| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:23 am Post subject: Jones Confronts WND's Moseley For Smearing Truthers |
 |
|
Jones Confronts Moseley here
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/180806hitpiece.htm
9/11 Neo-Con Hit Piece Explodes Into Controversy
Moseley World Net Daily article spews salacious attacks against Professor Steven Jones as distortions and fallacies are exposed on Alex Jones Show
| Quote: |
Jonathon Moseley's World Net Daily hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement, which contained salacious personal attacks along with erroneous and distorted claims, has been thoroughly debunked after Moseley appeared on a nationally broadcast radio show to debate his article with host Alex Jones and Professor Jim Fetzer of the 9/11 Scholars. |
| Quote: | Moseley then betrayed his appallingly inept level of research into the claims of 9/11 skeptics when host Alex Jones raised the issue of Operation Northwoods.
JONES: "I asked you yesterday if you had heard of Operation Northwoods and you said you had heard me talk about it but that you didn't know about it - I mean shouldn't you go find out if my claim about an official US government document to carry out 9/11 style attacks - shouldn't you go find out if that exists or do you just decide that doesn't exist?"
MOSELEY: "Well I don't believe it exists."
Moseley clearly states that he doesn't believe Northwoods exists.
Here's a link to the Operation Northwoods documents from the National Security Archive. Here's a link to a report on the Operation Northwoods documents from ABC News. Here's a link to a report on the Operation Northwoods documents from the Baltimore Sun.
The fact that Moseley goes to the delusional lengths of denying the very existence of a plan that was publicly declassified and has been reported on by numerous mainstream media outlets torpedoes his credibility from the very start.
Without a doubt the most distasteful element of Moseley's attack is his claim that Professor Steven Jones, in responding to a question at the American Scholars Symposium conference, "was calling for the violent overthrow of the government."
After carefully analyzing video archives of every one of Steven Jones' appearances at the conference, including round table panel discussions and Jones' own speech, we can find no evidence that Jones made statements even anywhere near approaching this context. At no point does Jones advocate violence of any kind - this is a completely false and potentially damaging allegation. Every video which features Steven Jones can be downloaded at Prison Planet.tv for any readers who seek verification.
The likely explanation for Moseley's statement is that he has attributed statements which are already bloated and distorted - to the wrong person - again underscoring the slapdash ineptitude of his research. In a clip taken from the American Scholars Symposium (watch below) Jim Fetzer, not Steven Jones, responds to a question by opining that there is no gentlemanly solution, which is qualified by Fetzer as meaning a solution within the means of the Constitution, to counter a President who by the very nature of his actions, has erected a dictatorial system and abolished the Constitution. This is a bold stance but it does by no means advocate a violent armed overthrow of the government. And to emphasize, Moseley's study of his subject matter before the publication of his hit piece was so vague that he could not even distinguish between the different people he attacked.
Professor Jones has already indicated via e mail that the allegation has provoked meetings with his colleagues at BYU who were concerned about the comments made in the World Net Daily article. Until Mr. Moseley can provide video evidence of his claim, which from our studious analysis does not exist, this smear attempt stands alone as the most odious and insipid facet of Moseley's article.
Throughout the discussion, one of Moseley's foremost contentions with the arguments of Professor Jim Fetzer is that Fetzer has a tendency to jump around on issues and does not stay on topic.
Numerous examples betray the fact that it is actually Moseley who has trouble staying on topic, shifting topics at will on several occasions.
For example, when Fetzer is discussing the allegation that Professor Steven Jones advocated violence, Moseley abruptly switches subjects by stating, "just like the no planes hit, we didn't see what we saw, it was on national television - we didn't see it because there was some kind of mind control."
Moseley introduces a new and manifestly bizarre topic out of the blue that is completely unrelated to the subject matter and a supposition about the 9/11 attacks that is not even supported by Fetzer, Professor Steven Jones or Alex Jones.
In addition, at the end of the debate the alleged libel of Steven Jones is again raised as Moseley is asked to respond to the allegation forwarded in his article. Instead of indicating precisely where the supposed quote from Jones came from, Moseley launches into a diatribe about the collapse of floors in the World Trade Center, at which point Fetzer accuses him of jumping around and not staying on topic.
