Friday, April 20, 2007

Why Doubt 9/11?

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 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. William Rodriguez, the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the subbasements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a 50-ton hydraulic press and ripping the skin off a fellow worker, a report corroborated by the testimony of around three dozen other custodians.

6. Willie reported that the explosion occurred prior to the airplane's impact, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job", which demonstrates that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds prior to the airplanes impacts.

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 Twin Towers in approximately 10 seconds apiece 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.


Replay a few times and notice:

* The roofs dips inward
* Explosions are visible running up on the right side
* Explosions are visible in the front
* Simultaneous symmetrical collapse (all joints fail at the same time)
* Falls at free-fall speed
* Falls into its own footprint without damaging surrounding buildings

Learn more about World Trade Center 7!
_____________________________________________

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 in 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; the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at 911Scholars.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.911Scholars.org (911Scholars.org)



I just received this email from archeocryptographer Michael Lawrence Morton which is self-explanatory:

This link details Dr.Judy Wood's filing of a 'Request For Correction' (on 16 March 2007) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the 09/11/01 World Trade Center destruction.

Dr. Wood (pictured at left) has made a very compelling case that DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) were used to destroy Towers 1 and 2 of The WTC on 09/11/01. I highly recommend that you check this out.

Dr. Wood has a lot of very compelling photographic evidence as part of her analysis, by the way. Are you aware that: the rubble at the subbasements of Towers 1 and 2 was only 20 percent of what its mass should have been? That roughly 80 percent of the Towers 1 and 2 were completely pulverized into an extremely fine dust? That over a thousand automobiles in the vicinity were bizarrely 'toasted'? That Towers 1 and 2 were destroyed from the top down? AND MUCH, MUCH MORE ... Yes, there is good evidence that 'Beam Technology' was used on Towers 1 and 2.

-- MLM

[NOTE: In case you're wondering why I've been posting an entire series on 911 in recent days, it isn't because I have nothing else to blog about. I have a gut feeling that a massive breakthrough in 911 revelations is at hand - and when enough humans awaken to the grotesque horror of the evil scams being pulled on us, we shall snap out of our "cultural trance" - in the process reclaiming our individual sovereignty and breaking free of mental slavery - and the Orwellian nightmare of mass mind control will crumble, just like the Twin Towers of Mordor, into toxic dust, and be blown away by the winds of wholesome change.]
Post a Comment