US govt. desperate to stop Sep 11 Truth

[Bowery Boy]

----- Original Message -----
From: GlobalCrisisNetwork
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:12 AM
Subject: st911.org



http://st911.org/

SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ASSAILED
Members and movement attacked from several directions

Madison, WI (PRWEB) September 9, 2006 --- Three professors who are members
of Scholars for 9/11 Truth have been threatened with the loss of their
positions for their research and teaching about the events of 9/11. Other
attacks are coming from national magazines, such as TIME and U.S. NEWS,
which have cover-stories this week suggesting that those who believe 9/11
involved a conspiracy may need psychological counseling. In addition, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular
Mechanics have published pieces intended to bolster the official account
of 9/11.

"This flurry of activity suggests that the government is becoming
desperate in its efforts to keep the truth about 9/11 from the American
people," said James H. Fetzer, the founder and co-chair of the society.
"But I don't think it's working." Fetzer finds attacks on faculty members,
including Kevin Barrett, a humanities instructor at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Bill Woodward, a professor of psychology at the
University of New Hampshire, and Steven Jones, a physics professor at
Brigham Young University and the society's co-chair, especially
disturbing.

"According to the government, 9/11 is 'the pivotal event of the 21st
century,' which changed everything", he observed. "So it obviously
deserves to be studied. College and universities are the institutions that
undertake the study of significant historical events. The very idea that
faculty should not be studying the events of 9/11 verges on the absurd,"
he remarked. "And since the official account-that the events of 9/11
involved 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial airliners
and perpetrating terrorist acts under control of a man in a cave in
Afghanistan-involves a conspiracy, it is impossible to study 9/11 without
dealing with conspiracy theories."

Fetzer thinks the administration wants to suppress serious research on
9/11 because the official account cannot withstand scrutiny. "What the
government has told us is just fine if you are willing to believe
impossible things," he observed. "Its truth requires violating laws of
physics and engineering that cannot be violated and cannot be changed." He
offered a recent piece from NIST that attempts to resolve "frequently
asked questions" as an illustration. "We have posted it on our web site at
st911.org along with several critiques. I invite anyone to review that
exchange to determine if the official account has any basis in science. It
does not."

An article from Popular Mechanics that has been turned into a book doesn't
fare any better, he observed. Since there is no objective foundation for
the official account, there is no ground to suggest that skeptics of the
official account need psychological counseling. "Rationality is the
tendency to accept, reject, and hold-in-suspense beliefs on the basis of
logic and evidence,'" Fetzer stated. "Given what we know now, those who
continue to defend the government's account are the ones whose beliefs
cannot be justified by logic and evidence, not the critics. The situation
abounds with ironies."

"Sometimes I wonder if the general public realizes the government has been
lying to us about 9/11 from the beginning." He cites the recent
acknowledgment from the FBI that it has "no hard evidence" connecting
Osama bin Laden to 9/11 and the President's response during a press
conference that Saddam Hussein had "nothing" to do with 9/11. Only this
week a Senate Intelligence Committee report explained that Saddam not only
was not collaborating with bin Laden but opposed him. "These were reasons
we were given for going to war," he said. "If the government has been
lying about them, we already know the government has been lying about
9/11."

Scholars, a non-partisan society of students, faculty and experts
dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, includes
physicists, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, pilots, and
aeronautical engineers among its members. "We have no funds and no budget
but are doing this because we believe the American people are entitled to
know the truth about their own history. Even I find it difficult to
believe that the American government could have attacked the American
people and killed 3,000 civilians to promote its political agenda, but
that is where the evidence leads."

Contact information:

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(608) 835-2707 (home)
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org (st911.org)




________________________

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 at least
six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these
fires burned too low and too briefly--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 can only occur 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 Pagelow has pointed out to me.
8.

The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in
11 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)