Professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11

[DVDCoverArt]

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News

Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's upping the ante.

"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."

Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.

They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term. Most of the members are less well-known.

The group's Web site www.ST911.org includes an updated version of Jones's paper about the collapse of the Twin Towers and a paper by Fetzer that looks at conspiracy theories. The government's version of the events of 9/11 - that the plane's hijackers were tied to Osama bin Laden - is its own conspiracy theory, says Fetzer, who has studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since 1992.

"Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers," charges a paper written collectively by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group plans to write more papers, and present lectures and conferences.

"We have very limited resources and no subpoena powers," Fetzer said. "What you have is a bunch of serious scholars taking a look at this and discovering it didn't add up. We don't have a political ax to grind."

Fetzer has doctorates in the history and philosophy of science. "One of the roles I can play here," he said, "is to explain why a certain line of argument is correct or not."

In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the subject of government surveillance and might get them on various lists of "potential terrorists."

The group's charges include:

. Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.

. No Air Force or Air National Guard jets were sent to "scramble" the hijacked planes, which were clearly deviating from their flight plans, although jet fighters had been deployed for scramblings 67 times in the year prior to 9/11. The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group.

. The video of Osama bin Laden found by American troops in Afghanistan in December 2001, in which bin Laden says he orchestrated the attacks, is not bin Laden. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the "real" bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.

The Scholars group hopes that media outlets around the world will ask experts in their areas to examine the group's findings and assertions. If this were done, they argue, "one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world."

The group also asks for an investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, following up on points made in Jones's paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" That paper, recently updated, has been posted on Jones's BYU Web site since last November.

Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned "cutter charges." Proof, he says, includes:

. Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

. Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."

. No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.

. Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) "are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers."

Neither Jones nor other members of the Scholars group suggests who would have planted the explosives, but they argue that the devices could have been operated by remote control.

Jones says he has received thousands of e-mails from people around the world who either support his ideas or think he's "nutty," and he still gets about 30 e-mails a day on the topic.

He continues to do research on cold fusion, which he prefers to call metal-catalyzed fusion "to distinguish it from the claims" of former University of Utah chemistry professors B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, "which we do not accept as verified." He reports that his metal-catalyzed fusion work is going well, with three scientific papers published last year.

Jones will present a talk entitled "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions" at Utah Valley State College at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 1.
_________________
DVDCoverArt
Site Master

[tkboxer]

Put me in the list of people who think Mr. Jones is "nutty".
_________________
No matter how many times you try...you can't clone the dirt off your screen.

[daripper]

I agree with you tk the guy is freaking nuts. When the planes hit the WTC anyone with half a mind could tell
that the infrastructure of the building's sustained major damage to the load bearing beams and with all of the
jet fuel just setting there burning and burning the heat will cause the steel to soften up give way with all the
weight of the upper floors and the already damaged infrastructure of the building's.
_________________
Site Moderator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
He who never asks the question will never know the answer.
My name is 0110010001100001011100100110100101110000011100000110010101110010

[DVDCoverArt]

You need to study the physics more; they would not have collapsed like pancakes. The jet fuel does not burn hot enough to soften the beams all the way down the building that would allow them to collapse the way they did. The third building also collapsed in the same manner. It was not hit by an airplane.

The buildings were hit high enough, especially the second tower hit, that they could not have damaged the entire structure in such a way that they would collapse the way they did. Not only that, but it is improbable that they would collapse in an identical manner despite the fact that they were both hit with airplanes.

If this professor was the only one in academia with this opinion, then calling him nuts might be justified, however, this is not the case.
_________________
DVDCoverArt
Site Master

[kylumi]

I actually agree with the professor I hold a very serious veiwpoint on this subject, but, do not wish to cause any upset.

[blknight3]

There was a show on I think it was the Discovery Channel last year about the collapse of the World Trade Towers. According to this show it wasn't the jet fuel burning, nor the severity of the plane impact alone that brought down the towers (look at the Pentagon) rather it was the construction of thebuilding it's self that cauased the collapse. The Towers had an integral part ot their supports in the exterior facade of the building, and a supportive central core. I don't remember the terminology, and I am not an engineer, but this was a very very interesting explanation. What they concluded in the end was that if these planes had hit something like the Empire State building then there would have been sever damage, but no collapse. Which makes sense when you sondier the Empire State building did survive a collicion with a plane earlier. Again not being an engineer this made sense to me.... it wasn't the fire or the planes impact that was the sole result of bringing the buildings down. It was the force of the floors above pancaking down to the ones below.

