Is something still a conspiracy theory when structural experts from MIT,

[Quixote1818]

The University of Utah, the University of Wisconsin and other prestigious academia are writing peer reviewed papers on the subject questioning the initial investigations findings?

[One_Life_To_Give]

1. It Depends

Academics may argue alot of points about just how the towers collapsed. That doesn't mean they are debating whether there were demolitiion charges in the building.

[havocmom]

2. Also seems to depend on whether investigation involves the GOP

[peacetalksforall]

3. How isn't news. Why is. How is always ongoing. Why is what

is needed now. How is letting someone else do the work and reading the report. Why is checking in and devoting hours to find out for themselves - for the better good of the citizens.

[Quixote1818]

6. But that is exactly what the are debating.

Thats what is in their papers.

[Peace Patriot]

4. No, but it's a step toward taking the "theory" out of "conspiracy theory."

"Intelligent design" may not be able to prove anything about God, but it DOES apply to humans, and it's a tried and true tool of criminal investigators studying the behavior of humans who are suspected of crime. What were the criminal brains behind what appear to be disparate, unrelated actions trying to accomplish? Who are the masterminds? What is their goal? How did they achieve their ends? And how did they cover their tracks?

[pberq]

5. Didn't you know that any thing other than the

official conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory?

[meganmonkey]

7. You'll find the answer to that question

when this thread suddenly disappears and then reappears in another forum ;)

[Quixote1818]

9. Where is that forum. I started looking for it yesterday after

I finally got around to doing the research on this and discovered I had been dead wrong.

[meganmonkey]

10. If you go to the main DU lobby

It is under Topic Forums--->Issue Forums--->September 11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

You will also find many threads there which have nothing to do with 911. Very odd indeed...

[Quixote1818]

11. Thanks! nt

[meganmonkey]

33. No prob

And it looks like yes, according to the ultimate authority of DU admin, this is still a 'conspiracy theory' (unlike the official story, of course, which makes all sorts of sense, right?).

:shrug:

[marions ghost]

8. All those academics

are members of the vast leftwing conspiracy, y'know...they hang out in those hotbeds of radicalism like the University of Utah.

[ngant17]

12. The sinking of the battleship Maine was probably conspiratorial in nature

Of course, the remains have been hidden from examination for over a century deep down in the harbour of Havana. And even if you could bring it up to the surface, it would still be debatable on how or why it happened.

But it was initially blamed on "Spanish agents" by the press. However, who benefitted? The US government did. Likewise with 911.

It would not at all surprise me, if it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that the US gov. engineered the explosion(s) on the battleship Maine to justify a war in 1898 and to acquire more colonies overseas, such as Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Phillippines. Likewise with 911. Ordinary civilians are just pawns in their games of dominating the world. They are meant to be used and discarded after they serve a higher purpose which has nothing to do with human morality or ethics. This describes the current Bull**it regime in power perfectly.

[FormerDem06]

13. Unfortunately, untile evidence is found or you build another tower and

fly another plane into it after it stands for years, we won't know. There just isn't a precident for testing something like this in a controlled environment.

To me theories are worth the paper they're printed on, unless proven out over time.

[Quixote1818]

17. Especially since almost all of the debris (evidence) were recycled

Their is nothing from the structure left to study. They have only 200 pieces.

[ryanus]

14. It's a conspiracy theory if popular culture says it is

And pop culture is heavily influenced by the media, and the media is heavily influenced by people in power (business, government, etc.).

Most people have a very difficult time going against their crowd. Most adults don't even think they have a crowd, and they think they are reasonable and rational. So as long as people they considered reasonable and rational (doctors, news agency, government leaders, experts, etc.) tell them that something is a conspiracy theory, then they will believe it.

People must have enough courage and confidence to believe something that goes against their crowd leader and the other members of their crowd. This is surprisingly rare, which is why the ones that often most easily adopt conspiracy theories are the ones who already have rejected popular culture, and are also the ones pop culture likes to label "kooks," and often they really are.

