Against this growing upswell of demands for a real investigation - which is usually second-nature after such an event - remains the fact that the Bush/PNAC Regime, which lied its citizens into war, is unable to prove its own Conspiracy Theory about that day.

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

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."

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([search]), 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([search]) 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."

# # #
 http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/1/emw339303.htm

20 reasons to question the official story of 9/11
by dailykoster
Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 07:16:42 AM PDT
(1) While the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, the Secretary of Transportation testified before the 9/11 Commission that Vice President Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon and -- when a military man asked "do the orders still stand?" -- Cheney responded affirmatively.

 http://www.911truthmovement.org/...

... More Below the Fold ...

dailykoster's diary :: ::
(2) The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building

 http://query.nytimes.com/...?
and
 http://web.archive.org/...

(3) The 9-11 Commission refused to examine the vast majority of evidence about 9/11, and even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

 http://www.newsmax.com/...
and
 http://www.amazon.com/...

(4) Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House

 http://www.buzzflash.com/...

(5) A retired Air Force Colonel who flew over 100 combat missions and was the director of the Star Wars defense program under both Republican and Democratic administrations (and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth) recently said:

"If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!"

 http://www.exerscape.com/...

(6) Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba

 http://abcnews.go.com/...
and
 http://www.gwu.edu/...

(7) The Secret Service, which is highly trained to whisk the president away from danger and to a secure location in the event of a threat, breached all standard procedures and allowed President Bush to remain at a highly-publicized location for 25 minutes after it was known that the nation was under attack

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/...

(8) The U.S. defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run

 http://www.usatoday.com/...

(9) The military had also conducted drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon

 http://www.mdw.army.mil/...

(10) On the morning of 9/11, 5 war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. And the drills apparently included the injection of false "radar blips" onto the screens of air traffic controllers

 http://www.911truth.org/...
and
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/...
and
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/...
and
 http://www.spiegltech.com/... (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video)

(11) The government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building on the morning of 9/11

 http://www.boston.com/...

(12) A third world trade center building, called building 7, collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11, but was never hit by plane, fell at the same speed as if there were no floors or walls to cause resistance, contained only small fires before the collapse, and became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due to fire alone

 http://www.wtc7.net/

(13) USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

 http://terrorize.dk/...

(14) MSNBC stated that police([search]) officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

 http://terrorize.dk/...

(15) The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings

 http://terrorize.dk/...

(16) NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

 http://web.archive.org/...

(17) The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"

 http://www.newscientist.com/...

(18) Eyewitnesses have testified that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and -- according to some witnesses -- they occurred BEFORE the plane had even hit

 http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/...

(19) A police officer testified that there were numerous, HUGE explosions at the top of one of the twin towers 15 minutes apart, before the tower collapsed

 http://www.thememoryhole.org/...

(20) Numerous, credible ex-government officials are warning that the U.S. government might very well attack its own people to justify a further clampdown on civil rights and to justify additional wars. On September 10, 2001, the US military released a report stating that Israeli agents were capable of staging attacks on American personnel, and making it look like Arabs were responsible.

 http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/...

 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/31/91642/9872

Lets take a look at some of those "experts" you refer to (  http://www.st911.org):

Victoria Ashley- Architecture and physiological psychology
Robert M. Bowman - Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program
Len Bracken - Credentialed Journalist
Clare Brandabur- Assistant Pofessor of English Literature
Fred Burks - Language interpreter
Frank Carmen - Physics Ph.D., BYU
Erik Champenois - Student, BYU
Muhammad Columbo - Graduate Engineer Electronics
Scott Daniel - Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Lloyd DeMause - Director of The Institute for Psychohistory
Eric Douglas - Architect
James H. Fetzer - Professor of Philosophy
Don Jacobs - Professor of educational leadership
Wayne Madsen - Investigative Journalist (and prolific web-site article author)
Harry Stottle - Philosopher, Author, Computer Consultant, Inventor. Phew!

The list goes on in much the same vein. They may be experts but - gosh, surprise surprise, it isn't in anything to do with structural mechanics, fire safety, architecture, or anything else vaguely relevant to the collapse of the tower. I especially like the Interpreter and the Psychohistorian.

Before anyone asks, although two of the members claim architecutral qualifications neither appears on the AIA online register or indeed appears to have built anything as far as I can see from Google. In fact Ms. Ashley appears to style herself a 911 Trust staff member.

Just a minute - I know - perhaps all the tens of thousands of professional architects, engineers and demolition experts have " reasons" to remain silent! Maybe we've been intimidated! Bribed!!

Damn, you guys are smart.

"They may be experts but - gosh, surprise surprise, it isn't in anything to do with structural mechanics, fire safety, architecture, or anything else vaguely relevant to the collapse of the tower."

A person's job does not define who they are, nor what their knowledge base is. However, many of these people are highly edsucated in the physical sciences - several of which are violated by the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Unlike the various "experts" proferred up by the loyal corporate Propaganda Factories ...

Is that really the best you can do?

