Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[Blotan Hunka]

I find this site much more investigative and less kooky.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html

 

[Makalakumu]

It is entirely possible, if this research is genuinely uncovering something that happened, that a good number of the conspiracy theories we see on the net and in print, are actually part of a disinformation program.

 

[dobermann]

has anyone seen a plane at the pentagon?

why did the pentagon airdefense (most effective in the world!!) not go off with an airliner coming at them?

for me, a conspiracy nut bar, 9/11 had nothing to do with osama at all.

think of a country close east that would gain something with this incidents. actually, none of the countrymen were hurt in the attacks at the WTC.

actually some CIA-paper exists where similar incidents were talked about. with help of some hollywoodguys too. it included intercepting airliners and exchange them.. its just to many "funny things" about it that would proof for me to be true!

 

[FearlessFreep]

I think my Occam's Needle just went to the redline

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/272159.shtml#81907

They also like to say that those towers collapsed due to explosives. An architect (who was in on the conspiracy, no doubt) who had experience with the WTCs said that the flaming fuel weakened the horizontal support trusses that were not fire-protected and all the weight of the vertical structures on the outer layer of the buildings started falling down.
But what did he know.
Also, the conspiranoids like to point to the impacts of the planes and how the explosions couldn't have looked like that. So there must've been heavy explosives involved.
That's due, I think ,to what people's conception of what 'explosives' look like, which is based on what they've seen in Hollywood movies.
Heavy explosives themselves don't make spectacular, Jerry Bruckheimer-style fireballs.
Sorry.

 

[Don Roley]

I think my Occam's Needle just went to the redline

Ditto. This is nutty even for the internet. We are supposed to just believe that a major magazine's article has been refuted? By who- a few guys on the internet perhaps? And if this whole thing turns out to be false, then later on people will just say that it was part of a disinformation program.

But some people will believe anything if it fits their hatred of certain groups.

 

[Makalakumu]

We are supposed to just believe that a major magazine's article has been refuted? By who- a few guys on the internet perhaps?

This article was refuted, not by a few chumps on the internet, but by professors in physics, engineering, architecture, science, etc...

This group is serious. One of the members, James Fetzer is giving a pre-interview for Dateline NBC.

You really have to read this arguments carefully and try to find the holes. Be skeptical in the sense that you would let a theory stand on the merits of its evidence.

 

[FearlessFreep]

James Fetzer - check his website http://www.assassinationscience.com/

 

[Makalakumu]

James Fetzer - check his website http://www.assassinationscience.com/

Yes. Take a long careful look at it. That may require some time and reading.

 

[Makalakumu]

After the 9/11 commission's report came out, the results of a certain Zogby poll showed that 68% of New Yorkers did not believe the official story of 9/11. I struggled with this...why didn't they believe it?

Then I came across the oral histories article on the site I posted above. These are taped interviews of people who were directly involved with the WTC disaster and the revelations are explosive. Literally. Everyone heard and saw multiple explosions right before the towers fell. In fact, they say they saw shockwaves traveling up the building like a wave perfectly timed with the sequence of the explosions.

This information was just recently released. The city of New York was sitting on it and would not let the tapes go public. The New York Times and a coalition of the victims families took filed a FOIA and took the city to court. They won the case and forced the city to release this material.

I'm not wondering why two thirds of New Yorkers do not believe the official story anymore. If that is what so many people saw, then its a perfectly understandable result. BTW - none of the oral history material made it into the 9/11 Commissions report.

 

[Makalakumu]

This thread is getting a lot hits, but not alot of chatter...

I just read Prof. Jones' powerpoint presenting some of his findings. Here is the link to download it.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/files/Presentation.exe

One can also find this link on the initial site I posted.

The bottom line is that after viewing this link, you will have very serious questions about what really happened. This is a professional presentation that is highly researched and technical. It draws on comments from highly trained individuals and it examines the collapses in detail. There is some other interesting material, but the science behind the collapses of the buildings is utterly convincing.

