THE OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX Scholars Speak Out Re 9/11 THE OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX

We call for verification and publication by an international consortium. 29 January 2006 We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. We are therefore joining together in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because we are convinced, based on our own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

We believe these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

We appreciate that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and would prefer to believe that the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely wishful thinking.

We encourage news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify our discoveries.

Extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures. If this were done, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

We trust this might include The New York Times, which, in our opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership we expect from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. Perhaps it might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history. Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of our knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty.

The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidentiary data.

There appear to be good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that are profoundly troubling to objective reason: In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day?

How is this possible? The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800° under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. We are obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

I have no theories to prove to you.

I only illustrate how the government's story is bullshit.

Since you believe this story so much let me ask you some questions about this story the administration is pushing:

Where the HELL is YOUR proof that PNAC’s call for a ‘catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor’ was only an unbelievably astounding and timely coincidence rather than a statement that should have raised reasonable suspicion?

In the late 1990’s members of the Project for a New American Century wrote a treatise in which they foresaw a strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination that would require a huge increase in defense spending. “The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” The members of this group, known as PNAC, were appointed to many high level positions in the new Bush administration. Only months after they came to power, the United States experienced a new Pearl Harbor. That has never been publicized or explained as anything other than mere coincidence

.

• Where the HELL is YOUR proof that Al Qaeda actually planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11?

In 4 years I have not seen a single bit of proof that Al Qaeda was involved in those events. I have seen some snap shots of Arab men at an airport. I was told a slew of things about these men. I was told that the passport of one of the alleged hijackers miraculously floated to the surface of the rubble, unscathed by the heat that had obliterated thousands. I was told way too much about these men for me to believe that the story was not prepared in advance. Two days was not sufficient time for that kind of information to be uncovered and declassified by our government. Not only did that reek of black ops, but to this day almost nothing of what we were told about he nineteen hijackers has been verified. The tape of Osama bin Laden shown by the government raised questions about the actual identity of the man in the film. As a matter of fact, I watched the so-called confession I with a person whose native is Arabic. He told me that the English translation was misleading. While he rejoiced at their success, nowhere in the tape did Osama admit involvement in the attacks!

• Where the HELL is YOUR proof that Dick Cheney was NOT conducting drills on 9/11 that paralyzed Air Force responses to the real attacks?

There is irrefutable evidence that Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service on the morning of 9/11, assuring the paralysis of Air Force and its ability to intercept the hijacked planes. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. In fact, Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11. When publicly asked about the exercises, that involved simulated attacks by hijacked planes against the WTC, Cheney refused to comment, claiming the information was classified.

• Where the HELL is YOUR proof that Tower 7 collapsed as a result of the attacks?

I have not seen even a single computer model explanation as to how or why Building 7 collapsed in the exact same manner as the two Towers that were hit by airplanes. As a matter of fact Building 7, which sustained no impact at all, was not mentioned in the Kean Commission report at all. The FEMA report of the collapse remains inconclusive, unable to offer a reasonable explanation for the collapse. Larry Silverstein, owner of the complex publicly claimed he gave permission for Tower 7 to be ‘pulled,’ a fire department term for demolished. Demolition of such a building would have required weeks, if not months of preparation. No explanation has ever been given for this baffling anomaly.

• Where the HELL is YOUR proof that ‘put’ orders placed on the two Airlines involved in the attacks were mere coincidence?

I have never seen the names of the people who placed those orders. I don’t know that their identities have been uncovered of if they have been questioned. I have not seen anyone vindicated of any foreknowledge of 9/11 after making investments that would only pay off if the specific airlines involved were to experience a drop in stock prices.

• Where the HELL is YOUR proof that Porter Goss knew nothing about $100,000 that was wired to Mohammed Atta?

I cannot fathom why the person who was sitting with Porter Goss (our current CIA Director) on the morning of 9/11, and who had wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 just prior to the event, was never investigated. This could be the smoking gun of smoking guns (if you believe that Atta was involved) that has been covered up from the start.

• Where the Hell is YOUR proof that Donald Rumsfeld did not organize an illegal military group that would “provoke terrorist attacks which would then require ‘"counter-attack" by the United States?