As I said at the head of my original comment, your empty bluster only illustrates the fact that you - nor the criminals your work here supports - has been able to provide the still-missing key and compelling evidence to back up their story, the one where we're supposed to look the other way and allow them to pursue long-held plans to invade Arab countries, just because they claim it's War For Peace.

(Hey, aren't these the same guys who LIED about "WMD", in order to send poor American kids to die for a war they know full well to be illegal ... ?)

Ye speak shit here again boy.

Have we not instructed you otherwise?

You anger us greatly with your arrogance and lack of intellect.

Not only is there a special place in hell for you, but our earthly agents have been stirred against you now.

The motion is unstoppable.

... using magic here.

You can wave your 'special' qualifications and waft your 'clean' white lab coat elsewhere.

What are your hard scientific qualifications anyhow?

Do you understand that there are more questions left unanswered by the official story/fantasy than from assuming that the PNAC statement was a statement of intent ... 'a new pearl harbour' ... and one from those with connections (if not absolute control over those) with the $$$ earners of the Military Industrial Complex?

Have you not eyes that you can not see the consequences and who they accrue for in benefits and disasters?

Why do you not ever use this site for commenting/posting on other issues?

How come if you work so hard at your elevated proffession, not one 911 post here is left unmarked by your response - and so quickly too?

And always the same line ... no one is as qualified as you and yours to decide the scientific 'truth' - even those with considerably more complex and deep scientific qualifications than you, archetect.

Why the narrow focus? Not attempting to pull the wool are you? Or perhaps spike the natural flow of enquiry and learning?

You are becoming transparent.

Really lads, can you not do any better? Where to start..........

1. The "Experts" in the first post are not relevant to this issue. The post is deliberately misleading. You would not ask your doctor for advice on conveyencing, no matter how well qualified in his own field he was. You would not ask a historian or a psychohistorian for advice on buildings. One would presumably not ask an architect for advice on, say, open cast mining. It is touching that you cling to these people's expertise, but I'm afraid your dedication is misplaced.

2. You all used to claim that steel didn't fail under fire loadings. I note that you've gone a bit quiet on that one now, eh? What's wrong, all those pesky peer review papers, fire regulations, and construction advice which contradicted your view get a bit too obvious?

3. Likewise you seem to have gone a wee bit quiet on the whole "the fire lasted 15 minutes" thing. Really, I'm still waiting for your rivetting explanation as to how the fuel magically burnt off in contradiction to the REAL laws of physics and how an aeroplane crash/fire doesn't last as long as a domestic housefire.

4. Physical sciences "violated by the Official Conspiracy Theory"? Would these be like your pal on the other thread that was blissfully unaware that the rate of acceleration for objects in free-fall was 10m/s-2? Something even an GCSE physics student would get right? Come on, flesh it out a bit more lads!

5. Ohh, commenting on 911 postings - I MUST be a government spook! Actually I'm mainly interested in other stuff, like the Dalkeith protests, but you lads so spam the site with blatantly rubbish 911 stuff that I can't help responding. What I can't decide is whether you're all wind-up merchants or actually daft enough to believe the rubbish you cut and paste from 911 "truth" sites.

Love and kisses.

A person's job does not define who they are, nor what their knowledge base is. However, many of these people are highly edsucated in the physical sciences - several of which are violated by the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Unlike the various "experts" proferred up by the loyal corporate Propaganda Factories ...

Is that really the best you can do?

As I said at the head of my original comment, your empty bluster only illustrates the fact that you - nor the criminals your work here supports - has been able to provide the still-missing key and compelling evidence to back up their story, the one where we're supposed to look the other way and allow them to pursue long-held plans to invade Arab countries, just because they claim it's War For Peace.

(Hey, aren't these the same guys who LIED about "WMD", in order to send poor American kids to die for a war they know full well to be illegal ... ?)

I don't suppose there's any chance that you'd ever answer a point put to you, 911=Mossad, is there?

Well I'm sorry but someone's knowledge base is directly relevant to their views on a subject, especially where they are put forward as an "expert". In this particular case, they are patently no such thing. Your critical faculties appear to have failed you.

You've still to tell us what these physical sciences which are violated are (and I'd check your English on that one). Tell you what, stick to the ones that you understand yourself, so we can have a blow-by-blow discussion on it. You've seen my calcs on (say) rate of combustion of jet fuel, or collapse times. I'd love to see your own, detailed take on it.

And the lame last liner re: WMD doesn't impress; it just gives the impression (correctly, I would think) that your own views are severely coloured by a political position rather than any meaningful analysis of available evidence.