Usually, when I check out various "conspiracy theories" I take them with a grain of salt. This is different. One can take a grain of salt or the whole shaker and it won't matter. If you consider all of the evidence (not just the stuff you've been allowed to see up to this point) and you consider what the most highly educated people in the fields of engineering, physics, architecture, and other sciences are saying you will have serious questions...

...and one cannot help but contemplate the level of betrayal that is implied.

 

[Makalakumu]

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Steven_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006/BYU_Professor_Steven_E_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006_911_9-11_Lecture_WTC-7_911TruthSeekers.org.wmv

This is a video of Dr. Jones' presentation at BYU. If you have a broadband connection check it out. He has some good explanations for alot of the technical information...just in case the powerpoint above was going over your head.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

College professors implicating that the President is a mass murderer? Say it isnt so!

 

[Makalakumu]

College professors implicating that the President is a mass murderer? Say it isnt so!

What do you think about the evidence presented? No more ad hominem or a priori reasoning. Just look at the facts presented and sincerely comment.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I guess the one thing that stick in my head, Don, (and I have a scientific background) is the fact that steel girders were found that showed signs of vaporization. The kind of temperature needed to vaporize steel cannot be generated in a hydrocarbon fire.

4500 degrees F is the range needed to start this process. Higher if one needs to do it faster. This temperature range, between 5000 and 6000 degrees, is as hot as the surface of the sun and only a few specific chemical reactions can generate it. One of them is a steel cutting explosive used to demolish buildings.

I think that it is good to be skeptical about these things, but to defer an argument because one does not understand the technical jargon isn't skepticism. Ask some more questions. Ask me. I'm a teacher and I can probably help explain some stuff you might not understand.

The bottom line is that the fact that steel was vaporized in the WTC superstructure casts some serious doubt on the hypothesis that the impact of the planes and the fire caused by paper and hydrocarbons caused the buildings to go down.

There must have been something else at work in order to vaporize steel. What?

Actually, 'steel cutting explosives' do not use high-heat to cut steel, by the way.

As for 'peer-reviewed' articles, the question becomes exactly what the peer group is. Do they have their cell-mates at Bellview review for accuracy and pure imagination?


Here's an important question, upnorth, exactly what 'truths' are they trying to 'bring to light' about 9/11 on this website? Is this just a sight for whatever wacko theory happens to be the subject of some some deranged fantasy? Is there direction, or is it generally enough that it purports to prove that 'some aspect' of 9/11 was a 'lie'? Perhaps your research could help you answer that question.

From what i've read, it's obvious that the only necessary criteria is that it purport to 'prove' that some aspect of 9/11 was a 'lie'. Once the 'peer review' process kicks in, then they're a go. I find it humorous that it's required that one serious consider the meanderings of the obviously mentally ill in order to be considered 'open minded'.

These experts contend that books and articles by members and other associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon.

Hehe. "Yeah, the planes crashed in to it, man, but that's not what brought down...that's what 'THEY' want you to believe....man....it's, like....a conspiracy!"

Upnorth, you're an intelligent, rational person....why do you insist on giving credibility to this load of tripe?

 

[sgtmac_46]

What do you think about the evidence presented? No more ad hominem or a priori reasoning. Just look at the facts presented and sincerely comment.

It's tripe, veilled in technobable the professor hopes is too dense for the average person to see through. He counts on the fact that some people want to 'look smart' by declaring the dense presentation 'utterly convincing'.

See also you're attempt to declare anyone who disagrees with your (and the professors) conclusions as simply allowing the material to 'go over their head'. Please, it's multiple logical fallacies rolled in to one, not the least which is the appeal to (alleged) authority. 'The professor is a renowned expert in <blank> (and hence far smarter and more educated than you) and this is his argument'.

Don't fall victim to that trendiest of motives, upnorth, use the reasoning skills I know you have.

Of course, the big question is, if the 'Professor' and his 'peers' have such compelling evidence, and they are so 'convincing' why are the relegated to the nut-fringe of the internet, and not household names? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's a 'Conspiracy'. hehe.

 

[Makalakumu]

Actually, 'steel cutting explosives' do not use high-heat to cut steel, by the way.

