Fury as American academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'
Sections of the Muslims were already saying this in murmured tones. Role of a Zionist conspiracy behind 9/11 was cited, with claims that of the thousands of Jews working in the World Trade Centre on that fateful day, not one died as all either decided to take leave or come late to office. Even with all his money, how could have Osama become so powerful to hit the heart of the US, they argued.
However, no right thinking person would have ever believed in the veracity of such a heinous plot. Not till now though! A group of 75 professors and leading scientists from various universities within the US, under the banner ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’, have come out openly against the US Administration, claiming that 9/11 could not have been possible without the patronage of certain war mongers within the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries. They claim they are armed with ‘scientific proofs’, the theories propagated by these academics have become widespread enough to prompt official responses. Particularly the notion that the towers fell in a controlled demolition is gaining in strength and an increased number of US citizens, as per surveys, have started to support this argument.
The claims had caused outrage and anger in the US around the fifth anniversary of the attacks on 9th September.
Polls show that many Americans distrust the government on the subject of Sept. 11. A Zogby International poll taken in May found that 42% believed the government concealed evidence that contradicts official accounts. A Scripps Howard-Ohio University poll taken in August found that 36% believed it “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials allowed the attacks to occur because “they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”
A group of conspiracy theorists and researchers who belong to a group known as 9/11 Truth Movement gathered in Greenwich Village. Among them were proponents of the “LIHOP” theory, who believe that members of the government “let it happen on purpose,” and the “MIHOP” theory, who hold that government officials “made it happen on purpose.”
Says Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, said the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history. Says the professor who has joined the movement: “We don’t believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.” He added further: “We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we’re going to get to the bottom of this.”
The Group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof. As per Professor Jones, it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes. He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions to bring down the towers. The Group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 – a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day – was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.
Adding fuel to fire, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez too has criticized the Bush Administration for planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks on CNN International. Said he, “The hypothesis that is gaining strength, which was said on television last night, and which could soon blow up, was that it was the same US imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack, or act, against its own people and against citizens all over the world.”
In perhaps his most powerful monologue ever, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann savagely harangued Bush for using 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans. “Who has left this hole in the ground? We have not forgotten, Mr. President. You have. May this country forgive you.”
It is a saving grace for George Bush that he is already nearing the end of his second term in office. Or else voices seeking his ouster too would have started emanating, very much like those that we are hearing against Tony Blair!
Points to Ponder
The group “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” claim that science must lie at the core of all theories about what happened on 9/11, including the “official theory” of 19 hijackers. Below is a short list of some of the most serious problems with the “official theory” of what happened on 9/11.
—The World Trade Center towers collapsed at roughly free-fall speed. The official theory claims that these collapses were "gravity-driven" after the initial failures of floor trusses in the towers. This is simply not possible as the intact structures of the buildings below the failed floors would have provided considerable resistance and slowed the descent of the towers markedly.
—There is a great deal of audio, video, and eye-witness evidence that "secondary explosions" occurred in WTC 1, 2 and 7 shortly before they fell. Neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission report addresses this evidence.
—There is video evidence of considerable damage to the lobbies of WTC 1 & 2 before the towers fell. The official story claims that jet fuel and/or a fireball descended down the towers' central cores and caused this damage. This is simply not possible as the towers were constructed with partitions designed to prevent the spread of fire in this way. Additionally, the damage in the lobbies is not consistent with fire or a fireball.
—Steel beams can be seen being blown horizontally away from WTC 1 & 2 as they fall. This is inconsistent with a gravity-driven collapse. The official story does not adequately explain this evidence.
—The official story about the collapse of the towers keeps changing. This is OK as the issues are complex. What is not OK is the following. No matter how NIST chooses to explain the collapse of the two towers, its explanation must account for the fact that the two buildings were damaged in different places and in different ways, and yet they fell in almost exactly the same way. This peculiar, and very telling, piece of evidence cannot be explained by gravity-driven collapses starting in different places in either tower and starting for different reasons. And yet it can be explained by the theory that explosives brought the buildings down. Neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission report addresses this very serious problem.
—There is a considerable amount of video and recorded evidence that rescue workers and the landlord of WTC 7 knew in advance that the building was going to collapse. The official story does not account for this evidence.