Often people don't want to try to form their own opinion because it is too much effort and\or it might mean they go against their crowd leaders and peers. A person might not want to envision himself as having very different views that his peers and people who are "expert" and "reasonable" because then that might mean that he himself is not reasonable. So people often just rely on the wisdom of their crowd; it is much safer to them.

The crowd that supports the Official Theory is shrinking, though. And I think it is shrinking faster and faster.

[rman]

20. Now that's an insightful comment

[Quixote1818]

35. Well, it just shrunk by one more person this weekend

I changed camps yesterday. Before that I thought you all were nuts. What you wrote above is spot on!

[ryanus]

37. Good to hear.

What was it that changed your mind? Do you remember exactly when it happened? I'm just curious.

[Quixote1818]

62. It was watching that hour long video with all the Academic Experts

on it. I also watched a bunch of video's over at You Tube and people posted links to the Academic sites. If it were not for You Tube I would still be in the other camp.

I also watched the NOVA video and found it weak. It seemed to leave me with more questions than answers. Most of the anti conspiracy video's (which are very few) don't go into much detail and don't answer simple basic questions such as "what happened to all the steel structures in the middle of the towers?" The Pancake theory doesn't begin to address this.

I am still on the fence about Bush being behind this but their is no question in my mind that the towers were brought down by explosives. The more I learn however the more I am starting to think the Bush administration was behind this. Never the less we need much more investigation into this.

[John Q. Citizen]

64. Have you read Webster Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror; Made in the USA?"

It is available for free reading at the online lending library at americanbuddha.com

All you need to do is register with an email address and make up a password.

If you are short of time I suggest you might want to read chapter IX (9) "Angel is next." It suggests that bush himself wasn't a principle player.

http://www.american-buddha.com/911.syntheticterrormade11.htm#IX:%20ANGEL%20IS%20NEXT%20-THE%20INVISIBLE%20GOVERNMENT%20SPEAKS

Just scroll down the page a bit to the listing of the chapters.

You can also read Hopsicker's Welcome to Terrorland which is about the flight schools in Venice, Florida where 3 of the 4 hijacker pilots went to flight school.

If you put "Hopsicker" into the search function at americanbuddha you can find it. Both books are well worth the read.

They will give you lots to think about, besides just the weird, unlikely, and suspicious rapid sequenced collapses of three building from three random events.

[Quixote1818]

66. Thanks, I will look into it. nt

[stillcool]

15. analogy's are all the rage..

these days, as fiction is the only way to speak the truth.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Link?

[Quixote1818]

18. Not allowed to post it here

I will email it to you and post it on the 9/11 discussion board.

[Subdivisions]

19. The way I see it, if fully loaded airliners hitting a building at

500 miles per hour couldn't knock them down, neither could a fire.

I'm not a structural engineer, but I am a semi-retired construction worker who has helped to build skyscrapers and from my 25 years of experience, there's little that can bring down such a building without help.

Not even a missile barrage could do it.

[Quixote1818]

22. Not to mention World Trade Center #7 was never hit by a plane

Never in world history has a fire brought down a high rise building and it came down at free fall speed. All the concrete was pulverized into fine dust.

[cobalt1999]

21. Yes.

No real hard evidence.

Name one major event in the last 100 years that doesn't have some crackpot conspiracy theory attached to it. In fact I doubt you could name one. I also bet you could never convince the believers in each of those theories anything either.

Each conspiracy theory has their own set of believers and all saying things like "I wouldn't put it past them" or "No one big thing, but if you take every little thing ALL TOGEATHER..." or "We found a witness who said..."

It's always the same for all of them...
Faked moon landings
Crashed alien spaceships in Area 51
Every death of any government official in any country (the high the official the bigger and longer the conspiracy idea lives)

Bottom line: Feelings are meaningless in this and lots of little or shitty evidence is no better than none.

[Quixote1818]

23. Watch this whole video. The evidence is overwhelming!

I was in your camp just last week. I did a 360 degree turn around after doing some research and watching this video:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/210806Explosives.htm

[Pawel K]

36. So the entire theory that Bush did this lies in the fact people heard 3 explosions

right before the collapse.