Moseley's counter to claims that the twin towers and Building 7 collapsed as a result of controlled implosions also falls flat on its face after even a cursory glance at the evidence. Moseley's refusal to acknowledge that Building 7 collapsed from the bottom, with central columns being blown and then the top of the building displaying the classic crimp and folding in on itself is wholly inconsistent with video footage as can be viewed below.
In addition, Moseley cites the 1967 collapse of the McCormick Place building in Chicago as proof that steel buildings similar in structure to the twin towers have collapsed from fire damage. The twin towers were intense grid-like structures with 47 vast steel-reinforced pillars. They were over-engineered and designed to take "multiple impacts of jetliners," according to WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (see below).
Compare this to McCormick Place which collapsed, according to the Chicago Public Library, under severe conditions, including a failure of water supply to attendant firefighters, non-existent sprinkler systems, the entire building catching fire, 1,250 art exhibits within the building which were constructed of highly flammable wood, paper and plastic, and faulty wiring not up to building code.
Compare this to the WTC fires, which were almost extinguished according to the firefighters tapes, sprinkler systems that activated as soon as the planes hit, and reinforced fire-proofing which was installed after an intense fire in the WTC north tower (from which the building obviously did not collapse) in 1975.
Also compare this photo of the McCormick building to the trade towers. It's a four-story warehouse with a cheap tar roof - and the building has not even collapsed in its entirety! Comparisons to the structural makeup of the twin towers are absurd.
Moseley also claimed that the jet fuel fires exploded into the center of the buildings when video footage clearly shows that the fireball from Flight 175 which hit the south tower, the tower that collapsed first, expended itself mostly on the outside of the building.
Another ludicrous assertion made by Moseley was that squibs seen shooting out of the towers as they collapsed did not occur significantly below floors of the collapse point. This claim is wholly debunked by the following video footage.
Towards the end of the discussion, Moseley echoed the statement made in his article that he had, "debate(ed) these characters extensively," before publication. Moseley's qualification for his claim that he had debated Alex Jones was that Alex Jones' e mail address was tagged on to one of his e mail exchanges. Those of us familiar with spam can assure Mr. Moseley that this doesn't equate to the fact that Alex Jones was ever part of the debate.
We encourage our readers to both listen to the MP3 audio of the debate and also read Moseley's original article and come to their own conclusions on whether Moseley is accurate or whether, as we contend, that his argument is a sloppily researched hit piece that contains shoddy claims and potentially damaging personal attacks that are completely untrue.
As the editorial boards of government apologist newspapers nationwide continue to spew forth savage and unfounded hit pieces targeting the 9/11 truth movement we will continue to act as watchdog and defend the truth in anticipation of a truly independent re-investigation of the September 11 attacks as the events approaches its fifth anniversary.
|
More on this here.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/170806stevenjones.htm
Professor Steven Jones Urgently Asks For Help Regarding Personal Attacks
B.Y.U. Professor Steven Jones Says He Was Misquoted
| Quote: | Quote from Moseley's "9/11 Bush Bashers":
At a national conference broadcast nationwide on C-SPAN, key conspiracy leader Alex Jones announced that the American government has already collapsed and a shadow government is now running our country. This radio talk-show host next announced – on tape – that Osama bin Laden is now a paid agent of the CIA.
Professor Steven Jones of Brigham-Young University accused George Bush of being a dictator, mimicking the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. When asked if violent revolution was necessary, this scientist declared – in front of national TV cameras – that there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals. In the context of the question, professor Jones was calling for the violent overthrow of the government. |
Steve Jones:
| Quote: | | Those publishing this essay should check my actual comments on the C-SPAN broadcast. I made no such statement that "there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals." This is FALSE, UNTRUE, AND TOTALLY NOT WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, NOR DO I IN ANY WAY SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT AT ALL. |
This is what we're dealing with here folks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/170806_fetzer_wnd.html
9/11 Truth Scholars Jones and Fetzer Respond to World Net Daily Hit Piece
| Quote: |
"9/11 Bush bashers" by Jon Moseley, worldnetdaily (16 August 2006), alas, is
reprehensible and irresponsible in almost every respect. He abuses language
and logic and attempts to smear me without justification in an apparent
effort to mislead the public from appreciating the objective and scientific
findings about the events of 9/11 that have been established by Scholars for 9/11
Truth, an organization that I founded and co-chair with Steve Jones, a physicist
from BYU, who has done extensive studies of how the towers were in fact
destroyed.
Moseley has been fanatical, even obsessive, about posting attacks upon
members of Scholars. To verify my impression, I did a search on recent Moseley
posts. On 15 August 2006, for example, he posted 15 attacks. On 1 August 2006, 22.
23 July 2006, 19. He would post attacks and post again immediately after
any response in a style that was immature and juvenile. Had they advanced
serious arguments about our findings, they might have been justified in spite of
that, but they committed elementary fallacies that made them virtually worthless.
In one recent post, for example, he claimed that the Twin Towers cannot have
come down as the result of controlled demolitions, which, he said, "blow out
the first and second floors, so that he building falls down into its own
footprint".
This is known as trading upon an equivocation, because Moseley's definition
is applicable to standard controlled demolitions, while the towers appear to
have been subject to special kinds of controlled demolition in which they were
blown up from the top down. I explained that to him then, but it was to no avail.
That post revealed the abuse of language. In another, he committed a
logical blunder by maintaining that, because different "conspiracy theories" are not consistent with one another, they must all be false! But the only inference
that follows is that they cannot all be true! You don't have to have taught
logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to have
noticed this, but perhaps it helps. I also explained this mistake at the time, but
he still choose to repeat it in the article WND published on 16 August 2006.
His blizzard of posts of low intellectual quality led me to send an email
asking about his background and education. In the absence of a response, I offered
my own guess about the kind of person who would behave like this, speculating
that he was 15 years old, very bright, probably Jewish, possibly a resident of
Brooklyn, attending a scientific/technological high school, who believes
that he is superior to everyone else and has an obsession to try and prove it! I
was commenting on his behavior, not the subject of his posts--and it fits to a
tee.
In addition to his abuse of me and of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Moseley
claims that, during the LA American Scholars Symposium, Steve Jones asserted "there
is no peaceful way to achieve the groups goals". This is false and
misrepresents his position, which is that only Constitutionally prescribed remedies, such
as impeachment, are appropriate. I was there and verify the libelous character
of Moseley's gross distortion. C-SPAN was also there, and anyone can
confirm this point for themselves by viewing the panel discussion archived on
st911.org.
Although he would not identify himself to me, Moseley now tells us that he
is "executive director of the U.S. Seaports Commission". A friend of mine
who's active in Wisconsin politics has told me that this means he is a "political
hack". I don't know what to say about that, but it is apparent that his
posts in these exchanges and his article in WND are intended to mislead the unwary
concerning the state of objective, scientific knowledge of the events of 9/11.
As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org), I would observe that
our members have established more than a dozen disproves 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. Here
is an overview that offers a thumbnail sketch of 15 important points about
9/11:
(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 had 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;
( 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;
the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The
evidence is archived at st911.org. No matter what Moseley may write, our objective
is seeking truth, not bashing Bush. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let the evil smear merchant know what you think
Contact@JonMoseley.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiv
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:31 am Post subject: Send e-mails to Brigham Young University |
|
|
I've already sent my e-mail with my own observations to the faculty dean at earl_woolley@byu.edu
We all ought to be sending in our e-mails of support for Professor Jones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great idea spiv.
The architect mentioned in the above interview. This was from the time period very soon after 9/11 I believe?
WTC designers were shocked by the collapse of the twin towers
Aaron Swirski Interview
http://911wideopen.com/videos/wtc-swirski.asf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have sent the following:
Dear Dr Wolley
I was shocked to learn via internet of the alleged smear against Dr Steven Jones from Mr Jonathan Mosely. Dr Jones has done invaluable work on the collapse of the World Trade Center which has given hope to the 911 Truth Movement worldwide that the truth will eventually out. The movement utterly repudiates the use of violence and we have never seen or heard of Dr Jones advocating it. If Mr Mosely cannot produce evidence to justify his claim, his allegation falls as an unsubstantiated libel.
You can find discussion of this smear against Dr Jones on the website of the British section of the worldwide movement here: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=17996#17996
I trust that you will agree that Dr Jones' reputation remains untarnished.