—WTC 7 also collapsed at roughly free-fall speed. NIST's most recent explanation of this is that the building was damaged on its south side and that this damage caused its collapse. Although photographic evidence of this damage has not been made public, and thus we are not required to believe it, NIST's explanation is not credible for other reasons as well—it does not account for the free-fall speed of Building 7's collapse, and it does not explain why the building did not simply topple over toward the south.
—The collapses of all three WTC buildings produced a pyroclastic flows of very fine dust that is inconsistent with gravity-driven collapse, but perfectly consistent with collapse caused by explosives. Neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission report explains this dust.
There are many other problems with the official story than just these. But this short list should be enough to indicate to any rational person that the case for the "official theory" has not been proved and does not conform to even the most basic requirements of good science. There are other points too that are raised. Among the most serious of these are:
—An enormous amount of physical evidence was removed illegally from ground zero, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA in the days and weeks following the attacks. This removal was unprecedented in American history.
—The theory about what happened on 9/11 was chosen first; then the evidence (out of what was left) was selected to fit that theory.
—For this reason, a great deal of evidence (out of what was left) was ignored, distorted, or misinterpreted.
—To this day, the bulk of evidence held by the government is classified as secret and has not been released to the public.
—Not one person from NIST, FEMA, or the 9/11 Commission has agreed to debate the official theory in public.
—None of the above is reasonable and all of it constitutes terrible science. Properly done, a scientific theory is drawn from the evidence, and not the other way around.
—Anyone who points these problems out is called as a "kook" or a "nut-case." This sort of argument (ad hominem) is a sure sign of a weak position.
—Some of the people who point these problems out are actually threatened with the loss of their jobs or otherwise intimidated. This is a serious violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech, and a wickedly ironic refutation of the notion that the terrorists hate us "because we are free."
The questions outlined above (except for the first one) could be very quickly and easily answered by simply:
—Releasing to the public all of the 9/11 evidence held in secret by various branches of the government.
—Responsibly debating the official theory in public.
—Opening a new investigation into 9/11 if that proves to be necessary or if the public wants one.
But all this has not been done till date! And that is why those supporting the conspiracy theory are gaining in numbers.
Sections of the Muslims were already saying this in murmured tones. Role of a Zionist conspiracy behind 9/11 was cited, with claims that of the thousands of Jews working in the World Trade Centre on that fateful day, not one died as all either decided to take leave or come late to office. Even with all his money, how could have Osama become so powerful to hit the heart of the US, they argued.
However, no right thinking person would have ever believed in the veracity of such a heinous plot. Not till now though! A group of 75 professors and leading scientists from various universities within the US, under the banner ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’, have come out openly against the US Administration, claiming that 9/11 could not have been possible without the patronage of certain war mongers within the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries. They claim they are armed with ‘scientific proofs’, the theories propagated by these academics have become widespread enough to prompt official responses. Particularly the notion that the towers fell in a controlled demolition is gaining in strength and an increased number of US citizens, as per surveys, have started to support this argument.
The claims had caused outrage and anger in the US around the fifth anniversary of the attacks on 9th September.
Polls show that many Americans distrust the government on the subject of Sept. 11. A Zogby International poll taken in May found that 42% believed the government concealed evidence that contradicts official accounts. A Scripps Howard-Ohio University poll taken in August found that 36% believed it “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials allowed the attacks to occur because “they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”
A group of conspiracy theorists and researchers who belong to a group known as 9/11 Truth Movement gathered in Greenwich Village. Among them were proponents of the “LIHOP” theory, who believe that members of the government “let it happen on purpose,” and the “MIHOP” theory, who hold that government officials “made it happen on purpose.”
Says Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, said the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history. Says the professor who has joined the movement: “We don’t believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.” He added further: “We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we’re going to get to the bottom of this.”
The Group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof. As per Professor Jones, it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes. He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions to bring down the towers. The Group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 – a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day – was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.
Adding fuel to fire, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez too has criticized the Bush Administration for planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks on CNN International. Said he, “The hypothesis that is gaining strength, which was said on television last night, and which could soon blow up, was that it was the same US imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack, or act, against its own people and against citizens all over the world.”
In perhaps his most powerful monologue ever, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann savagely harangued Bush for using 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans. “Who has left this hole in the ground? We have not forgotten, Mr. President. You have. May this country forgive you.”
