American Government responsible for 9/11 and covering it up

[donk_316]

link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060806/ap_ ... nspiracies

Kevin Barrett believes the U.S government might have destroyed the World Trade Center. Steven Jones is researching what he calls evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives detonated inside them, not by hijacked airliners.

These men aren't uneducated junk scientists: Barrett will teach a class on Islam at the University of Wisconsin this fall, over the protests of more than 60 state legislators. Jones is a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University whose mainstream academic job has made him a hero to conspiracy theorists.

Five years after the terrorist attacks, a community that believes widely discredited ideas about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, persists and even thrives. Members trade their ideas on the Internet and in self-published papers and in books. About 500 of them attended a recent conference in Chicago.

The movement claims to be drawing fresh energy and credibility from a recently formed group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

The organization says publicity over Barrett's case has helped boost membership to about 75 academics. They are a tiny minority of the 1 million part- and full-time faculty nationwide, and some have no university affiliation. Most aren't experts in relevant fields. But some are well educated, with degrees from elite universities such as Princeton and Stanford and jobs at schools including Rice, Indiana and the University of Texas.

"Things are happening," said co-founder James Fetzer, a retired philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, who maintains, among other claims, that some of the hijackers are still alive. "We're going to continue to do this. Our role is to establish what really happened on 9/11."

What really happened, the national Sept. 11 Commission concluded after 1,200 interviews, was that hijackers crashed planes into the twin towers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, filed 10,000 pages of reports that found fires caused by the crashing planes were more than sufficient to collapse the buildings.

The scholars' group rejects those conclusions. Their Web site contends the government has been dishonest. It adds: the "World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions" and "the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda."

The standards and technology institute, and many mainstream scientists, won't debate conspiracy theorists, saying they don't want to lend them unwarranted credibility.

But some worry the academic background of the group could do that anyway.

Members of the conspiracy community "practically worship the ground (Jones) walks on because he's seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side," said FR Greening, a Canadian chemist who has written several papers rebutting the science used by Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. "It's science, but it's politically motivated. It's science with an ax to grind, and therefore it's not really science."

Faculty can express any opinion outside the classroom, said Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors. However, "with academic freedom comes academic responsibility. And that requires them to teach the truth of their discipline, and the truth does not include conspiracy theories, or flat Earth theories, or Holocaust denial theories."

Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries.

"Tenure gives you a secure position where you can engage in controversial issues," Fetzer said. "That's what you should be doing."

But when asked what did happen in 2001, members often step outside the rigorous, data-based culture of the academy and defer to their own instincts.

Daniel Orr, a Princeton Ph.D. and widely published retired economics chair at the University of Illinois, said he knew instantly from watching the towers fall that they had been blown apart by explosives. He was reminded of watching an old housing project being destroyed in St. Louis.

David Gabbard, an East Carolina education professor, acknowledges this isn't his field, but says "I'm smart enough to know ... that fire from airplanes can't melt steel."

When they do cite evidence, critics such as Greening contend it's junk science from fellow conspiracy theorists, dressed up in the language and format of real research to give it a sense of credibility.

Jones focuses on the relatively narrow question of whether molten metal present at the World Trade Center site after the attacks is evidence that a high-temperature incendiary called thermite, which can be used to weld or cut metal, was involved in the towers' destruction. He concludes thermite was present, throwing the government's entire explanation into question and suggesting someone might have used explosives to bring down the towers.

"I have not run into many who have read my paper and said it's just all hogwash," Jones said.

Judy Wood, until recently an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University, has been cited by conspiracy theorists for her arguments the buildings could not have collapsed as quickly as they did unless explosives were used.

"If the U.S. government is lying about how the buildings came down, anything else they say cannot be believed," she said. "So why would they want to tell us an incorrect story if they weren't part of it?"

In fact, say Greening and other experts, the molten metal Jones cites was most likely aluminum from the planes, and any number of explanations are more likely than thermite.

And the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report describes how the buildings collapsed from the inside in a chain reaction once the floors began falling.

"We respect the opinions of others, but we just didn't see any evidence of what people are claiming," institute spokesman Michael Newman said.

Wisconsin officials say they do not endorse the views of Barrett, an adjunct, but after investigating concluded he would handle the material responsibly in the classroom.

That didn't mollify many state legislators.

"The general public from Maine to Oregon knows why the trade towers went down," said state Rep. Stephen Nass, a Republican. "It's not a matter of unpopular ideas; it's a matter of quality education and giving students their money's worth in the classroom."

In a July 20 letter obtained by The Associated Press in an open records request, Wisconsin Provost Patrick Farrell warned Barrett to tone down his publicity seeking, and said he would reconsider allowing Barrett to teach if he continued to identify himself with the university in his political messages.

BYU's physics department and engineering school have issued statements distancing themselves from Jones' work, but he says they have not interfered.

At Clemson, Wood did not receive tenure last year, but her former department chair, Imtiaz ul Haque, denies her accusation that it was at least partly because of her Sept. 11 views.

"Are you blackballed for delving into this topic? Oh yes," Wood said. "And that is why there are so few who do. Most contracts have something to do with some government research lab. So what would that do to you? The consequences are too great for a career. But I made the choice that truth was more important."

"If we're in higher education to be trying to encourage critical thinking," Wood says, "why would we say 'believe this because everybody else does?'"

[MNFatz]

No way. Too many people.

The first thing you need are a whole lotta dishonest people.

The next thing you need are to keep those 'whole lotta dishonest peoples' mouth shut after they pull it off.

I will say this--the easiest way for the government to be involved is to take a lesson from Cheney's oil industry friends:

Do absolutely nothing.

Don't prepare, ignore evidence of attack, just let it happen and profit from the fallout. After all, you've got control of the most elastic good in the economy.

It bothers me that happens to be precisely what the oil industry has done since Cheney got in the whitehouse to drive up the price of oil. Don't build anything, no serious reinvestment of capital into the industry--just let everything go to hell to lower supply.

Same thing with the 9/11 attacks. We know there were memos to the president warninig of the attacks, we know that the Clarke was warning the president and he wouldn't meet.

Presto! Halliburton (Cheney is still getting residuals!) is in the money. A nice fat set of no-bid contracts served up, the price of oil through the roof, a permanently destabilized middle east. Who cares if Iran is running the show over there now? All it does is make Dick richer!

[rube]

David Gabbard, an East Carolina education professor, acknowledges this isn't his field, but says "I'm smart enough to know ... that fire from airplanes can't melt steel."

I've seen a few metal framed buildings that collaped in a fire. While the fire was not hot enough to melt steel, it was hot enough to greatly weaken it and cause collapse. I think that heat from all that jet fuel burning was plenty to weaken the structural steel of the floors above since most of the weight was carried by the outer shell of the building and the framing between was relatively light. And inadequately fireproofed BTW. The way the buildings fell, one floor pancaking the the next, is consistent with the aircraft fire weakening the steel of the floors above, causing them to fall and causing the floors below to give way in turn.

Yes, it could have been done with charges but there is clear evidence that a large aircraft, full of fuel and chemical oxygen generators, hit the building. I don't see any hard evidence of thermite or shaped charges.

I'm not yet jaded enough to think our government blew the buildings down but they sure did recognize a good opportunity to do thing Americans wouldn't normally allow when they saw it.

[DiggityBiggity]

Once again, you're forgetting the fact that building seven was never hit by an airplane. NO JET FUEL IN THAT BUILDING!!

Also, you're right, it is too big to cover up, too many people. THAT'S WHY IT'S STARTING TO FINALLY COME OUT IN THE MAINSTREAM!!

[The Dark Side of Will]

Just like Roswell anbd the Holocost!

[whipped]

Area 51 P\/\/n5 jo00!!

[DiggityBiggity]

Honestly... I didn't start this thread. I'm sick of arguing with a brick wall, just like I'm sure everyone else in here is tired of it. But just remember, no fucking plane hit building seven... sorry guys... didn't happen.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Yep. It was never touched. It just got tired of standing and decided to collapse itself. No explosives were harmed in the making of this conspiracy.

[V8Mikie]

THAT'S WHY IT'S STARTING TO FINALLY COME OUT IN THE MAINSTREAM!!

Must be down stream or something as I have heard very, very little from the whacko left and their crazy conspiracy theories outside of the internet.

[DiggityBiggity]

THAT'S WHY IT'S STARTING TO FINALLY COME OUT IN THE MAINSTREAM!!

Must be down stream or something as I have heard very, very little from the whacko left and their crazy conspiracy theories outside of the internet.

.

You aren't watching much FOX, CNN, or MSNBC lately... or even C-Span for that matter. A LOT of these people are starting to be interviewed on the main stream.

[whipped]

THAT'S WHY IT'S STARTING TO FINALLY COME OUT IN THE MAINSTREAM!!

Must be down stream or something as I have heard very, very little from the whacko left and their crazy conspiracy theories outside of the internet.

.

You aren't watching much FOX, CNN, or MSNBC lately... or even C-Span for that matter. A LOT of these people are starting to be interviewed on the main stream.

heh... he's right. I just saw a short interview on MSNBC

[The Dark Side of Will]

News puts crazy stuff on the air purely for ratings.

[MNFatz]

Once again, you're forgetting the fact that building seven was never hit by an airplane. NO JET FUEL IN THAT BUILDING!!

Also, you're right, it is too big to cover up, too many people. THAT'S WHY IT'S STARTING TO FINALLY COME OUT IN THE MAINSTREAM!!

You're bumping into your own self-defense mechanisms against violence.

Yes, you are correct--there was no jet fuel in that building--and no one disputes that--it's irrelevant. What's your point? Here's the statements of many, many people responding to the disaster.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... es_01.html

And here is a good one to help you with building 7 cognitive dissonance with Building 7:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... ichard.txt

My point is, you're choosing whom to believe based on what you want to be true, rather than what an examination of the facts will bear. You quickly get into a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument and insert your own reasons why it happened rather than clear evidence to the contrary.

I get the feeling that this is more of an attention issue for you. There isn't any well formulated arguments substantiating your beliefs, just "looky what I read' posts, hearsay and unanswered arguments.

If you'd like to pick out a single factual inconsistency about building number seven collapsing, I love losing a good argument, BUT I won't let you change the subject.

Otherwise, good luck.

[rube]

You aren't watching much FOX, CNN, or MSNBC lately... or even C-Span for that matter. A LOT of these people are starting to be interviewed on the main stream.

I've seen the UFO guys on the "news" too. They're not what I'd call "mainstream".

From the above cited article: Richard Banaciski of Ladder 22

They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

It is implausible that hundreds of trained firefighters and police would be part of a conspiracy. Not impossible, just really, really unlikely. Occam's Razor is useful for separating bullshit from fact here. The simplest explanation is most often the correct one and the simple explanation here is two large flying bombs hit the WTC.

Why they hit is where the "the buildings were mined" people need to focus their energies. Or is it possible that those people are the ones part of the conspiracy and are serving to misdirect attention from the juicy stuff? :thumbleft:

[DiggityBiggity]

Who said anything about the Police and Firefighters being part of the conspiracy??

As for building seven, even the own 9.11 commission report said it needed further investigation because the reason was HIGHLY improbable... maybe YOU should do some more reading, before you question what I've read.

[rube]

Who said anything about the Police and Firefighters being part of the conspiracy??

Let me break this down a little finer.

You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone.

If the above statement were untrue they'd pretty much have to be wouldn't they? Why would anybody bother blowing up building 7? The WTC towers not spectacular enough? Hours later? Why? Saying that building 7 was not sufficiently damaged (despite lots of eyewitness testimony to the contrary) to collapse is NOT proof that somebody blew it up.

I've read where the same people claim the Pentagon was not hit by an aircraft but a small missile. Their reasoning? There was not enough aircraft wreckage lying about afterward. Hoo boy. Surf the net a little and look at photos of burned out planes. Not much left but little piles of aluminum oxide. Aluminum burns. It is a component in some explosives. Like thermite.

As for the 911 commision report. Aren't they part of the Machine you distrust?

It would not shock me in the slightest to find that out that it was some vast government plot but in the absence of proof I'll go with what is not in dispute. BTW. If you've got unassialable proof let's see it. I don't wan't to see the video of the towers falling where a little black puff of smoke issues forth from the side of the building which some say is a charge going off. That could have any number of explanations. Show me blasting cap bits, explosive charge residue, somebody who saw the charges being placed (in building with thousands of people in it somebody had to see something substantial, even at night). You know, proof.

I just have add a little bit about building 7. We had a building collapse here due to blasting for new construction nearby. You don't think millions of pounds of stuff falling from a fifth of a mile up might have some adverse effect on the structural integrity of nearby structures? Even if not immediately apparent?

[MNFatz]

Who said anything about the Police and Firefighters being part of the conspiracy??

As for building seven, even the own 9.11 commission report said it needed further investigation because the reason was HIGHLY improbable... maybe YOU should do some more reading, before you question what I've read.

I've done some searching, but I can't find anything in the report that says "it needed further investigation because the reason wasy highly improbable".

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just admitting I'm really bad at teh internet.

Could you take a couple of minutes to post a link to the specific text at the site?

[DiggityBiggity]

Sure, let me find it. No problem.

As for building seven, once again, the corner may have been out on that building, but what about building 5 and 6, which had WAYYY worse damage and were closer to the Towers. Building 7 was the farthest away. Why was it demolished? Maybe you should investigate what was inside that building before you ask me that question.

Ok. Here is the EXACT quote from the 9.11 commission report

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

[rube]

As for building seven, once again, the corner may have been out on that building, but what about building 5 and 6, which had WAYYY worse damage and were closer to the Towers. Building 7 was the farthest away. Why was it demolished? Maybe you should investigate what was inside that building before you ask me that question.

NASA lidar image of site


See the big hole in building 6? See that 7 is just across the street? Falling building debris anyone? There are many possible factors affecting why a particular building might collapse and another not. Design of the building's structure and just what debris hit where for starters. Building 6 was right next to the tower but parts of it are still there. By your reasoning, 6 should have been total toast.

If you know that something was in building 7 and you have proof that the building was intentionally demolished because of it why not just post it?

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

That quote has a very different spin than your paraphrase of it. Cause for investigation, yes. Proof that it was blown up, no.

[Fastback86]

I'm still waiting for any conspiracy theorist to postulate a reasonable (hell, I'll take rational) reason WHY the government would want to perpetrate such an enormous and horrendous fraud. And please don't waste our time with dumbass ideas like "to get us into Iraq!" If Dubya's crack team could come up with and pull off a conspiracy like this, they could've found a million ways to get us into Iraq without 9/11.