If you want REAL experts, you need people like these, not the buffoons of SPINE or whatever. Compare and contrast their qualifications with Jones at al:

 http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/advisors.html

 http://www.ice.org.uk/about_ice/aboutice_president.asp

 http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/academic/professors/baileyc/

 http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/academic/readersseniorlecturers/wangy/

 http://www.tallbuildingstarg.com/ResearchAlternativeEscapeTop.htm

Some other REAL experts' comments:

 http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20presentations/Scott's%20revised%20paper.pdf

 http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/CollapseoftheWorldTradeCenterTowersRev1.pdf

 http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/BENTFeatures/WTCW02.pdf

www.istructe.org.uk/ thestructuralengineer/HC/getfile.asp?id=6068

 http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Services/Astaneh-Testimony%20Congress-March%206%20Final.pdf

Professional Publications:

www.istructe.org.uk/ thestructuralengineer/HC/getfile.asp?id=251

 http://cruachan.televisual.co.uk/asset/GetArticle.exe?DB=e2&DATABASE=e2&LABEL=emap2&RECORD=194310&SEARCH=1

 http://cruachan.televisual.co.uk/asset/GetArticle.exe?DB=e2&DATABASE=e2&LABEL=emap2&RECORD=194326&SEARCH=1

 http://www.csemag.com/article/CA6263555.html?text=progressive+and+collapse

 http://rebuildnewyork.nreimag.com/ar/real_estate_task_force_outlines/

For those who think it wasn't all carefully considered and debated in the engineering and architectural communities, before they weighed in on the side of the official findings:

 http://www.nceplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=6937&report_num=0&channelid=6

And for those who think it must be dead easy to understand fire in structures, I suggest you read this:

 http://jfe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/5

As I said at the head of my original comment, your empty bluster only illustrates the fact that you - nor the criminals your work here supports - has been able to provide the still-missing key and compelling evidence to back up their story, the one where we're supposed to look the other way and allow them to pursue long-held plans to invade Arab countries, just because they claim it's War For Peace.

(Hey, aren't these the same guys who LIED about "WMD", in order to send poor American kids to die for a war they know full well to be illegal ... ?)

911, me ol' paranoid chum, that has to be the lamest comeback I have EVER seen on this site - Twi't included. Are you going to answer any of the points put to you in a meaningful way?

ps I think you'll find that you've missed out a "neither" in there, elsewise you've just gone and agreed with me.

As an architect I doubt whether you have the correct training to properly understand and analyse a complex energetic issue.

The fires in the south tower burnt for no more than 56 minutes before the building collapsed.

Proff. Jones's calculations, based on assumptions about the energy required and the energy available to sufficiently weaken the steel structure, reveal the impossibilty of the offical story.

You may blab on about building regulations and building techniques if you want - I have heard such technical blather from the scientifcally illiterate/par-trained before - but until you incorporate all the available data into a model that attempts to discribe what actually occured that day, you appear foolish.

Whilst understanding the base prinicples of heat distribution and steel materials, can you tell me why the heat generated from the kerosene fueled fires was able to concentrate itself on specific portions of the steel framed structure and not distribute itself according to known physical laws?

Whilst understanding the calorific values of certain liquids, can you explain to us why the fireball produced spectacularly (and measurably) around the south tower in the 56 minutes before its structual failure - thus massively reducing the available heat energy - was able to heat the concrete renforced fireproofed core to such an extent that all previous scientifically produced models never spotted the potential for catastrophic failure?

Perhaps with your extensive knowledge of engineering regulations you can explain to us the presence in some of the 250+ peices of steel examined from the WTC 1&2 complex, of thermite burn residue? Or perhaps you could explain away the presence of molten steel pools in the basement areas weeks after the fires collapsed the first steel framed buildings ever to have failed from heat damage?

And all this without ever having to bother your technical-leaning training with recourse to describing the providence of the series of coincidences that met togther that day, from drills and PNAC wish lists, to insider trading and absence of flight data.

Suffice to say that you will not, instead opting to brow beat the scientifically untrained with snide remarks about spelling, grammer and your superior and sublime understanding [of techincal regulations and simple engineering problems - sorry a snide remark from a trained physicist!].

No, I would not ask my doctor for advice on conveyencing AND rely solely on this. I would, however, listen politely to the answers to the questions about conveyencing I did ask, AND as a corollary to that, I would not ask a mere architect to formulate complex physical models to investigate a multi-discipinary event (at least I would not rely solely on such, and would not be moved to use one that has such an obvios bias towards a predetermined outcome.)

What a ripost - long on polemic, short on hard facts. Let me ask you some questions before I respond:

1. "building regulations and building techniques if you want - I have heard such technical blather from the scientifcally illiterate/par-trained before"

Are you claiming that there is a mistake or flaw in building regulations the world over? Be specific now. What exactly do you mean?

2. "the heat generated from the kerosene fueled fires was able to concentrate itself on specific portions of the steel framed structure and not distribute itself "

Are you suggesting that heat on a one point?

3. "the concrete renforced fireproofed core "

The what? The WTC was steel framed. What concrete are you talking about?

4. "all previous scientifically produced models never spotted the potential for catastrophic failure"

Aha. I must have missed the modelling of huge amounts of aviation fuel exploding in a building. Perhaps you could give me a link to it, eh?

5. "250+ peices of steel examined from the WTC 1&2 complex, of thermite burn residue"

You'll have the test results, then? Or are you just relying on photographs?

6. "a trained physicist".

Really? O-level?

I await your response with interest.

***