Scholars for 9/11 Truth: Difference between revisions
→Members: alphabatize |
→Overview: citation of James H. Fetzer |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Overview== |
==Overview== |
||
According to the founding member James H, Fetzer, Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a group founded by Steven E. Jones and James H. Fetzer on 15 December 2005, which currently includes some 200 experts and scholars who believe that the government's theory of the September 11, 2001 attacks cannot be sustained and functions as a cover-up for its own involvement in the crime. The non-partisan society is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about the events of 9/11 "and letting the chips fall where they may." |
|||
The group believes that the investigations by [[FEMA]] and [[NIST]] regarding the [[collapse of the World Trade Center]] buildings are inadequate, and that crucial facts and questions pertaining to the attacks have been ignored by senior government officials. These questions include: |
|||
*What caused building #7 of the World Trade Center to collapse? |
|||
*How did all three WTC buildings collapse close to the speed of which they would have collapsed had there been no structural stability at all? |
|||
*What happened to the [http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_core.jpg significant core column structure] during the collapse? |
|||
*What is the source of molten metal which was observed pooling in the rubble? |
|||
The group has demonstrated that investigations by FEMA and NIST about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings are inadequate and that the official account violates laws of physics and of structural engineering. They have observed that jet-fuel based fires do not attain temperatures above 1,800 degrees F under optimal conditions and that the melting point of steel is 1,000 degrees higher, which means that the steel did not melt. |
|||
The group is [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399 petitioning] Congress for access to the remaining evidence in order for scientific research to be carried out to determine whether or not explosives were utilized to bring down the WTC buildings. One of their beliefs is that [[thermite]], which can be used to weld or cut metal, played a role in causing the collapse of the towers. They claim this possible presence of thermite throws the entire official government explanation of the collapse into question.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/06/sept11.theories.ap/index.html CNN: 9/11 conspiracy theorists energized]</ref>,<ref>[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2bcf9f07-6407-4b2c-9f4e-7d4a15afcb98&k=46273 Canada National Post: A theory that just won't die]</ref> |
|||
They also observe that these fires were oxygen-depleted, as the billowing black clouds of smoke emanating from the building reveal, which means that they were generating heat at temperatures far below the optimum. UL certified the steel used in the construction for up to 2,000 degrees for six hours before it would even significantly weaken. The fires were neither hot enough nor long enough to have caused the steel to weaken. |
|||
According to the S9/11T website, "The members of S9/11T are encouraged to take an active role by devoting themselves to reporting the results of research on 9/11 to the nation and the world by means of lectures, articles, and other venues." |
|||
The impacts of the aircraft also appear to have had negligible effect on the collapse of the buildings. Frank DeMartini, the project manager of the construction, observed that, given the sophisticated load-redistribution capacities built into the towers around its 47 massive core columns, the impact of an airplane would be like "sticking a pencil through mosquito netting," which suggests that neither the fires nor the planes brought the buildings down. |
|||
Indeed, WTC-2, which was hit second, fell first after less than an hour of exposure, while WTC-1, which was hit first, fell second after only about an hour and a half of exposure. A far more extensive fire occurred in WTC-1 on February 13, 1975, which burned at much higher temperatures for three hours and spread over 65% of the 11th floor, including the core, yet caused no significant damage to the steel structure and no trusses had to be replaced. |
|||
The scholars observe that, while dust clouds are expected to arise when a building hits the ground, in this case an immense cloud of fine dust envelops the Twin Towers as they fall from the top down! This involved pulverizing the concrete used as flooring material in the buildings and included steel beams being blow outward and even upward, which required an enormous source of energy and cannot be explained on the government's account. |
|||
In some footage of the buildings fall, tremendous explosions can be observed just before the dust cloud obscures them. This is consistent with the placement of demolitions, which may have occurred during the two weeks leading up to 9/11, when unusual "security lapses" took place and teams of "engineers" were allowed access to the buildings. Steven Jones believes that thermate, a sulfur-enhanced form of thermite, was probably used to bring them down and that it would have only required ten trips each by forty men to place the charges. |
|||
Beyond the dust cloud, which they consider to be a "smoking gun", the scholars also point to the collapse of WTC-7, a 47-story building that was hit by no aircraft, suffered only very modest fires, and yet collapsed at 5:20 PM, about eight hours after the towers fell. A taped interview with Larry Silverstein, who leased the World Trade Center, reveals that he suggested that the building be "pulled", which means be brought down by controlled demolition. |
|||
The fall of that building, like those of the towers, displays classic characteristics of controlled demolitions, including falling symmetrically and completely into its own footprint at the approximate speed of free fall, which is only possible if there is no resistence to upper portions collapsing on lower. Pools of molen metal were found in the subbasements of all three buildings for weeks thereafter, another indication that they were taken down. |
|||
The scholars point to features of the Pentagon hit that raise serious doubts about whether it could possibly have been hit by a plane of the size and mass of a Boeing 757, which weighs 100 tons with a 125-foot wingspan and tail that rises 44-feet above the ground, especially given that the initial hit point only appears to be far too small to accommodate such a large plane and there is a noticeable absence of aircraft debris, including no wings, fuselage, seats, luggage, bodies, tail, or even engines. |
|||
While some members are inclined to accept the government's version of the Pentagon hit, the evidence suggests that, whatever hit the Pentagon, it does not appear to have been a Boeing 757. Moreover, the government has been unwilling to provide photographs and films that would support its position, if it were true, raising further suspicions that it cannot release them because they would contradict the government's position. Indeed, the scholars are submitting a petition to Congress demanding the release of physical and photographic evidence. |
|||
The society has issued a series of press releases that reflect the positions of the society on basic aspects of the case and outline some of the major problems with the official account. In addition to the findings described here, other members, who are pilots, aeronautical engineers and computer scientists, have explained why the alleged hijackers would have been unable to fly these planes and why cell phone calls from them would have been impossible. |
|||
Scholars for 9/11 Truth maintains an extensive web site that is updated daily, which reflects the current state of knowledge of these events and recent developments related to their study. According to their website, "The members of S9/11T are encouraged to take an active role by devoting themselves to reporting the results of research on 9/11 to the nation and the world by means of lectures, articles, and other venues." While the society is dedicated to reseach and is not an activist organization, many of its members are committed to political change |
|||
==Members== |
==Members== |
||
Revision as of 02:11, 10 August 2006
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
Scholars for 9/11 Truth ("S9/11T") is a group of about 300 people, including faculty, students, and scholars[1] who question the mainstream media and government account of the September 11, 2001 attacks.[2] The group was founded on December 15, 2005.
Overview
According to the founding member James H, Fetzer, Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a group founded by Steven E. Jones and James H. Fetzer on 15 December 2005, which currently includes some 200 experts and scholars who believe that the government's theory of the September 11, 2001 attacks cannot be sustained and functions as a cover-up for its own involvement in the crime. The non-partisan society is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about the events of 9/11 "and letting the chips fall where they may."
The group has demonstrated that investigations by FEMA and NIST about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings are inadequate and that the official account violates laws of physics and of structural engineering. They have observed that jet-fuel based fires do not attain temperatures above 1,800 degrees F under optimal conditions and that the melting point of steel is 1,000 degrees higher, which means that the steel did not melt.
They also observe that these fires were oxygen-depleted, as the billowing black clouds of smoke emanating from the building reveal, which means that they were generating heat at temperatures far below the optimum. UL certified the steel used in the construction for up to 2,000 degrees for six hours before it would even significantly weaken. The fires were neither hot enough nor long enough to have caused the steel to weaken.
The impacts of the aircraft also appear to have had negligible effect on the collapse of the buildings. Frank DeMartini, the project manager of the construction, observed that, given the sophisticated load-redistribution capacities built into the towers around its 47 massive core columns, the impact of an airplane would be like "sticking a pencil through mosquito netting," which suggests that neither the fires nor the planes brought the buildings down.
Indeed, WTC-2, which was hit second, fell first after less than an hour of exposure, while WTC-1, which was hit first, fell second after only about an hour and a half of exposure. A far more extensive fire occurred in WTC-1 on February 13, 1975, which burned at much higher temperatures for three hours and spread over 65% of the 11th floor, including the core, yet caused no significant damage to the steel structure and no trusses had to be replaced.
The scholars observe that, while dust clouds are expected to arise when a building hits the ground, in this case an immense cloud of fine dust envelops the Twin Towers as they fall from the top down! This involved pulverizing the concrete used as flooring material in the buildings and included steel beams being blow outward and even upward, which required an enormous source of energy and cannot be explained on the government's account.
In some footage of the buildings fall, tremendous explosions can be observed just before the dust cloud obscures them. This is consistent with the placement of demolitions, which may have occurred during the two weeks leading up to 9/11, when unusual "security lapses" took place and teams of "engineers" were allowed access to the buildings. Steven Jones believes that thermate, a sulfur-enhanced form of thermite, was probably used to bring them down and that it would have only required ten trips each by forty men to place the charges.
Beyond the dust cloud, which they consider to be a "smoking gun", the scholars also point to the collapse of WTC-7, a 47-story building that was hit by no aircraft, suffered only very modest fires, and yet collapsed at 5:20 PM, about eight hours after the towers fell. A taped interview with Larry Silverstein, who leased the World Trade Center, reveals that he suggested that the building be "pulled", which means be brought down by controlled demolition.
The fall of that building, like those of the towers, displays classic characteristics of controlled demolitions, including falling symmetrically and completely into its own footprint at the approximate speed of free fall, which is only possible if there is no resistence to upper portions collapsing on lower. Pools of molen metal were found in the subbasements of all three buildings for weeks thereafter, another indication that they were taken down.
The scholars point to features of the Pentagon hit that raise serious doubts about whether it could possibly have been hit by a plane of the size and mass of a Boeing 757, which weighs 100 tons with a 125-foot wingspan and tail that rises 44-feet above the ground, especially given that the initial hit point only appears to be far too small to accommodate such a large plane and there is a noticeable absence of aircraft debris, including no wings, fuselage, seats, luggage, bodies, tail, or even engines.
While some members are inclined to accept the government's version of the Pentagon hit, the evidence suggests that, whatever hit the Pentagon, it does not appear to have been a Boeing 757. Moreover, the government has been unwilling to provide photographs and films that would support its position, if it were true, raising further suspicions that it cannot release them because they would contradict the government's position. Indeed, the scholars are submitting a petition to Congress demanding the release of physical and photographic evidence.
The society has issued a series of press releases that reflect the positions of the society on basic aspects of the case and outline some of the major problems with the official account. In addition to the findings described here, other members, who are pilots, aeronautical engineers and computer scientists, have explained why the alleged hijackers would have been unable to fly these planes and why cell phone calls from them would have been impossible.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth maintains an extensive web site that is updated daily, which reflects the current state of knowledge of these events and recent developments related to their study. According to their website, "The members of S9/11T are encouraged to take an active role by devoting themselves to reporting the results of research on 9/11 to the nation and the world by means of lectures, articles, and other venues." While the society is dedicated to reseach and is not an activist organization, many of its members are committed to political change
Members
Those included in this society are:
- Kevin Barrett: academic and associate lecturer at the University of Wisconsin.[3],[4],[5]
- Robert M. Bowman: Former director of the US Advanced Space Programs Development in the Carter and Ford administrations, former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. Bowman also holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, and is currently attempting to run for Congress in Florida.[6],[7],[8]
- James H. Fetzer: McKnight Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth and co-chair of S9/11T. [9],[10]
- David Ray Griffin: Professor of philosophy of religion and theology emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology.[11]
- Steven E. Jones: Professor of physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T, and an editor of its forthcoming publication, Journal for 9/11 Studies.[12]
- Wayne Madsen: investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist. [13]
- John McMurtry: FRSC, moral philosopher, ethicist, and author of six books on public policy issues, who works at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.
- Morgan Reynolds: Texas A&M University Professor of Economics Emeritus, and former Chief Economist for the United States Department of Labor, former Director of the Criminal Justice Center.[14], [15]
- Webster G. Tarpley, author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992) and 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA (2005-6), historian and terrorism expert.
- Andreas von Bülow: former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.
History
National 9/11 Debate
According to an S9/11T press release, a debate was proposed on the subject of 9/11. The debate would be between two seven-member teams: a "civilian" team and a "government" team. The government team would defend the official story of 9/11, while the civilian team would challenge it. The event was scheduled for September 16, 2006 in North Charleston, South Carolina.
This event was proposed by members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, who have announced that their civilian team would consist of Philip J. Berg, Steven E. Jones, James H. Fetzer, David Ray Griffin, George Nelson, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood.
According to the Scholars website, invitations were extended to the 9/11 commission members, NIST investigators, FEMA investigators, engineering organizations, and security providers.
"Reclaiming Our Future" conference
In July 2006, many members of the group met in Chicago, Illinois, for a conference on 9/11 theories, which was covered by some international media.[16]
Conclusions
 |
According to the Scholars' website, their conclusions are based on the results of their own scientific and political research. They suggest that the official version of events on September 11, 2001 is being used to manipulate the American people for political purposes, to undermine the Constitution, launch illegal wars, and subject the people to virtually unrestricted surveillance.[citation needed]
Criticism
|
Some[citation needed] express concern that individual members of the scholars group and its website are promoting theories or speculation not shared by all members of the scholars group nor the 9/11 Truth Movement (such as the idea that military drone planes were used in the attacks, or that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon[17]) and may thus discredit the movement [18],[19], [20]. Other critics, such as Daryl Bradford Smith[21], believe that members of the Scholars group use 'deliberate deception' by promoting theories which involve hydrogen bombs[22] and links to sites promoting holographic blue sceen planes.[23]
Although the 'Resources' page on the scholars' website states, "We do not necessarily endorse or concur with conclusions or opinions expressed here, but we think that they provide suggestive and stimulating resources for further contemplation," the website provides neither information nor links to both sides of the Pentagon issue, which many regard as extremely divisive within the movement.[citation needed] By only citing the theory that American Airlines Flight 77 could not have crashed at the Pentagon, with no counter argument, the Scholars site reflects neither the diversity within the scholars nor the 9/11 truth movement itself.[citation needed]
They [24] also point to the fact there are no structural engineers listed as members of the group[citation needed], and the engineers involved with the scholars have little relevant work with the appropriate disciplines, for example Judy Wood, who has focused her work on the stresses of dentistry.
Media coverage and works
Televised symposiums:
- 25 June 2006 — 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium in L.A. Sheraton Hotel - discussion panel then rebroadcasted in July and August prime time on main CSPAN channel. Featured speakers Webster Tarpley, Steven Jones, Bob Bowman, James Fetzer, and Alex Jones (stream & download media link)
Television Interviews:
- 22 June 2006 — James H. Fetzer, guest on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes (podcast, YouTube[1])
Radio Interviews:
- 14 June 2006 — Kevin Ryan on "Lies About the World Trade Center by NIST and Underwriters Laboratory" Guns & Butter/KPFA 94.1 (link)
- 23 February – 24 February 2006 — James H. Fetzer with David Ray Griffin and Morgan Reynolds on Coast to Coast AM radio (link)
- 25 February 2006 — James H. Fetzer "An Inside Job" (podcast)
- 15 February 2006 — James H. Fetzer "Radioactive Radio" (link)
Lectures:
- 15 March 2006 — Kevin Ryan: "A 9/11 Whistleblower Examines the Official Conspiracy Theory"
- 30 March 2006 — David Ray Griffin "9/11: The Myth & the Reality"
- 31 March 2006 — Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., and Don Paul, Author "Critical Analysis: 9/11"
- 2 June – 4 June 2006 — Steven E. Jones "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future”
Papers: Scholars for 9/11 Truth describes these papers as "peer-reviewed", although they have not been published in any scientific journal.
- “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. [2]
- “Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK” by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. [3]
Books
- Greenwald, Glenn (Constitutional law attorney).How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok. Working Assets Publishing, 2006, 146 p.
- Griffin, Dr. David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11.Olive Branch Press, Northampton, MA, 2004.
- Griffin, Dr. David Ray. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions.Olive Branch Press, Northampton, MA, 2004.
- Marrs, Jim (journalist). Inside Job.Origin Press, 2004. 240 p.
- Ruppert, Michael C. (former Los Angeles Police Department narcotics investigator). Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. New Society Publishers, 2004. 696 p.
- Smith, Dr. J.W. Why? The Deeper History Behind the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on America, 3rd ed., The Institute for Economic Democracy, Sun City, AZ, 2005.
- Snow, Dr. Nancy. Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech, and Opinion Control Since 9/11. Seven Stories Press, 2003
- Zarembka, Dr. Paul., ed.The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Vol. 23 of Research in Political Economy),Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006.
- Including: David Ray Griffin, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True”, pp 79–122, [4]
See also
- 9/11 Truth Movement
- Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report
- Collapse of the World Trade Center
- Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11
- Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
References
- ^ Scholars for 9-11 Truth: Who Are We?
- ^ Fox News: Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theories Persist
- ^ Curriculum in "UW Instructor Defends Plan to Teach 9/11 Conspiracy Theory in Class", WKOW 27 News, July 10, 2006
- ^ Lincoln Tribune: Activist Claims Bill O'Reilly Threatened Him; File Complaint with FCC
- ^ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: 9-11 flap won't stop UW lecturer
- ^ Robert M. Bowman site
- ^ Madison Capital-Times: Media hide truth: 9/11 was inside job
- ^ Fox News: 'H & C' Update: Supporter Defends Controversial Univ. Lecturer's Theories About 9/11
- ^ University of Minnesota Duluth: James H. Fetzer
- ^ National Ledger: Activist Kevin Barrett Claims Bill O'Reilly Threatened Him
- ^ wanttoknow.info: David Ray Griffin Reveals Major 9/11 Cover-up on C-SPAN
- ^ Brigham Young University: Dr. Steven E. Jones
- ^ emediawire: press release
- ^ Worldnetdaily: Bush economist doubts 9-11 story
- ^ mwcnews.net: LIES, SLIES & MEDIA BREAKTHROUGH OVER 9/11,
- ^ Canada National Post: A theory that just won't die
- ^ Scholars for 9/11 Truth: resources
- ^ 9-11 Research: The Company We Keep
- ^ 9-11 Research: Muddling the Evidence
- ^ 9-11 Research: Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
- ^ iamthewitness.com: The bizarre case of Michael Zebuhr
- ^ Tripod.com: Pattern Recognition?
- ^ iamthewitness.com: The Bovine Gas Theory
- ^ Professor Steven E. Jones and the "Scholars For 911 Truth"