9/11 ATTACKS - Avoiding the hard questions

[Solve et Coagula]

9/11 ATTACKS - Avoiding the hard questions

ROBERT STEINBACK

Posted on Wed, Feb. 01, 2006

I was 8 years old when President John Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas in 1963. If grace favors me, I'll be 62 when documents related to the assassination are released to the public, and 84 when the Warren Commission's investigative files into the tragedy are finally opened.

That's a long time to wait for a chance to evaluate the purported truth.

It's a blot on the presumed sophistication of the people of the United States that any aspect of an event so dramatic and shocking should be kept from us. Perhaps it's true, to abuse the line from A Few Good Men yet again, that we can't handle the truth. But there cannot be genuine resolution as long as such critical information remains concealed.

Transformed by 9/11

Since Kennedy's assassination, Americans have lurched between demanding to know and plugging their ears: The Pentagon Papers, My Lai, the King assassination, Watergate, Iran-contra, the savings-and-loan debacle, Monicagate. Lately, however, it would seem the public's verdict is in: Don't tell us. Keep us in the dark. We don't want to know.

This is the worst possible time for probe-ophobia to grip us. Our nation was irretrievably transformed by 9/11 -- and yet there remain troubling questions about what really happened before, during and after that day. Rather than demanding a full and fearless vetting to hone in on the truth and silence the conjecture about 9/11, many Americans remain unwilling to peer into the microscope.

An online cottage industry of theorists, theory debunkers and debunker debunkers has flourished since 9/11. Sometimes the flimsy theories are easy to spot -- come on, if the four passenger jets didn't crash where it appears they did, where did they go? More often, though, the cases aren't so obvious.

A group of experts and academicians 'devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, `letting the chips fall where they may,' '' last week accused the government of covering up evidence that the three destroyed New York City buildings were brought down that day by controlled demolition rather than structural failure. The group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has a website www.st911.org.

Unanswered questions

The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present.

''I am a professional philosopher who has spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,'' group co-founder and University of Minnesota professor James H. Fetzer told me. ``When I come to 9/11, it's not hard for me to determine what is going on. This is a scientific question. And it is so elementary that I don't think you can find a single physicist who could disagree with the idea that this was a controlled demolition.''

The group asks, for example,

• How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

• Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

Our current probe-ophobia is due in part to the political landscape: When one party holds all the cards, any call to investigate an alleged abuse of power or cover-up -- no matter how valid -- will look like a partisan vendetta. Those in power never want to investigate themselves.

Maybe that's politics; he who holds the hammer drives the nails. But the outrage of 9/11 transcends party affiliation.

We need all the outstanding questions answered -- wherever the chips may fall.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/ne ... einback/13 760721.htm

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Think on our own?


Question the government?


Quite high demands of a complacent public. People don't want to know the truth. They will adopt the warmest, fuzziest, simplest, most care-free scope of reality possible, which our elected officials are always willing to supply.

"Our economy is booming!"

"America is the land of opportunity!"

"We are the most ethical nation on earth, and everyone loves us!"

Now there is a platform that will get you elected, especially if it completely negates reality. The middle class is going extinct. We are stuck in massive debt. Poverty is on the rise. We are amoung the most unpopular nations on earth. These cold realities constantly linger in the background, and we will grasp at anyone or anything that might deliver us back into a blissful state of ignorance.

A government's prime job is to give it's people a perspective of reality. A false perspective, more often than not.

The government allowed 9/11 to happen?!?! Blasphemy!!! It's those darned Muslims who are the root of this evil! Them and the homosexuals!


Any notion that America or it's elected officials harbor any part of the blame for the September 11 tragety will fall upon deaf ears. It's so much easier to blame someone halfway accross the globe.

• How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

• Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

But of course, there is a very simple answer to these queries. Those inquiring are evil terrorists who hate America.


MYSTERY SOLVED!


We can automatically assume that anyone who dares question the noble American establishment is spewing crap. Anyone with (absolutely no) knowledge in history knows that every foreign and domestic excursion the US government makes is done with noble intentions.

How dare anyone question that.