Yours sincerely
Noel Glynn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if he's any relation of the late Oswald Mosely.
Noel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
World Net Daily Forced To Issue 9/11 Hit Piece Retraction
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/180806issueretraction. htm
| Quote: | Following a radio show debate yesterday in which a 9/11 hit piece article written by Jonathon Moseley for World Net Daily was exposed as containing numerous flaws and baseless allegations, the online news site was later forced to issue a retraction.
One of the most glaring inaccuracies of the article was Moseley's claim that Professor Steven Jones of the 9/11 Truth Scholars, during a conference aired on C-Span, called "for the violent overthrow of the government."
After painstaking analysis of all the tapes from the conference there was no evidence whatsoever that a statement even close to this nature was ever made by Jones.
Following the radio debate, World Net Daily were pressed into issuing the following retraction on their website.
Editor's note, Aug. 17, 2006: In paragraph four of this column, the author makes an assertion about professor Steven Jones' remarks at a 9/11 symposium broadcast by C-SPAN. A review of the program online evidenced no such comments by Jones."
...
This latest example of ineptitude on the part of Moseley and World Net Daily only brings their other claims about 9/11 under further scrutiny. If they can't even ascribe the correct statements to the right people, yet use false allegations to try and smear the characters of respected professionals, how can we trust their assertions that 9/11 skeptics are wrong? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ha! WND posted Fetzer's refutation.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51579
Truth seekers, not Bush bashers
| Quote: |
"9/11 Bush bashers" by Jon Moseley (WND, Aug. 16), alas, is reprehensible and irresponsible in almost every respect. He abuses language and logic and attempts to smear me without justification in an apparent effort to mislead the public from appreciating the objective and scientific findings about the events of 9/11 that have been established by Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization that I founded and co-chair with Steve Jones, a physicist from BYU, who has done extensive studies of how the Twin Towers were in fact destroyed.
Moseley has been fanatical, even obsessive, about posting attacks upon members of Scholars. To verify my impression, I did a search on recent Moseley posts.
On Aug. 15, 2006, for example, he posted 15 attacks. On Aug. 1, 2006, 22. July 23, 2006, there were 19. He would post attacks and post again immediately after any response in a style that was immature and juvenile. Had they advanced serious arguments about our findings, they might have been justified in spite of that, but they committed elementary fallacies that made them virtually worthless.
In one recent post, for example, he claimed that the Twin Towers cannot have come down as the result of controlled demolitions, which, he said, "blow out the first and second floors, so that the building falls down into its own footprint."
This is known as trading upon an equivocation, because Moseley's definition is applicable to standard controlled demolitions, while the towers appear to have been subject to special kinds of controlled demolition in which they were blown up from the top down. I explained that to him then, but it was to no avail.
That post revealed the abuse of language. In another, he committed a logical blunder by maintaining that, because different "conspiracy theories" are not consistent with one another, they must all be false! But the only inference that follows is that they cannot all be true! You don't have to have taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to have noticed this, but perhaps it helps. I also explained this mistake at the time, but he still chose to repeat it in the article WND published Wednesday.
His blizzard of posts of low intellectual quality led me to send an e-mail asking about his background and education. In the absence of a response, I offered my own guess about the kind of person who would behave like this, speculating that he was 15 years old, very bright, probably Jewish, possibly a resident of Brooklyn, attending a scientific/technological high school, who believes that he is superior to everyone else and has an obsession to try and prove it! I was commenting on his behavior, not the subject of his posts – and it fits to a tee.
In addition to his abuse of me and of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Moseley claims that, during the L.A. American Scholars Symposium, Steve Jones asserted that there is no peaceful way to achieve the groups goals. This is false and misrepresents his position, which is that only constitutionally prescribed remedies, such as impeachment, are appropriate. I was there and verify the libelous character of Moseley's gross distortion. C-SPAN was also there, and anyone can confirm this point for themselves by viewing the panel discussion archived on st911.org.
As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I would observe that our members 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. Here is an overview that offers a thumbnail sketch of 15 important points about 9/11:
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 degrees Fahrenheit is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees 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 had certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees 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 p.m. 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 facts, 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 is archived at st911.org. No matter what Moseley may write, our objective is seeking truth, not bashing Bush.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., is founder and co-chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