Come on, give me a break. Next you are going to tell me that there wasn't enough heat to bring down the steel supports when in fact there was. This original "fact" claimed by some of these same people turned out to be completely fabricated. So you have to ask yourself, what else is fabricated by these stupid web sites. I will wait till a official investigation comes out, until then please stop it with this bullshit. It is only hurting our main cause to get these evil bastards out of power.

[John Q. Citizen]

42. Could you please provide any evidence at all that thinking about,

talking about, or posting about the many odd anomalies of the events of 9/11 is somehow counter productive to taking back the Congress?

This is the most dubious and unsupported theory I've seen in a long time.

Do you have any polling data at all to base this on?

Is the reason all the polls indicate a major Democratic win in the mid terms because;

A. There isn't a 9/11 truth movement or
B. Because there is a growing and vital 9/11 truth movement? Or
C. Is it totally unrelated?

Please post just one shred of any evidence you have to support your hypothesis.

Thanks.

PS. many who believe 9/11 was an inside job don't necessarily believe it involved the active participation of bush, just for your information...

[Pawel K]

44. there is no real polling data, thats the point

moderate americans don't want to hear this bullshit. All the evidance that I have seen for these conspiracy theories is 90% cirumstancial and 10% know bullshit that is meant to mislead.

I can subscibe to the fact that Bush could have prevented 9/11, he was simply too incompetent to stop it. I might even be able to subscribe to the idea that he let it happen only if I see some more evidance of this.

But to have hundreds of people suggest that thousands of demolitions were placed around 3 world trade buildings on a web site for democrats and then turn around and say it doesn't hurt the democratic movement is absolutely absurd. I will not defend these conspiracy theories, they do hurt the liberal ideology. The fact there has not been enough research done to prove it doesn't really matter as its common sense.

[Bryan Sacks]

45. moderate Americans are part of the problem

Moderation in a time of extreme rulebreaking and perfidious government is a moral failing. Many here on DU have that character trait, unfortunately. Being moderates, or wanting to appeal to those supposedly more 'moderate' than they are, they fundamentally fail to recognize what they are up against.

Moderation is a kind of cancer, one that won't get diagnosed by moderates.

I don't support demolition theories, not because they are immoderate but because I ultimately find them lacking in explanatory power.

[Pawel K]

46. I am about as far left as you can be

but I do see what you are saying about moderates. I meant moderate as in the context of someone that doesn't really pay attention.

But moderate or extreme or whatever, having a good portion of our base subscribe to the idea that someone actually placed hundreds of explosives in the world trade centers only makes people like you and me look bad and prevents people that don't really pay attention to look at us seriously.

[Bryan Sacks]

54. I see your point

I suppose my larger question is: who's responsible for the conclusions those who 'don't really pay attention' draw? The standard approach is to try to appeal to them in increasingly clever ways (the cleverness being needed, because they're so apathetic).

Is there any evidence that this actually works? Is there anything to suggest that successful rhetorical appeals can be made to the constitutionally apathetic in the absence of some major catastrophe directly affecting them?

Unfortunately, probably not. This is where I get Marxist about this stuff. Unless there is a serious alteration of the material conditions of the 'ordinary person's' life, they're going to remain apathetic. At a certain point, you have to get smart about the energy you expend in trying to appeal to them.

Ending the current domination of the commerical mass media is job one. But it's a chicken-egg thing: to create the conditions for ending that domination would already require a radical changing of the dynamics of contemporary life. That seems to come first, but one obvious way to change those dynamics would seem to be through the use of media!

And that's what we're up against.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. I don't think bush had much to do with 9/11. I do believe that

the complete lack of an air defense for a couple of hours on 9/11 is way beyond the operational scope of 19 arab terrorists.

I also can't see the uncommon sense in believing that 3 skyscrapers that suffered three random events would all completely collapse in a rapid sequential manner. Common sense, to my way of thinking, tells me that wouldn't happen. So does uncommon sense.

And the arab hijackers certainly couldn't make the 9/11 commission ignore evidence, not ask relevant questions, or make NORAD, the FAA, and the Pentagon lie.