Here’s what I know: In the Los Angeles Times, military analyst William Arkin described a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" was designed to bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organization was known as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG. It was formed to provoke terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harboring the terrorists". Doesn’t that sound exactly like what happened on 9/11?

That’s all I have room for, so I’ll sit back and wait for someone to send me some proof, assuming that a single person out there knows where the Hell it is.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The bottom line is simple: I have not seen anything at all that makes me believe the official story of 9/11, which, when considered on its own merits, is so implausible as to be considered a bad joke.

So, once again, I ask the people who refuse to explore the findings of the independent research community, - the only real investigation into the events of September 11th 2001 - where the Hell is YOUR proof?

Research the events of 9/11 in depth, come up with YOUR proof that the official version is credible, or just shut up!

You have a helluva lot of research to do before you are qualified to intelligently debate the events of 9/11 with anyone who has spent more than four years in the independent research effort. Don’t bother to cite official sources to back up your points, since most of them have been debunked. Try to understand that you can not use the authors of the official version to support their own validity. It’s a dumb tactic.

Once again, keep in mind that THE KEAN COMMISSION DID NOT CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO 9/11! It was not their assignment! They were tasked with making recommendations to improve national security based on the official story. They were not asked to find out what happened. They went in with an official account of the events, and were asked to make their recommendations based on what the Bush/PNAC administration wanted the public to believe happened on that day.

Independent researchers are the only people who have investigated the events of 9/11. They have uncovered and presented mountains of evidence that totally expose the official account for what it is; a cover-up, nothing more.

It does however, point to direct involvement by several key members of the Bush/PNAC administration, acting on their own, outside the rule of law, without participation in any mysterious governmental conspiracy. Their motives have been clearly established and published by the culprits themselves and evidence of their involvement has been clearly established by independent research.

So bring ‘em on! Let’s see if those who swear to the lies they have been told can convince anyone, even themselves that the official version of 9/11 explains to the nation and the world what really happened on that day.

So, where the Hell is YOUR proof, true believers? We’re all waiting to see.

Well, if so, it would not be the first time.

The Nazis burned the Reichstag, that is for certain sure...then they accused the communists and trade union leaders of having done it, and used the burning of the Reichstag as an excuse to round them all up and put them in concentration camps or execute them...not to mention getting Hitler elected.

Nice little trick, eh? It takes a real bunch of slime dogs to do something like that, eh? They were just so sure they knew what was best for the German people, you know, like all meglomaniac sociopathic scum..

"We believe these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans.."

Fair enough.

Hell, some of us believe wild monkeys may have flown out of your ass, so if we are going to go with what we any "believe" and "may" be, shit, why not?

"They were just so sure they knew what was best for the German people, you know, like all meglomaniac sociopathic scum.."

Pretty odd stance for a looney lib. Most of you are plum queer for the government doing for everything for all of us from cradle to grave. Almost as if they think they know what is best for our people.

Might reconsider this one........

But I thought George was a dipshit, dumbass, incompetent buffoon who couldn't find his own ass with 2 hands and a map?

Certainly, he'd be in on it...but wouldn't he do a bunch of coke and get all pissed-up on Lone Star and blab to, hell who knows, Helen Thomas?

Since he's so stupid, wouldn't he simply forgot that he and his gang pulled it off and mispeak as he does everytime he opens his pie hole? Wouldn't that be, like, the ultimate and coolest "Bushism" ever?

I dunno, man...you're giving the boys a whole lotta credit where you've never before.

my father was in charge of the welding shop that cranked out all the columns and girders for the wtc.

the thesis you present is full of errors and misrepresentations.

the towers were designed to resist the impact of an air liner - the impact of a boeing 707. the largest air liner of that era. how many times larger is a boeing 757/767, eh? dufus?

your continual harping on this nonsense whirle posting articles with major errors and misrepresentations. just how dumb are you?

Chimpy McFlightsuit is a puppet.m Cheney pulls the strings.

Remember Chimpy saying he would not testify under oath to the 911 Commission and that when he did speak to him Cheney had to be there with him.

That was so Cheney could pull those strings.

911=Inside Job

You see, those weren't Boeing passenger aircraft you "saw" on TV...those were Israeli cruise missiles flying in such a tight formation, they actually looked like aircraft.

