:

Edit: just to clarify, platonic, I was overjoyed to hear about the properties of vanilla and chocolate ice cream. God knows if it's true but I liked it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Anyway, if it is some grand conspiracy theory then it has to be quite big as it seems that no American organisation can keep thier mouths shut for this long.

---

That is their main problem. A conspiracy of a few dozen fanatics with box cutters is believable, particularly because their identities and motivations are known, their whereabouts and actions have been reconstructed. An anonimous conspiracy involving a dozen U.S. state agencies, the Air Force, the CIA, various fire departments etcetera etcetera is just not credible.

Amazing, this collective harakiri of 50 rogue samurai.

I stopped reading the article when it asked if the President knew if the attacks were coming. We also "knew" about the Japanese attack on what was to be Pearl Harbor. I consider most (not all people) academics to be, academic:

ac•a•dem•ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-dmk)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of higher learning.

1.Relating to studies that are liberal or classical rather than technical or vocational.
2.Relating to scholarly performance: a student's academic average.
Of or belonging to a scholarly organization.
3.Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See Synonyms at pedantic.
4.Based on formal education.
5.Formalistic or conventional.
6.Theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention. See Synonyms at theoretical.
7.Having no practical purpose or use.

~;)

If they want something to muse about I think this rather profound event is an excellent choice, even if I disagree with their ‘findings’.

There's another fundamental flaw with conspiracy theories that occurred to me way back in my X-Files days. They don't pass muster when it comes to Occum's Razor. If the government is capable of pulling off such an elaborate hoax and has that much power to maintain the illusion, why on earth wouldn't they just quit playing charades and do whatever it is that is the supposed goal of the charade in the first place???

I forget the name, but there was a series of cartoons in newspapers from the 40's through the 60's, they were called ____ machines, where all sorts of contraptions were excessively and needlessly complex and elaborate when in reality, no benefit was realized (think a flyswatter with 3 motors and over 1000 moving parts for example). Whenever I hear of one of these conspiracy theories, that's always what comes to mind.

My favorite reply to elaborate government conspiracies: Have you ever met anyone who works for the government? If we recruit people like Valerie Plane (sp?) from cocktail parties to be spies what does that say about the rest of us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

There's another fundamental flaw with conspiracy theories that occurred to me way back in my X-Files days. They don't pass muster when it comes to Occum's Razor. If the government is capable of pulling off such an elaborate hoax and has that much power to maintain the illusion, why on earth wouldn't they just quit playing charades and do whatever it is that is the supposed goal of the charade in the first place???

---

Good point - if they managed to stage 9/11 they sure did a sloppy job regarding the Iraq-AQ or the Iraq-WMD issue in comparison... (not wanting to start a discussion about these to issues, but it appears that whatever organisation is supposed to have staged 9/11 had an intern working on the Iraq-cases)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Good point - if they managed to stage 9/11 they sure did a sloppy job regarding the Iraq-AQ or the Iraq-WMD issue in comparison... (not wanting to start a discussion about these to issues, but it appears that whatever organisation is supposed to have staged 9/11 had an intern working on the Iraq-cases)

---

Absolutely. Our government can't even deliver the mail in a repeatably reliable fashion, yet somehow they managed to pull this off without leaving any tangible proof? And managed to keep it this secret? Hell's bells, in certain aspects, my estimation of my government might actually go up if it could be proven that they were the ones that pulled it off. I'd have to stop with all the incompetency cracks, at the very least.

Bush used his new brainwashing machine(powered by the souls of small black children, and desgined by aliens) to remove the evidence and eliminate any chance of some one screwing up.

You can't prove that he didn't, and I'm certain that ther are certain websites out there that will back up what I said.

Maybe I'm wrong, but what if I'm right? we can't take any chances, therefore, we should lynch him as soon as we can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Good point - if they managed to stage 9/11 they sure did a sloppy job regarding the Iraq-AQ or the Iraq-WMD issue in comparison... (not wanting to start a discussion about these to issues, but it appears that whatever organisation is supposed to have staged 9/11 had an intern working on the Iraq-cases)

---

You're not thinking big enough. :mellow:

The obvious answer is that it isn't the US goverment, but someone manipulating the US goverment. :grin2:
Thus phoney reasons for attacking Iraq can be exactly according to plan. :idea2:

Some Popcorns and a large coke would be great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff

I don't know, science talk makes me all tingly.

:2thumbsup:

Edit: just to clarify, platonic, I was overjoyed to hear about the properties of vanilla and chocolate ice cream. God knows if it's true but I liked it.

---

If you love this then you will love the fact that custard can blow up entire factories just leaving the scorched foundations.

Exploding custard.

*faints*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Link to a temperature calculator

---

Interesting handy feature. And humilliating failure from my part too.:no:
Well that answers one question. But still there's other questions and other hipotesys that must be answered (refering to the inicial post). Just because some part is refuted it doesn't mean that the entire theory is unfounded.

Well it disproves their idea that plane fuel cannot melt steel.

Also the collapse of the building was not 6.6 seconds. It stood for quite a while and once it went past a critical point it then collapsed. The pressure of the above floors pressed down on the structure and much like a tree that has been chopped into it collapsed... once it started falling it would have been self energising.

The best point I've seen is the WTC 7 collapse. The video shows it is totally vertical. Also, it was mentioned that the calculated free fall from that building is 6.0 seconds but the building itself fell in 6.6 seconds (have to recheck that).

However, a conspiracy this big and deep would require too many people's cooperation as well as be dependent on the the success of the hijackers.

Meaning in an event of failure (say, only one plane hit), they have to clean up all the elaborate explosives set up (supposedly) in the other buildings.