Technically, correct. The high heat generates linear pressure...which actually cuts the steel. Of course, the process of forcing steel generates alot of heat and then the chemical reaction itself generates alot of heat. This is what melts and evaporates the steel.

As for 'peer-reviewed' articles, the question becomes exactly what the peer group is. Do they have their cell-mates at Bellview review for accuracy and pure imagination?

You have to dig into this stuff in order to get to that. Basically, experts in the feilds of physics, chemistry, engineering, and architecture have reviewed these articles.

Here's an important question, upnorth, exactly what 'truths' are they trying to 'bring to light' about 9/11 on this website? Is this just a sight for whatever wacko theory happens to be the subject of some some deranged fantasy? Is there direction, or is it generally enough that it purports to prove that 'some aspect' of 9/11 was a 'lie'? Perhaps your research could help you answer that question.

As far as I understand from what I've read, the research is basically showing how the commonly accepted theory that fire brought down WTC 7 and fire and impact brought down WTC 1 and 2 cannot possibly be true. Then, the research goes on to examine further evidence to support an alternate theory which proports that all three buildings were controlled implosions.

From what i've read, it's obvious that the only necessary criteria is that it purport to 'prove' that some aspect of 9/11 was a 'lie'. Once the 'peer review' process kicks in, then they're a go. I find it humorous that it's required that one serious consider the meanderings of the obviously mentally ill in order to be considered 'open minded'.

Its not just some aspect of the story...the entire thing has been taken to task. The FEMA report and the NIST report have been neatly dismantled by this research. And, further, experts in the fields that would know most about these events are agreeing with the results...the official story cannot be true.

Upnorth, you're an intelligent, rational person....why do you insist on giving credibility to this load of tripe?

I like delving into real conspiracy theories because its fun to laugh at real wackos. This is different. From the first article by Prof. Jones to his presentation and the rest of the subsequent articles, there is just too much here to ignore. The scholarly level on this is high enough that the deans of various colleges of engineering are signing off so that their profs can start presenting this to students.

Anyways, I've spent the last few days since I started this thread reading their articles. They have powerful arguments.

And I've been waiting for you to jump on this discussion actually. It would be nice if you'd take some time and really dig into this material and provide a different point of view. I think that even you might find a couple of surprising tidbits...

 

[sgtmac_46]

Technically, correct. The high heat generates linear pressure...which actually cuts the steel. Of course, the process of forcing steel generates alot of heat and then the chemical reaction itself generates alot of heat. This is what melts and evaporates the steel.

No, this is what 'can' melt steel. This is not the ONLY thing that melts steel. It's actually a relatively simple process to melt steel

You have to dig into this stuff in order to get to that. Basically, experts in the feilds of physics, chemistry, engineering, and architecture have reviewed these articles.

Translation: 'You're not privy to all the need-to-know information, man'. Which 'experts' are those? If they're such 'experts' why are they doing all their reviewing on hack-conspiracy theory sites?

As far as I understand from what I've read, the research is basically showing how the commonly accepted theory that fire brought down WTC 7 and fire and impact brought down WTC 1 and 2 cannot possibly be true. Then, the research goes on to examine further evidence to support an alternate theory which proports that all three buildings were controlled implosions.

Which completely bogus, that's the point. They are merely 'ridiculing' the idea that 'planes' brought down the world-trade center....of course, ignoring the fact that two large jetliners DID, in fact, crash in to the two towers...an inconvenient 'factoid' that presents a bit of a credibility problem for them. Of course, those PLANES were just a 'diversion' from the 'REAL' mechanism that brought down the WTC....man.

Its not just some aspect of the story...the entire thing has been taken to task. The FEMA report and the NIST report have been neatly dismantled by this research. And, further, experts in the fields that would know most about these events are agreeing with the results...the official story cannot be true.

It must give them great satisfaction to have 'dismantled' the FEMA and NIST reports....in their fantasies.

I like delving into real conspiracy theories because its fun to laugh at real wackos. This is different. From the first article by Prof. Jones to his presentation and the rest of the subsequent articles, there is just too much here to ignore. The scholarly level on this is high enough that the deans of various colleges of engineering are signing off so that their profs can start presenting this to students.

