Since he was kind enough to raise the point last night.
...An online cottage industry of theorists, theory debunkers and debunker debunkers has flourished since 9/11. Sometimes the flimsy theories are easy to spot -- come on, if the four passenger jets didn't crash where it appears they did, where did they go? More often, though, the cases aren't so obvious.
A group of experts and academicians 'devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, `letting the chips fall where they may,' '' last week accused the government of covering up evidence that the three destroyed New York City buildings were brought down that day by controlled demolition rather than structural failure. The group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has a website, www.st911.org.
The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present.
''I am a professional philosopher who has spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,'' group co-founder and University of Minnesota professor James H. Fetzer told me. ``When I come to 9/11, it's not hard for me to determine what is going on. This is a scientific question. And it is so elementary that I don't think you can find a single physicist who could disagree with the idea that this was a controlled demolition.''
The group asks, for example,
• How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?
• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.
• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?
• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?
• Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?
More questions over on kos here.
Because to not question the Official Story would be the worst sort of treason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi KB! I've seen the answers someone where to the fire question based on looking at the metal after the collaspe.
I think that one of the stories that never clicked with crash of flight 93, Their is one piece of data that differs from the offiical story. The semisic data of when the plane crashed differed from when they said it crashed.
And the data on the flight recorder is out of sync with that data. Their were eyewithness info that a missle struck the plane and hearwitnesses as well. I know enough to not believe that, but the semisic data was from instruments in other parts of the country. And when it says something hits the ground at such and such a time based on wave propgation through the earth, they can say with a lot of authority when it hit the ground. And the timing for the flight data recorder should be contected to that.
NSTB didn't investage this crash, if they did would they have found a plane that had the characteristics of a missle strick crash or not. We'll never know.
Cheney said protect DC at all costs. Shooting down a plane would have been forgiven by the public (especially after the towers) and ironicly it would have shown them doing something right to protect us, but the narrative of the brave passengers is better. Both things might have happened at the same time, but since this wasn't investaged correctly we will never know.
Post a Comment