Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/

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." (Don't forget that Dubya supposedly wrote in his diary that night "We have just had another Pearl Harbor"- If anyone believes that King george wrote that all by his lonesome or even wrote it that night, I have a bridge for sale in the AZ desert)

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."

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA James Fetzer 218 724-2706

 

Incredible film about what really happened on 9/11, quite credible:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

 

Here is an excellent link on the motive that these folks that perpetrated the whole thing think "justifies the means", infact a New World Order based on mass murder and slaughter will never come into fruition...

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf

 

1) The buildings didn't meet NYC standards, they were built by the port authority.

2) Didn't you think that they could be wrong? Maybe someone else is saying they are the hijacker.

3) They did redistribute, or else they would have collapsed immediately.

4) The steel didn't last because it didn't have proper fireproofing.

5) Radar doesn't curve around the Earth.

6) It isn't that hard to have 4 teams hijack four planes.

7) You know, other things do happen at the white house. Maybe the young officer was asking if because of the tragedy that another white house task was going to be cancelled.

8) The speed of teh plane alone would have propelled the fragments farther than a block, then you factor in the explosion.

9) Now honestly, who would cut up a tape, and scatter it. Honestly, there are much more permanent methods of destruction, fire being a good one.

10) Just because they trained on it doesn't mean they had to expect it to happen, it's called being prepared.

11) First, one of the towers didn't fall straight down. Secondly, the interior collapsed first, followed by the walls, so you didn't witness the total collapse time.

 

You are kidding me. You don't honestly believe this bollocks.

 

gary, do some research on the subject. Until then, shut up. You're annoying.

 

Yea and what's with finding attackers passports in the rubble (the fires supposedly melted steel, but a passport survives? Yea just like snowman who lives in hell) or the supposed hi jacker who called saudi and american govts after seeing himself on the tube, to tell them he was flying a plane in morocco at the time of the attacks, and then the fbi director comes out and says "the identities of the attackers is in question" or something like that. Wtf? IDK, it all stinks of some sort of cover up. Other government officials have remarked that the 9-11 commission covered up something also.

I've been reading into conspiracy theories lately, one that comes to mind is how the government planned to perpetuate a terrorist attack on us soil to blame on cubans to justify the invasion. 9/11 was just what bush needed to put so much fear into americans, brainwashing them into thinking that our enemy could be anywhere, even in a country that just so happens to have mass amounts of oil, run by a dictator who "tried to kill [my] dadday," even though there was no evidence 911 had anything to do with iraq. I'm not saying I believe one theory or another, just think that it stinks of some sort of cover up.

 

and of course all those people on the planes who phoned home and the voice recordings of the flight staff. the air traffic control guys.... the fact that two planes really did hit the buildings or was that smashing special effects.

Don't tell me to shut up by the way just because you are crazed conspiracy theorists.

 

don't tell me we didn't land on the moon either.... and the illuminati are a load of shape changing lizards (david ike).

 

Wow, gary voiced disagreement with a conspiracy theory, and this is your response. Perhaps if you would abstain from ad-hominen attacks then people might change their opinions about you.

Frankly, the conspiracy theories, while possible, are far from likely. There most likely is a government cover up of something related to it. What exactly that is is a matter of speculation. I have read articles and books about the attacks, and the evidence is no better than the evidence proving we never landed on the moon. Is it possible....sure, but unlikely.

 

Ad hominen...I'm so sick of hearing that stupid phrase.

Pumpkin eater, the reason I "attacked" him (as you say) was because of his attitude and tone...not opinion. And what do you mean people would change their opinions of me? Do we know eachother?
As for your opinion on the attacks, please read David Ray Griffin's book "The New Pearl Harbor", then his follow-up "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions".

 

What are David Ray Griffin's qualifications in the subject? Thats the first question I would ask before considering to read a book of his.

 

Did I say it didn't happen? Did I say the calls to homes of people dying were fake? No, I said there is something that is covered up, and even some government officials seem to think so. So I guess everybody is just a crazed conspiracy theorist.

Try to stay away from assumptions, k thx.

 

Before I ever join a message board I troll. Sometimes for months. I have seen past conversations between you and others.

 

It has been proven that cell phones to not work over 10,000 feet, while the plane sin question were flying much higher. One of the bullets pointed out that an air traffic control tape was destroyed; I'm not sure about the method. Two planes did hit the tower, but they're not what caused the collapse.

 

I would like to point out, if go to the FBI website and check out the wanted poster for Osama bin Laden, he is only wanted in connection with some bombings in other countries not for 9/11. He has never been charged with any crimes associated with 9/11 because they do not have any direct evidence.


About half of the 2,251 billion dollars for the 2007 U.S. budget is for the military/defense. Where would all these people work and make a living if suddenly the world had peace? Wouldn't these people that work for the military and/or defense contractors, etc benefit from a heightened sercurity threat. There many people who did and do benefit from 9/11. A sacrifice of a few thousand people is nothing compared to the millions who make a living in the defense/military sector. Much worse things have been done in wars for lesser payoffs and bigger human losses. I think it is naive to think that political leaders are incapable of horrible crimes, just read some history books.

 

There are several reasons for 9/11. Chiefly among them was to justify the invasion of the Middle East. They lied to invade Iraq and everyone swallowed it. Now they're lying to invade Iran and everyone's swallowing it again. There comes a point when you've gotta stop swallowing and come up for air. The elites have a very easy job, as they don't need to change their methods to keep people fooled. Do the same thing every few year and nobody will notice. However, it does make it easier for people like me to see what's going on.

 

Absolutely untrue! My dh is an Electrical Engineer, who works for an electronics company which designs and makes cellular phones. These phones are completely operational well above regular cruising altitude (about 35,00 feet) you are asked not to use your cell phone during flights, because it might interfer with transmissions to the Tower.

I have seen people sneaking cell phone calls on planes at 35,000 feet a number of times.