jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:
Sat Oct 14, 2006 17:32
 

 
jfetzer@d.umn.edu  wrote:

>Here are some of the points I am making in response to thoughtless emails.
>
>The government lies to us all the time, in case you haven't noticed. How
>do you know THE 9/11 REPORT is right and we are wrong unless you study it?
>We are trying to figure out how and why 3,000 of our fellow citizens died
>on 9/11, which is more than the government has done. Even the chairs of
>the 9/11 Commission have reported that the Pentagon told them stories that
>cannot possibly be true. Do you understand that Bush has acknowledged that
>Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The Senate Intelligence Committee has
>release a study showing that Saddam was not collaborating with Osama. And
>our own FBI has admitted it has "no hard evidence" that connects Osama to
>the events of 9/11. So if Saddam didn't do it and Osama didn't do it, then
>who did? If you have an answer to that question, I would like to know it.
>
>Why Doubt 9/11?
>by James H. Fetzer
>
>As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I would observe that our members,
>building on prior research by earlier students of 9/11, have established more
>than a dozen disproofs of the official government account, the truth of any one
>of which is enough to show that the government's account--in one or another of
>its guises--cannot possibly be correct.
>
>Overview of New 9/11 Research
>
> 1. The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the
>buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank
>DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very
>similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand
>after those impacts with negligible effects.
> 2. The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the
>maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F
>under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt,
>which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.
> 3. UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for for three or four
>hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too
>low and too briefly at an average temperature of around 500*F--about one hour in
>the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel
>to weaken, much less melt.
> 4. If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have
>displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and
>tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and
>total demolition that was observed.
> 5. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring
>about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and
>the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means
>that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that
>could not have caused lower floors to fall.
> 6. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring
>about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and
>the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to
>collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that
>the government has considered.
> 7. Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more
>than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which
>normally only occurs with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and
>could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers,
>unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pegelow
>has pointed out to me.
> 8. The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 9 is
>even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at
>least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result
>that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.
> 9. The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where
>the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic
>trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the
>concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.
> 10. Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and
>five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the
>plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies
>that it was not produced by such a cause.
> 11. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after
>Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it",
>displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including
>a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors
>are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the
>official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.
> 12. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton
>airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the
>ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no
>fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the
>building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
> 13. The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the
>building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but
>at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is
>high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the
>building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
> 14. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying
>at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had
>come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there
>is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building
>was not hit by a Boeing 757!
> 15. If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a
>debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is
>distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable
>if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required
>by the government's official scenario.
> There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they
>were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger
>manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and
>well; tthe cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The
>evidence may be found at st911.org.
>
>
>James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
>Founder and Co-Chair
>Scholars for 9/11 Truth
>email: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
>http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
>http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org (st911.org)
>
>Quoting NBishop5555@aol.com:
>
>

Main Page - Sunday, 10/15/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)