I think 9/11 was an inside job; I don't think bush was an integral operational part of the job.

I don't believe that posting this on DU is harmful to you, or any other Democrats.

If you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, that's on you, personally. It doesn't reflect poorly or positively upon the Democratic Party. At least not in my opinion. I've been a registered Democrat since 1972. And many of my fellow Democrats here in Montana (and on our county central committee) believe 9/11 was an inside job, also. So please don't dis us just because you have reached a different conclusion.

By the way, most of the physical evidence of the events of 9/11 is already destroyed, missing, or hidden, whether classified or sat on. Why do you suppose that is?

There is still a lot of eyewitness evidence, there is visual evidence, there is much left unexplored. Even NIST, who had limited access to the physical evidence, couldn't find any to support their own hypothesis.

[Pawel K]

55. But with all due respect you really don't know what you are talking about

nor do I nor do those conspiracy web sites. What you need if you are going to claim this is evidance from someone that does know what they are talking about. All the papers published on this issue in respectable journals say the same thing, after the impact of the plane and the extremely hot fire that burned up very hot and spread to entire floors within seconds the buildings collapsed on themselves. I know your next question will be about WTC 7 and I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that an independent investigation is taking place about what physically happened. I do not remember the name of it right now but it is due to be released in 2007. Until you have evidance of these conspiracy theories thats what they remain, conspiracy theories. And it does in fact make the base of the democratic party look insane.

Here is what I think happened but this is again speculation on my part based on concrete facts about what happened. I think the cover up from the 9/11 commission and the white house and the republicans was because they knew they could have at least tried to stop the attack. But they are too fucking incompetent to govern, wether it be the lead up to a terror attack, the terror attack itself, a large natural disaster, or a war. They have demonstrated this time and time again. This is why they didn't want a 9/11 commission and once one was established they did not want it to establish any blame on anyone.

[John Q. Citizen]

57. I read a lot of the NIST draft report,

(The National Institute of Standards and Technology) They were charged with investigating the collapses. In their report they say they have no physical evidence that supports their hypothesis. I didn't say it they did. So with all due respect, perhaps you mean that NIST doesn't really know what they are talking about. You can read the NIST report on line if you want.

Or you might read the 9/11 Commission's report. It's on line also. I suggest you check out chapter 7, "The Attack Looms." Perhaps you can give me your feedback. To my way of thinking, it appears the hijackers were 2 dimensional people who the commission apparently knows very little about. The chapter is written as if they are trying not to tell the public anything at all about the hijackers.

If the bush administration were incompetent, I would imagine they would have achieved none or few of their stated goals. However, it appears to me that they have achieved about 85%-90% of everything they wanted to do. They stole some elections, they invaded Iraq and got their oil pipeline in Afghanistan. They cut taxes on their wealthy friends, and they have the right to act like little fascist tortures and kings.

That's a pretty good record for incompetents.

[Pawel K]

59. Okay, let me ask you a question then

how do you think they made the towers collapse in the way they did. Wether it was Bush or someone other than pissed off arabs. And if you can please provide evidance for why you believe that.

[John Q. Citizen]

61. Well if

NIST doesn't have evidence to prove thier hypothisis, it seems a little bit unreasonable that I would have evidence to prove my hypothisis, doesn't it? I mean they supposedly had access to the evidence, while of course I didn't.

Fema does have a piece of metal from WTC #7 that shows high temperature sufidation that they claim was exposed to temperatures approaching 1000 degrees C (1800 degrees F.)This is, of course, much hotter than diesel burns or office materials burn. So it is kind of a mystery, eh? Then there is also the mystery of persisitent hot spots (for weeks) at ground zero, molten metal observed by various people at ground zero, and of course the numerous eye-witness and audio recorded secondary explosions in the towers.

My hypothisis is that 9/11 is an inside job.

I base this hypothisis on the fact that Arab hijackers couldn't have taken out US air defenses for a two hour period on 9/11, on the fact that some of the hijackers lived with an FBI informant for a year and a half, and on the basic excepted approach to solving any crime;

Who had the motive?