I question whether you're able to differentiate between wackos and REAL wackos.

Anyways, I've spent the last few days since I started this thread reading their articles. They have powerful arguments.

I'm more fascinated in what makes otherwise normal people embrace conspiracy theories. The psychological mechanisms, I mean.

And I've been waiting for you to jump on this discussion actually. It would be nice if you'd take some time and really dig into this material and provide a different point of view. I think that even you might find a couple of surprising tidbits...

I've come to a conclusion, upnorth, a lot of this is based on belief. I'm a big X-files fan....because it's fantasy. However, I realize that the real world doesn't work like it does in the fantasy world.

The one advantage i've got on you, upnorth, is that I have conducted real world operations involving the coordination of dozens of people. Murphy's law rules this universe. Now, lets examine the complexity of the conspiracy theory you've seemed to have endorsed. Someone let me know if i've missed something.

The President, as soon as he takes office (or is it the Jews) decide that we need to blow up the WTC, (Why? to make way for a big parking lot, who knows). He also decides, what the heck, lets blow up the Pentagon, too. So he sets special operatives in to motion to carry out this plan. Why do they do it? I mean they are attacking their own country, killing thousands of Americans, for what? Money? Who knows, doesn't matter. (if it's inconvenient, simply ignore it, we'll come up with a reason later).

So, hundreds of US operatives set in motion a plan to attack the US.

US operatives, posing as 'hi-jackers' hi-jack airliners, to crash in to the WTC and the Pentagon, but only as a diversion for the REAL attack....Alternative, they are radio controlled.

More US operatives plant explosives, under the noses of workers, in the WTC, in order to bring it down.

These explosives are designed to appear as if the buildings collapse near the spot where the planes are going to impact.

Now, the world trade center is down, the pentagon attacked, now, lets frame Osama bin Laden. What's more, nobody is going to EVER say anything about it.

How am I doing so far? Who are the operatives? I don't know, the same people that framed OJ and killed Kennedy.



Your problem is, that the technobabble isn't enough. They declare it 'impossible' that the airliners brought the buildings down, and that makes it so, why? Because they are convincing in their arguments? And, as we all know, when reality contradicts the 'facts' of noted (self proclaimed) experts, it's the experts that MUST be right, right? There are FAR more problems with their theory, that somehow 'convincing' you that the airliners, for some esoteric reason, couldn't produce the heat to melt the girders and reduce the structural integrity of the building....FAR MORE problems than that.


You know what's so funny, though? They can carry out a HUGE covert operation to commit the biggest mass-murder and terrorist attack in US history, pull it off in FRONT of the eyes of the ENTIRE world......BUT THEY CAN'T PLANT A LITTLE WMD IN IRAQ?! Please. Of the two, planting some fake evidence of WMD would seem a much simpler conspiracy. But they didn't? I mean, these men just committed mass-murder on an epic scale against their own people, surely they could plant some WMD in the middle of Iraq to make the invasion look good.

 

[Makalakumu]

Of course, the big question is, if the 'Professor' and his 'peers' have such compelling evidence, and they are so 'convincing' why are the relegated to the nut-fringe of the internet, and not household names?

For one thing, this group formed on 12/15/2005. It's new. And I think you better take a second and a third look at that technobabble. A couple of others were put off by it, but people like me who have training in this sort of stuff are taking second and third looks. We have a couple of engineers on this board. I hope they pipe in soon...

 

[Flatlander]

I mean, these men just committed mass-murder on an epic scale against their own people, surely they could plant some WMD in the middle of Iraq to make the invasion look good.

OK, well, that's a pretty good point.

Admittedly, I've found some of the pictures in the link I posted above to raise questions in my mind. However, taken as a whole, the entire concept is for me, far too far fetched to believe. Beyond that, the science is too technical for me. However, one of the authors on the site does seem to be someone of significant repute. Either way, I'm unable to make a responsible judgement. So, I'll have to fold this hand.