It's true, too...I read it on the internet and everything.

my father was in charge of the welding shop that cranked out all the columns and girders for the wtc.

the thesis you present is full of errors and misrepresentations.

the towers were designed to resist the impact of an air liner - the impact of a boeing 707. the largest air liner of that era. how many times larger is a boeing 757/767, eh? dufus?

your continual harping on this nonsense whirle posting articles with major errors and misrepresentations. just how dumb are you?

THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT
OF A BOEING 767, SO WHY DIDN'T IT?

Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers.

Other engineers are on public record as saying that the World Trade Center would even survive an impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.

To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed.

Since, the Boeing 767 is much more fuel-efficient than the 707, a Boeing 707 traveling the same route would carry significantly more fuel and would therefore be a much greater danger from the perspective of a jet fuel fire.

Thus the quantity of fuel that burnt on September 11 would have been envisaged by those who designed the towers. In fact, the towers were designed to survive much more serious fires than those of September 11. Over the years, a number of other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires, but none have collapsed (not one). Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

See this article for proof that the jet fuel fires can be ruled out as the cause of the World Trade Center collapses.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

And, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

To illustrate this point we calculate the energy that the planes would impart to the towers in any accidental collision at their cruise speed.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that at cruise speed, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 has been estimated to be 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 has been estimated to be 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

Note that the speed of a projectile determines whether the impact damage is localized or spread across a large area. The faster the projectile, the more localized the damage. Common examples illustrating this effect are, the driving of a nail through a piece of wood, and the firing a bullet through a fencepost. Both are done at speed and thus do only local damage. In both of these examples, the wood just a centimeter or two from the impact point, is essentially undamaged. Similarly, the aircraft impacts were at great speed and the damage localized. This effect is

illustrated in the above graphic from the simulation of the crash of a Boeing 747 (maximum takeoff weight 875,000 lb, unloaded weight 670,200 lb, fuel capacity 57,285 gallons) with a steel framed building.

We are told that the "hijackers" wanted to cause maximum death and destruction, then why didn't they hijack Boeing 747s? Boeing 747s weigh more than twice as much, they can carry more than twice the fuel and travel faster than the Boeing 767. Consequently, Boeing 747s would have caused much more death and destruction than the 767s.

Also, why did the hijackers choose to hijack aircraft leaving Boston, when they could have just as easily hijacked aircraft from one of the New York city airports (LaGuardia, Newark or JFK). Hijacking aircraft from Boston, meant that they had to deviate from their designated routes, while still a long way from Manhattan. Of course, as is usual, all sorts of alarm bells would be set off as soon as the aircraft deviated substantially from their prescribed routes. Not only that, the US Air Force specialist quick response unit, the Air National Guard, would almost certainly intercept them before they reached their target (and would have assuredly shoot down the second 767, after seeing what happened to the first).

It is often claimed that the WTC was designed only to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707 that was seeking to land at one of the nearby airports, and that since such aircraft would be low on fuel, only small jet fuel fires were envisaged. However, this is an obvious lie. Why is it an obvious lie? Well, because if you take into consideration planes that are landing at an airport, then you must consider planes that are taking off, and such planes are potentially fully laden with fuel.

Since the WTC towers were designed to handle extreme wind loading (140 mph hurricane force winds) they would survive the impact of a Boeing 707 (even one that was traveling at full speed) without adding any extra features to the design (above those already necessary to handle the wind loading). All that the designers would have to consider, is effect of a jet fuel fire from a fully fueled jet that crashed into one of the towers shortly after taking off from one of the local airports.

Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the much larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

"Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley."

That does it...I'm convinced.

LOL...

Damn, cuntguy, my "POINT" is, the post YOU fuckin' presented BEGAN with a statement that all the rest was what someone BELIEVED, MAY HAVE happened.

It is YOUR author's words, not mine. I merely pointed out the fact that YOU were taking something that was correctly labeled as a "belief", and using it as the basis to post, " THE OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX", as if this were somehow some undeniable fact or truth.

You really ARE a clabber-head of sorts, aren't you?

"Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley."

That does it...I'm convinced.

LOL...

Another pointless reply.

Any of you "True Believers" Gonna Try and Defend the Official Story and Answer some of the Questions I listed above about the official story?

Come on now, give it a shot. Do a little research, I am sure since you folks can come up with some reason why the Bush administration's story can be believed.

Still waiting.