Who had the means?

Who benefited?

(here's a hint, it wasn't the Arabs identified as the hijackers who had the motive, the means and who benefitted from the crime.)

If you would be interested in a couple of pretty good books you can read for free on various aspects of the 9/11 mystery, You can read Daniel Hopsicker's Welcome To Terrorland and/or Tarpley's Synthetic Terror, Made in the USThe Unofficial Biography of George H W bush Very well researched. Lots of good information.

[Quixote1818]

68. Marvin Bush (Bush's brother) was in charge of security of the towers

he was also in charge of security at Washington's Dullice Airport, both involved in Sept. 11th.

From 96 to 2000 Securacom was in charge of installing a new security system in the towers. Wirt D. Walker III a cousin of the Bush brothers was CEO of Securacom during this time.

Scott Forbs, a security database administrator of the towers, reported an unprecedented power down the weekend prior to 9/11. During the power down their was no security. Their were guys walking around with tools and large cables. Because of the power down all security was down.

Scott Forbs took 9/11 off and survived the towers collapse. He then notified the authorities about his suspicions. Also, bomb sniffing dogs were removed that weekend.

Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5dvlCHaVOM

[mirandapriestly]

58. No one explains the core.

and if they are so "incompetent" how have they managed to pull off almost everything they have wanted ? How did they so successfully make 9-11 work for them in getting everything they wanted from the Patriot act to the Iraq war? They are not incompetent! They did not want to help people in New Orleans, they want Iraq to be in chaos, they are very skillful at benefiting the few, more skillful than anyone in recent years.

[Nozebro]

60. They are also skillful in selling the notion that they're incompetent.

That alone shows they're very competent.

BTW - excellent summary. You hit all the high notes, with a clarion call to the INcompetent to get smart and learn the truth.

[AlwaysQuestion]

65. Conspiracy is the norm

Let me tell you something. Governments around the world consistently conspire against their citizenry. That's precisely why we have global warming, wars, torture, gross injustices; rampant drugs; a declining middle class; an even richer upper crust emerging; poverty wages; good hospital and medical care only for as long premiums and deductibles can be paid; trillions spent on war and destruction; and the list goes on and on and on. If before you die you learn only one thing, learn never to delude yourself. Discover for yourself that you and yours are mere pawns of the ruling class.....now and forever more.....unless, of course, you manage somehow to jettison your heart to join their ranks.

The guys at the top live by an entirely different set of rules than do we plebes. And rare is the candidate who doesn't scratch, bite, kick, lie, cheat or otherwise do whatever is necessary to reach the top echelons of government. Hmmmm, can't imagine why. Ah, yes, in order to serve his/her country and the great unwashed who reside therein. Oh, my, my, my.

Conspiracy against the public IS THE NORM.......Not the exception. If you bet the house on conspiracy, you're working with favourable odds.


As for 911, the very fact that there wasn't an immediate full investigation (not a commission) with all pertinent forensic experts in full attendance screams of government conspiracy. End story. An innocent government would have been falling all over itself to get to the bottom of that tragic day.

But if you're past 21 and you haven't yet figured out how this world runs contrary to the good of the people, there is no hope for you or the billions like you. Unfortunately, it is the gullibility of the minions that enables the powerful few to have its way. And believe me, while they laugh at you, they are heartened to know that they have "properly" molded you to their liking.

[Quixote1818]

67. Your post has so much truth in it, it's stunning!!!!! Thank you!

Yep, $50 million to investigate a blow job. $3 million to investigate the the worst attack on american soil since Pearl Harbor.


How more clear can it be?

[AlwaysQuestion]

69. Quixote 1818, you've made my day........

.............well, kind of. The truth is that I'd have appreciated your comments ever so much more had you been one of the thought deprived. Had I been able to set off a bell in just one of the heads who refuse to filter incoming information from the media through plain common sense, I'd have been so heartened. Alas, it was not to be this time around. However, I'll try not to dwell on my failure but instead will continue to join you and our ilk in an effort to generate within others a singular interest in tapping into their own common sense. Junior talks about his "war on terror" (translated war on the poor, the deprived, and the stolen from) taking yeeeaaaars, and he has benefit of the enabling media. The battle we embark on will not be achieved in our lifetimes. Ohmygawd, I'm becoming even more depressed.