It is a saving grace for George Bush that he is already nearing the end of his second term in office. Or else voices seeking his ouster too would have started emanating, very much like those that we are hearing against Tony Blair!
Points to Ponder
The group “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” claim that science must lie at the core of all theories about what happened on 9/11, including the “official theory” of 19 hijackers. Below is a short list of some of the most serious problems with the “official theory” of what happened on 9/11.
—The World Trade Center towers collapsed at roughly free-fall speed. The official theory claims that these collapses were "gravity-driven" after the initial failures of floor trusses in the towers. This is simply not possible as the intact structures of the buildings below the failed floors would have provided considerable resistance and slowed the descent of the towers markedly.
—There is a great deal of audio, video, and eye-witness evidence that "secondary explosions" occurred in WTC 1, 2 and 7 shortly before they fell. Neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission report addresses this evidence.
—There is video evidence of considerable damage to the lobbies of WTC 1 & 2 before the towers fell. The official story claims that jet fuel and/or a fireball descended down the towers' central cores and caused this damage. This is simply not possible as the towers were constructed with partitions designed to prevent the spread of fire in this way. Additionally, the damage in the lobbies is not consistent with fire or a fireball.
—Steel beams can be seen being blown horizontally away from WTC 1 & 2 as they fall. This is inconsistent with a gravity-driven collapse. The official story does not adequately explain this evidence.
—The official story about the collapse of the towers keeps changing. This is OK as the issues are complex. What is not OK is the following. No matter how NIST chooses to explain the collapse of the two towers, its explanation must account for the fact that the two buildings were damaged in different places and in different ways, and yet they fell in almost exactly the same way. This peculiar, and very telling, piece of evidence cannot be explained by gravity-driven collapses starting in different places in either tower and starting for different reasons. And yet it can be explained by the theory that explosives brought the buildings down. Neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission report addresses this very serious problem.
—There is a considerable amount of video and recorded evidence that rescue workers and the landlord of WTC 7 knew in advance that the building was going to collapse. The official story does not account for this evidence.
—WTC 7 also collapsed at roughly free-fall speed. NIST's most recent explanation of this is that the building was damaged on its south side and that this damage caused its collapse. Although photographic evidence of this damage has not been made public, and thus we are not required to believe it, NIST's explanation is not credible for other reasons as well—it does not account for the free-fall speed of Building 7's collapse, and it does not explain why the building did not simply topple over toward the south.
—The collapses of all three WTC buildings produced a pyroclastic flows of very fine dust that is inconsistent with gravity-driven collapse, but perfectly consistent with collapse caused by explosives. Neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission report explains this dust.
There are many other problems with the official story than just these. But this short list should be enough to indicate to any rational person that the case for the "official theory" has not been proved and does not conform to even the most basic requirements of good science. There are other points too that are raised. Among the most serious of these are:
—An enormous amount of physical evidence was removed illegally from ground zero, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA in the days and weeks following the attacks. This removal was unprecedented in American history.
—The theory about what happened on 9/11 was chosen first; then the evidence (out of what was left) was selected to fit that theory.
—For this reason, a great deal of evidence (out of what was left) was ignored, distorted, or misinterpreted.
—To this day, the bulk of evidence held by the government is classified as secret and has not been released to the public.
—Not one person from NIST, FEMA, or the 9/11 Commission has agreed to debate the official theory in public.
—None of the above is reasonable and all of it constitutes terrible science. Properly done, a scientific theory is drawn from the evidence, and not the other way around.
—Anyone who points these problems out is called as a "kook" or a "nut-case." This sort of argument (ad hominem) is a sure sign of a weak position.
—Some of the people who point these problems out are actually threatened with the loss of their jobs or otherwise intimidated. This is a serious violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech, and a wickedly ironic refutation of the notion that the terrorists hate us "because we are free."
The questions outlined above (except for the first one) could be very quickly and easily answered by simply:
—Releasing to the public all of the 9/11 evidence held in secret by various branches of the government.
—Responsibly debating the official theory in public.
—Opening a new investigation into 9/11 if that proves to be necessary or if the public wants one.
But all this has not been done till date! And that is why those supporting the conspiracy theory are gaining in numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment