Results 1 to 30 of 60

Thread: Academics doubt official 9/11 version

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default 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
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  2. #2
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Academics doubt official 9/11 version

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

  3. #3
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: Academics doubt official 9/11 version

    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.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  4. #4
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Academics doubt official 9/11 version

    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.
    Last edited by Fragony; 01-30-2006 at 12:41.

  5. #5
    zombologist Senior Member doc_bean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Riding Shai-Hulud
    Posts
    5,346

    Default Re: Academics doubt official 9/11 version

    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.
    Yes, Iraq is peaceful. Go to sleep now. - Adrian II

  6. #6
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: Academics doubt official 9/11 version

    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.
    Last edited by Adrian II; 01-30-2006 at 12:54.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  7. #7
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Academics doubt official 9/11 version

    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: Academics doubt official 9/11 version

    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: Academics doubt official 9/11 version

    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 ...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO