Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

[ninjaface]

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax


Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This article speaks for itself.

[hellcat]

ALmost every single one of those points has been deubnked by experts in various areas. It was in Popluar Mechanics and some engineering journals a while back. I'm not going to waste my time digging up all the information again because most people dumb enough to believe the conspiracy theories will only be swayed by wild conjecture and not facts.

[Beebs]

"Experts" are idiots

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by ninjaface

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax


Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

None have been hit by planes

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

same names different people, misreporting, lies in an attempt to look brilliant

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

marketing 101

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

a few variables are thrown into the mix when a big fucking plane hits something at full speed

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

[/b]Bad radar, bad reporting, low flying plane[/b]

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

yes, the idea behind the attack was to damage the pentagon and render it useless, that was the point, that was the reason they did it. Also the fact that the plane was coming from the east had nothing to do with it, at all. And I repeat, the purpose of the attack was the actual damage, they hated the building, not the ideas.

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

Wow, what an incredible, reliable souce. And what a goddamned odd thing to be saying, talking about orders and all, of course, the word "orders" is only used to talk about the government creating a massive incredibly odd conspiracy that kills a shitton of americans, including plenty of government workers, its in the CIA handbook that "orders" automatically refers to that, I read it. And this guy isn't whoring for attention, and remebers everything that happened that day in perfect sequential order, word for word.

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

This guy is also not whoring for attention, and is still an active inspector general who had access to all the information, which allowed him to make an informed decsion on the matter, the word "former" is clearly a typo, he must certainly still be the Inspector General.

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

Since the evidence here is so apparant and specific how could one possibly not take this totally seriously. That tape could not have been destroyed for any other reason than to cover up a massive global conspiracy, just like the burning of the kennedy limo, it wasn't done to protect classified information, it was done to FUCK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE ASS BY THE EVIL GOVERNMENT

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

This is entirly damning considering the fact that Condi has the memory of an elephant, and was given indepth briefings on every training exercise performed at the Pentagon, mainly the ones that took place before her becoming the NSA in January 2001. Also, that test could not have possibly been for the case of an accidental crash, and Condi could not have possibly been caught up in the moment and shocked that a bunch of crazy fucks decided to fly a loaded plane into a building, she would have been as totally unphased as the rest of the nation.

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This article speaks for itself.

And may I add a final "yawn, this has been done to fucking death"

[Ugly Bastard]

Wow! Holy shit! Beebs shooting down a conspiracy theory even though it's gaining momentum by convincing America's brightest minds that something isn't adding up through reasonable logic! I would have never thought Beebs would be this closed minded to such a possibility[/sarcasm] You're so predictable to me Beebs. Quit being such a shoot-down-every-theory hardass. Most of your counter arguements are much more illogical and empty-of-facts as the theories you are trying to shoot down.

Interesting article, ninja. Check out a page or two back in the Video of the Day thread for some more discussion on this topic if you haven't already seen it. I too agree that there are a few things that don't really add-up about that day, and am interested in learning more. I guess my biggest problem with the situation is that there is this growing underground theory that the gov. is responsible for the acts of 9/11, yet the government isn't doing anything to prove otherwise. I guess, if they have nothing to hide, they should be shooting down these theories left and right, shouldn't they? FTR: I get the vibe that a fair portion of this stuff is sensationalist bullshit, but there is some of it that seems legitimately odd.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

I guess my biggest problem with the situation is that there is this growing underground theory that the gov. is responsible for the acts of 9/11, yet the government isn't doing anything to prove otherwise. I guess, if they have nothing to hide, they should be shooting down these theories left and right, shouldn't they?

Youre a joke.

[Cocktooth]

I have watched every video, read every newspaper article, and every book that 9-11 has produced. I have looked at all the theories that are out there, yet I havent found one without a ton of holes. Im sick and tired of people trying to find a loop hole to get some publicity. I hate Bush and can't wait to vote straight ticket democrate for the first time in my life. ( I voted mitch daniels and he has turned me into an idiot with the crazy time zone bull shit but thats another thread) The fact is, the government is going to give us the meat of what happened on 9-11. They cant give 100% information due to security concerns and since they cant, people are using that to their advantage. And lets not fail to mention, We got the bronze in curling!!! Thats like gettin third in a world war!! Congrats Pete Fenson

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by THEINCREDIBLEdork

Youre a joke.