[trencacloscas]

So, the Bush administration was behind the Two Towers fiasco? "The American public will never accept that!" Of course, the American public prefer to mantain the blame on someone else, no matter the evidence. The truth would be so bitter to swallow.

[micatala]

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

I remember seeing a news story on this. From what I recall, the towers were designed so that if they did suffer some kind of catastrophic failure, they would fall 'straight down'. This was done, of course, to avoid the worse catastrophe of having the buildings fall over onto neighboring buildings. The designers had actually considered the possibility of planes crashing into the towers, albeit the much smaller planes of their day.

So, I guess you could say it was a conspiracy of sorts, but it was done well before W ever had an inkling of becoming a public official.

• How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

Because other substances besides the jet fuel caught fire?

Because it was not necessary for the supporting steel to completely melt in order to fail under the weight of the building?

Does this professor Fetzer have any idea what he is talking about?

• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

The military typically does not scramble fighters to go after commercial airliners. As I recall, the interval between the first two impacts was less than an half-hour. Not a lot of time to put 2 and 2 together. The first impact was assumed to be an accident until the second impact occurred.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Oh come on, don't start inhibiting our conspiracy fun

[Wyvern]

building 7 more than likely collapsed due to the earthquake caused by a few million tons of steel and concrete suddenly falling, considering how NYC doesn't build earthquake proof buildings.

Conspiracies are fun and all but they're so 20th century

[Cathar1950]

Conspiracies are fun and all but they're so 20th century

Wyvern A good conspiracy isn't known. I figure by the time we would know one it would be to late to do anything. As if we could anyway.
But they are fun.

[juliod]

The military typically does not scramble fighters to go after commercial airliners. As I recall, the interval between the first two impacts was less than an half-hour. Not a lot of time to put 2 and 2 together. The first impact was assumed to be an accident until the second impact occurred.

Actually, this part of the "theory" does need some explanation, and I think none has been forthcoming. The Air Force in fact does scramble jets to investigate airplanes that loose contact. There was that case of the small jet that lost pressure and everyone died (including some famous golfer). even though it was a small jet, and flying over farmland, it was intercepted almost immediately. It was eventually allowed to run out of fuel and crash, but within an hour they had a general on CNN saying that they had the authority to shoot it down, and would do so, if it looked like it might approach an area where the probablity was high of casualties on the ground.

I have heard, but don't know it to be true, that no fighters were launched until after the last plane had crashed in Pennsylvania. This in spite of the fact that it was presumed that the last one was heading toward DC and one had already crashed into the Pentagon. (On The Day, one of my panicked co-workers rushed into the conference room where most of us were watching the news unfold and declared that we had to go down into the basement because the plane was coming.) And also in spite of the fact that (reportedly) 2 planes are kept on 5-minute alert at Andrews AFB, 24/7 in order to protect DC from just such an attack (you can find these planes on Google Earth if you look).

I wouldn't put this down to conspiracy, but to incompetance and panic. As we know, Dubya bravely fled to Nebraska, or somewhere equally improbable. I suspect that as with Katrina, no one was in charge, no one was making decisions, no one was giving orders.

We must keep in mind also, that there are at least two aspects of conspiracy relating to 9/11 that are very well supported by facts, although not directly related to the attacks. The first is the use of the attacks to launch aggresive war against Iraq. The second was to ensure that members of the Bin Laden and Saudi royal familes that were connected to Bush were allowed to leave the country without being subjected to investigation.

DanZ
[/i]

[trencacloscas]

I remember seeing a news story on this. From what I recall, the towers were designed so that if they did suffer some kind of catastrophic failure, they would fall 'straight down'. This was done, of course, to avoid the worse catastrophe of having the buildings fall over onto neighboring buildings. The designers had actually considered the possibility of planes crashing into the towers, albeit the much smaller planes of their day.

If so, would you please care to name any other buildings designed in the same way?

Moreover, what are the horizontal smoke escapes that can be seen on screen moments before the collapsing?

[micatala]

I have no idea what other buildings might have been designed this way. I only recall what this one particular news segment indicated. I am perfectly willing to retract if the evidence indicates otherwise. I must also confess this will be a pretty low priority thread for me, so if you all want to go on without me after 'debunking' my comments, I will not put up much of a fight.