This show also showed how the collapse of the other buildings was casued as collateral damage. This was casued by ruptured gaslines, and debris from the initial collisions.

There were several well known ( at least knew some of the names at the time) engineers scientists involved, so I would give some credence to this myself.

Having said this I also think it was entirely preventable if the leaders of both North Amrican countires had listened to the intelligence being gathered.
_________________
For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred with ignition trouble.

[hyoogy]

Put me in the list of people who think Mr. Jones is "nutty". aswell

[boesjev]

Just saw a documentation about it. It seems that there are a lot of more things wrong then we think.

For instance who can explain that there were no airplane parts found at the pentagon? The tapes from a gasstation were taken by the FBI directly after inpact. People think it was a rocket.

There are a lot of things that are covered up in a certain way.
_________________
RBC - The trotst van West-Brabant

[Seiji]

Have many people seen this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

I don't know what to think of the conspiracy theories. That article makes some VERY interesting points at which temperature steel melts, etc., and I'm glad the professor/scholars are wanting to look more into the cause. But blknight3 makes an interesting point, too, from the Discovery special. Not all buildings are built in the same infrastructure.

It's intersting, I was going to post this video about 9-11 just to get an idea of what people though about it. They come up with some very interesting evidence. Witness after witness kept saying they heard an explosion, or several explosions before the towers fell. I think part of me doesn't want to believe that our own government would do this sort of thing ... but the evidence seems to be pretty convincing at times.

But on the other hand ...

Do you really think the government could do this giant conspiracy without someone leaking information? Nixon couldn't cover up a much smaller scandal without someone taddling on him. If all this stuff being thrown around was true, where is the hard evidence? If this was a government conspiracy, it would have to involve hundreds, if not thousands of people, and one of them would surely end up spilling the beans.

The government is run by people and people are prone to making mistakes just like the rest of us. Yes, there was a lot of things that should of been done and things that should not of been done. Why can't that just be human error? Why does it have to be some evil plot?

There is always two sides to every coin:
http://911myths.com

I guess it's up to the individual to decide, but in the long run I don't think we'll have a definate answer that will make both sides happy. We may never have one, so I'm not going to waste my time worrying about too much.

Anyway ...
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus

[flyers2thecup]

i'm with you seiji!

[Seiji]

[blknight3]

Seiji... DO you happen to still have that web site? I tried to get in but it was busy and I accidently deleted it.

Thank you
_________________
For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred with ignition trouble.

[DVDCoverArt]

[Seiji]

[Seiji]

New book coming out about the issue: "Popular Mechanics 9/11: Debunking The Myths" Should be interesting to read.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus

[ammaross]

First, I wanted to mention that everyone has made very valid, researched comments on both the topics of the Kennedy assassination, as well as the 9/11 attack(s).

Now, my turn, from the top.

[tkboxer]

Enyoyed your comments Ammaross, however, now you need to pick up all those feeble darts on the ground as it is considered littering.
_________________
No matter how many times you try...you can't clone the dirt off your screen.

[ammaross]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4306831?source=rss

Just an FYI about that professor...
_________________
Ammaross Danan
That Webmaster Guy

[tkboxer]

[Seiji]

I use to be a doubter of the conspiracy, as you can read from my earlier posts. But the more evidence I see, especially those who made profit off of 9-11, the more convinced I become.

I would tell you to watch the videos below.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus

[blknight3]

[spartanstew]

If there was a conspiracy, you have to look at who benefited.

Who benefited the most from 9/11?


Rudy Giuliani

[Seiji]

Anyway, the official story does not stand up to scrutiny, regardless what people want to believe. If it were mathematically/ physically/ logically possible, then "truthers" would be smart enough to realize this, and there would be no debate. The fact is, that engineers can debate, but don't let one engineer think that he controls the truth. He is just like anybody else who either refuses the truth, or sees it. If you put him in a room with another person with his same educational level, and he is given the formulas and math which proves it's an inside job, he would have to admit that the official story simply does not stand up to credibility.

I would also tell you to read this article and click EVERY link within it. It will give you more and more information as you read the article:

http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/170507NYT_fails.htm

There is honestly too much information to fit into one thread. I feel it's not really something you can debate here considering the amount of information that's out there. You have to take upon yourself to learn all the facts and evidence and then decide for yourself.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=91894148&blogID=246272185&MyToken=091cad72-7e2f-4038-af2a-3653a6381947

But the video I gave a few posts above has some great information beyond just the actual collapse.

This ones good too:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-649993991751648213
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus

[Seiji]

"Ten Questions That Every Intelligent Skeptic Must Answer"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5615710732442096687
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/animationjesus