Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/310106hoax.htm


Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax
Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.


PRWEB | January 31 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 expected 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."

 

Rat... why not at least finish other threads.. rather than starting all over again..

 

What do you mean by finish? You mean endlessly argue with idiots who incessantly peddle the government's propaganda while rejecting all other evidence?

 

You do your fair share of 'rejecting all other evidence'... so don't bring that one along to the party.

If you wish for this thread to be avoided by those that disagree.. not tainted by varying opinions... I can respect that... i guess.

Take care..

P.S
I'd actually love that to happen..just once .. see how it turns out.

PB.. Stay away

 

No matthew, he rightly rejects the song and dance parade of after the fact vested interest shills who offer fancy mathematical computations (all beginning with with a truncated premise of explaining away but the merest part of an issue that must be examined in its entirety for the illogic and inconsistency-ridden farce that it is to be fully appreciated.

This is an event whose intention was always the realisation of a political agenda long in the planning by rabid, lying ideologues. Now that that agenda has become a new paradigm, as was the Cold War, for the media and pundits to filter all world events (and the accusations/justifications therefor) through, the energy, military industrial complex and financial interests profitting as never before will be damned before they will allow the gravy train to be exposed for the fraud it always was. That's the very reason all arduous effort by those who believe in holding a stonewalling, secrecy-ridden cabal to account for their treason and mass murder have met with nothing more than glib ridicule and marginalisation by the mainstream.

Nevertheless either sufficient numbers will wake up and see the political intent at work here or the eventual misery it will create will force them from their present self deception. Until then, those who see through the charade will not cease from decrying it, however few and far between we may be in relative numbers.

 

which 1 is the expert? look's like a list of philosephor's to me, how the fuck did wayne make it on the list , he's an investigative journalist, an not a very good one at that. none are "expert's" on the subject at hand. but they all share a common thread....."WE'RE DOOMED".............what a crew!

 

Condi likes to plead ignorance on a lot of things. She made the remark that no one could have anticipated terrorists using airplanes for destroying buildings. Coming from the academic background and lack of experience that Condi has, it's not surprising she makes such statements.

A spouse of one of the people who was killed in the 911 attacks did some research, testified before the Senate, and summarized over 40 incidents where people used planes intentionally as a weapon, not to mention a plot to topple the Eifel Tower using an airplane a few years earlier (plus the Egptian co-pilot who downed a jumbo jet into the ocean just off Long Island about a year before 911; also the person who flew his Cessna into the White House in the mid 90s). She basically made Condi look like a monkey.

Of course, MSNBC, Fox, and C-SPAN ignored that hearing in the summer of 2002 because it made the govt look bad. Only CNN covered part of the hearings. You would think with a monumental incident like 911 that the media would have at least covered some of those hearings.

.

 

No, we mean anwer questions instead of running away like a coward.

*The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about-

Of course this is not the official theory. But what better way to start a exercise in brainwashing than with a total lie?

* 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?

This has been explained at length by many engineering studies which Rat carefully avoids, instead covering his eyes and saying "I don't see any evidence". He also seems to think that the fact the buildings had been hit by a 757 travelling at 500 miles an hour is not a relevant factor. Apparently what happened to the WTC towers was that there was a fire. Is this mind numbingly stupid? Yes.

* 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?

How is it possible that four years after this myth has been disproved, people like Rat who do "extensive research" are still repeating it? Because if a conspiracy theory gives people what they want to hear, it will live forever. See "Zombie Terrorists" at http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-265160,00.html

* 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?

Read any of the numerous engineering studies. Or better yet, don't!

* 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?

The wanted to fly a plane into a building. Did they really need to make it more complicated than than? And does hijacking an airliner make you a structural engineer?

* 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?

Fun to watch the conspiracy theorists get fed pre-digested lies. The "order" must have related to not shooting down a plane. Why? Don't question things.

* 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 757 is 153 feet long. A city block could be any length, but lets say 300 feet. So according to an unnamed "former Inspector General of the Air Force", an airplane travelling at 500 miles an hour when it strikes the ground would leave debris barely twice the length of the aircraft. Do I need to break out the physics equations to prove this is moronic? No.

====

So Rat, up to your usual standards. "The work of experts and scholars"! Yet five minutes of effort makes half their claims look ridiculous. QUICK! Go start another thread!

 

You must remember that Rat seems in part to be a religious fanatic.

He believes himself to be the instrument of a ‘good’ god and is fighting against the dark and evil forces of Lucifer.

It is likely that the mindset might be similar to a creationist. It doesn’t matter how much evidence is presented to a creationist that evolution is the most probable cause of the world today the creationist is not going to accept it since it conflicts with their belief.

 

No Balbus, the Illuminati are Satanists, but that's different than saying Satan exists. Understandably confusing. Hilarious, on the other hand, is this:

You see! The very fact that people try to refute conspiracy theories proves they are true. After all, what kind of person would do such a thing - a vested interest shill! Wouldn't you expect the Illuminati to try to refute the conspiracy? They would, wouldn't they! And using science, with their fancy pants book learnin' mathematical computations? Ridiculous I tell you, ridiculous!

 

None of your post facto engineering reports are anything other than establishment serving suppositions, many with direct disclaimers to that fact. Since the admin made sure the debris wasnt safeguarded for proper forensic examination, a crime in itself regarding the treatment of a crime scene.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/ (debunking the NIST report)

Obviously you pulled the very same "cut and paste" job you routinely deride others of doing, to be so ignorant of this fact. Unsurprising as that may be.

Blind Establishment shills: 0.

 

Point

Rat believes that it is a fight between good and evil so in his eyes they are worshipers of Lucifer because they must be evil because he is working for a god that is good.

In an either/or mindset if you are the good person then whomever you are against must be evil.

So it doesn’t matter if the agents are acting for a real Lucifer or just believe they are acting for Lucifer, just as it does matter if Rat’s god exists he believes it exists.

 

This source is not credible in the slightest. You just gave the left a bad image.

 

Lick Rhetoric:

Post facto. Bet it felt good to put that in there, didn't it? Useless verbiage - is anything more fun?

Establishment serving, i.e. the very fact that it discredits the conspiracy is a point against it. Would I accuse one of your links of being "conspiracy serving"? No, because its bloody obvious and meaningless. And suppositions? What else could they be but suppositions? Are they any more supposition than your precious conspiracy theories? Then what's the point? There is none - except the pure joy of making empty, boilerplate denunciations.

That's because its real science. Real science highlights the limitations of the study. Unlike conspiracy theorists, who have no problem calling their bizarre theories "fact".

Not true. But supposing the FBI had put it all in a safe, then things would be different because... wait the FBI is part of the conspiracy. OK so maybe the FAA... no wait so are they. How about the NYPD... nope. Right, so its another one of those fake issues you have created, where if things had gone completely differently you would have come to the same conclusion.

But anyway, that is all just stuff you toss right and left in a panic when you are trying to avoid something. Like the idiocy of Rat's last post. Apparently all these experts and scholars, after so much original research and analysis, got together and concluded that an airplane 150ft long which hits the ground at 500 miles an hour would scatter debris no farther than one additional plane length away.

Now I, and anyone else with common sense can see that is utterly moronic. A casual mistake? No, apparently this team of geniuses never spotted it even after all their laborious efforts, and it made it into their final press release. Is there any other possible explanation than sheer stupidity?

Balbus: fair enough.

 

Rather than spew the usual at me.. why did you not just skip on by my post and question Rat.. and respond to this thread.
You did not have to.. if you wished to not show the same critical thoughts you ha......fuck that actually.


I tried Rat... i was not being sarcastic.. seems it aint gonna happen.

 

In providing a extensive review of the oversights, omissions and misleading claims of the NIST report it is merely another piece of the extensive effort undertaken by countless researchers on the subject.

Exposing the post facto whitewashes has nothing to do with any endorsement for "The Left", its about public accountability for those who have lied and abused their power. Its called civic duty and is a mandate for citizens who care about preserving a true democracy regardless of where they place themselves on the supposed "political spectrum".

Its a shame that seems to have escaped you.

 

PB post followed by a matt post and both as usual doing nothing but padding their cozy bubbles of denials all the more.

Yep, right on cue!

No actually does nothing more than spin numbers and premises to support the official hole-ridden "conspiracy theory" and invent justifications for it that run counter to all historic precedents.

As clear a case of blackmailed endorsements as one can expect from this administration.

 

I personally think that 9/11 thing was by the US Government, they just
wanted a reason to get into Iraq.

That's all i can say.

 

excuse me ???

I'd like you to highlight where i have said anything on the content of this thread ?. Point to my denials ?.

Can you not read:

If you wish for this thread to be avoided by those that disagree.. not tainted by varying opinions... I can respect that... i guess.

Take care..

P.S
I'd actually love that to happen..just once .. see how it turns out.

I guess the 'varying opinions' was a little OTT.. but it just meant people of mine and PBs ilk...

I thought it would be interesting to see if the debate would dry up or not.

Leave your scathing critiques within this thread.. for PB or the subject matter... i never asked or warranted it.

 

Has anyone bothered to study the link (above)?

Just curious...