Care to substantiate that based off of the comment of mine that you quoted? I don't see anything irrational about what I said. There are people who believe our government staged 9/11; if they didn't, why don't they come forth with the evidence to prove otherwise? (A video of a 757 hitting the Pentagon would get a guy like me to shut up pretty fast).

[Ugly Bastard]

I was being a dick in my first reply to Beebs. If i want to have an adult conversation with him I can't call him a hardass, etc. So let me try this again only a little more chilled out this time:

A significant portion of your counterarguement that you posted is satisfying to me. Like the "Marketing 101" comment, I see where you're coming from, and acknowledge the fact that you might be right.

Let's look at one of your arguements that I can't seem to understand how you could possibly think this way.

Theory: Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

Your Counter-Arguement: Bad radar, bad reporting, low flying plane

I mean, do I really need to explain how shitty of an arguement that is? The plane disappears off the radar around Kentucky because you say it was simply "low flying"? Yet, when it reappeared on the radar just outside the Pentagon it was... what?... cruising at 30,000 feet?

I guess my point with all of this is: You seem to be pretty willfull and quick to shoot down any conspiracy theories. And that's okay. I'm more the opposite in that I tend to want to believe conspiracy theories. I'll be the first to admit that I need to not be so quick to believe everything I read on the internet.

I guess it just bothers me that a lot of the things you say to shoot down conspiracy theories make much less sense than the theory itself. You don't have to believe the theory, that's fine; but please try to make your arguements halfway close to logical when trying to convince me not to believe it.

[Beebs]

I fucked up the wording of one point because I was in a hurry to get in a post that Ugly Bastard wouldn't complain about me not providing support for my arguments, that article missed the rest. Where is the fact that the plane "dissapeared" on radar? Whose radar?
There are at least 100 (way bare minimum) radar machines that had the ability to located that plane. This article seems to imply that every single one of them lost it, proof is needed to substantiate this claim, there is no proof, just conjecture.

Now, even if that was possible that every single radar machine lost this plane, there is still possibly a logical explanation that makes this somewhat possible, just give me some time. I actually wish I could enlist the help of bloodyfart in this case, as sad as that may sound. I will use these magical things called "sources" to back up my argument that this article refuses to do.
Now, lets get down to my point.
Conspiracy : Plane dissapears from radar for no reason, possibly implying that the government intentionally did this by doing something like tampering with every radar device with the ability to track the plane, or something along those lines

Beebspiracy : Planes have radar transponders that can be turned off by towelheads with flight training.

Want more detail, fine with me, lets get cracking.

We will start here http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...y_of_9/11=aa77

To long, don't want to read, I'll get the important ones.

8:56 radar turns off (Naptown gets a mention here)
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...56flight77lost

8:56 Transponder signal turns off: NORAD not informed
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...856transponder

Im sorry I'm not one of those people who goes out and watches "JFK" and believes that shot required a magic bullet, in that movie, as in this article facts are either distored or made up to make a sensless tragedy make more sense in our minds, it makes us feel more comfortable to think such things require great forces, rather than a few crazed individuals.

In summary, I am sorry for fucking up the wording of one of my explainations. I refuse to apologize for being a critical thinker

[jbonham]

I believe he was just getting tired of typing so much, with their being so many bad points to shoot down. I think the govt should give us some more info, but it is logical to think that there was some sort of equipment or user malfunction that caused the plane's so-called disappearance.

I see your point on knocking on some of Beeb's explanations, but they are no more ludicrous than some of the points in the above article.

The government also doesn't have the time to stop and answer all the questions that conspiracy theorists come up with. I would rather the govt just keep working anyway, as conpiracy theorists will always have another finger to point.

Now, the good points they bring up should be investigated, but some he said/ she said crap should be left out of it, like condi's response.

I don't know why Beeb's shoots down so many theories, but maybe he is sick of people making a mockery of everything that is anything. I hate it when people glory hog just to make themselves known and then eventually they start believing all of that crap.

[jbonham]

sorry, it said someting of i wasn't logged in and then it gave me an invalid redirect thread or some crap like that... idon't know...ignore this post

These criticisms are so cleaverly-crafted to deceive you.

For example, the claim that the buildings were designed to withstand aircraft is true, but they were not designed with planes this big with fuel tanks this big.

Nearly all of these so called problems are merely cleaverly-crafted plays on words and circumstance. In reality, an event of this size will have plenty of outliars which aren't easily explained due to its rarity and complexity. Making these conspiracy theories is easy.

Burning the Reichstag is one thing - light a match.
Organizing suicide bombers, the kidnapping/murder of civilians in passenger airlines, demolitions, control of surveilance - this is another ballpark entirely. The number of official people who would have to be "in" on the opperation would be massive.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Care to substantiate that based off of the comment of mine that you quoted? I don't see anything irrational about what I said. There are people who believe our government staged 9/11; if they didn't, why don't they come forth with the evidence to prove otherwise? (A video of a 757 hitting the Pentagon would get a guy like me to shut up pretty fast).

If your biggest problem with the whole situation is that the government isn't defending itself (against something no one respectable actually believes), then there is no problem at all.

Plus the only way anybody could win over these boneheads is by using vague statements and images combined into a video with kick ass rock music.

[ninjaface]

MY only question is... will there be naked chicks in this video?

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by DJ FC

Organizing suicide bombers, the kidnapping/murder of civilians in passenger airlines, demolitions, control of surveilance - this is another ballpark entirely. The number of official people who would have to be "in" on the opperation would be massive.

Very wonderful point.

Pretty reasonable reply Beebs (and about everyone else since I last read this thread). I'm too tired/uninterested right now to get into a big heated debate, i just wanted to say I appreciate you clarifying your stance on that point a little more.

A question to all of the anti-conspiracy theory people in this thread (basically all of the Elkhart people it seems like): Does it bother you that the government refuses to release the video footage they have of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon?

Talk to you tomorrow.

[Schroeder]

Wow, that article opened my eyes.
1. No author.
2. Not attributed to any newspaper or scholarly journal.
3. I saw a long list of "experts" but not a doctor or professor in the bunch, apparently. Hell, the articale didn't even say what they were experts of.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet, kids (Oh, and I'm selling tin-foil hats for a dollar a piece).


Also, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, but even if the government was responsible for 9/11, and we're all just puppets, what are you going to do about it?

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Very wonderful point.

Pretty reasonable reply Beebs (and about everyone else since I last read this thread). I'm too tired/uninterested right now to get into a big heated debate, i just wanted to say I appreciate you clarifying your stance on that point a little more.

A question to all of the anti-conspiracy theory people in this thread (basically all of the Elkhart people it seems like): Does it bother you that the government refuses to release the video footage they have of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon?

Talk to you tomorrow.

Does not bother me one bit, because it isn't true.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/0...agon.pictures/

[Ugly Bastard]

What does that link prove? I've seen that picture a hundred times. I asked does it bother you that the government won't release video or stillshot of a 757 jet hitting the Pentagon? They have never released any of the videos or images they possess of the actual jet itself.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

lol that was the video, how many cameras do you think they had pointing at that side of the building?

[theMerciless1]

it was a missile

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by THEINCREDIBLEdork

lol that was the video, how many cameras do you think they had pointing at that side of the building?

There are reports that the Sheraton Hotel, a nearby gas station, as well as the Virginia Department of Transportation all had security cameras that would have caught the plane colliding with the building. Allegedly the FBI confiscated these security videos within minutes of the plane crash. They have never been released to the public.

[Beebs]

Where are the reports, and who is making the accusation?

Dork basically covered my point, that video was released in a reasonable peroid of time, it appears to be the best (only?) video there is. Given all the other information from credible sources that can actually be researched and cited, namely the timeline andthe fact that a plane turned its transponder off, and didnt land where it was supposed to, or at all, and nobody aboard said plane seems to be speaking up, it makes more sense that the video shows a 757 hitting a buidling.

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Where are the reports, and who is making the accusation?

From Wikipedia: The FBI confiscated a video, which may have captured the impact, from a nearby gas station attended by Jose Velasquez. This video has not yet been released. ("Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon", Bill McKelway, Richmond Times-Dispatch, December 11, 2001)



More info from a credible source about the FBI confiscating this video.