[bobbieinok]

71. amen...amen...amen...

"As for 911, the very fact that there wasn't an immediate full investigation (not a commission) with all pertinent forensic experts in full attendance screams of government conspiracy."

AND

"Yep, $50 million to investigate a blow job. $3 million to investigate the the worst attack on american soil since Pearl Harbor."

[Dick Diver]

24. Since this has been now moved...

could you please specify who you're refering to? If one is Steven Jones, several points:

1. He is (was?) at BYU, not the University of Utah
2. He's not an expert in structural mechanics of any kind. He's a physicist who is best known for his participation in the University of Utah-based (perhaps that's the confusion) cold fusion scam of the late 80s
3. Who has peer-reviewed his papers regarding 9/11? The only journal that I know of was the Journal of Political Economy, a publication dedicated to "the principles of classical Marxism." Hardly what I would call a peer validation.

If the University of Wisconsin professor is Kevin Barrett, his doctorate is in African Literature, Language, and Folklore. Is there someone else to whom you're refering?

I don't know who you're citing from MIT, but I would refer you to the writings of Thomas Eager, head of the Material Sciences Department at MIT.

[Quixote1818]

25. I got some of the specifics wrong. This video has several experts

I think the guy from MIT is a structural expert.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/210806Explosives.htm

[Quixote1818]

26. I will check out Thomas Eager. I always like to look at all sides. Thanks

nt

[mhatrw]

27. Eager? You mean the pancake guy?

Well, I guess you can't get MIHOP or LIHOP without IHOP.

[Quixote1818]

28. Photo at bottom of this page disproves the pancake theory

I tried to post the photo of the tower tipping but it wouldn't take. The photo toward the bottom of this page disproves the pancake theory. All the wight was shifted to one side of the building yet the building continued to collapse straight down even where their was NO weight. Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE!!!

http://physics911.net/stevenjones.htm

[mhatrw]

29. The pancake theory was Eager's baby.

And, despite the fact that they all knew or should have known better, the "community" of major US establishment structural engineers allowed Eager's bs pancake theory to stand without any high profile public opposition for almost two years.

[Quixote1818]

31. Souds like people were scared to come forward.

nt

[mhatrw]

34. Or they just didn't feel that it was their job or place to do so. n/t

[Quixote1818]

30. Here is a list of Academics involved with this:

Members:

Robert Ballan
Norwood, NY, USA

MSc & JD: Clarkson College
Chemistry & Law
Kevin Barrett
Lone Rock WI, USA
PhD U of Wisconsin
Islamic Studies
Walter Davis
Kent, OH, USA


PhD: U of Connecticut
Kinesiology

A. K. Dewdney
London, Canada


PhD: U of Waterloo
Mathematics
Derrick Grimmer
Ames, IA, USA


PhD: Washington University
Physics
Joel Harel
Laguna Hills, CA, USA


HBS U. of Edinburgh.
Aeronautical Engineer and Qualified Pilot
David Heller
Berkeley, CA


BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder

Annie Higgins
Gainesville, FL


PhD University of Chicago
Arabic Language & Literature

Timothy P. Howell
Upsala, Sweden


PhD: U. of Edinburgh
Computer Science
Don Trent (Four Arrows) Jacobs
Sequim, WA


Ed. D. Boise State University
Professor, Fielding Graduate U
Steven E. Jones
Provo, Utah


PhD: Vanderbilt University
Physicist, Brigham Young U.
Peter J. Kirsch
Western Cape, South Africa


MD: University of Witwatersrand
Forensic Pathology
Karen Kwiatkowski
Mt. Jackson, VA


PhD Catholic University
Lieut. Col. USAF (ret.)
Jerry Longspaugh
Fort Worth, TX, USA


MSc: Brooklyn Polytechnic
Aerospace Engineer
Brad Mayeaux
Kenner, LA, USA


Electr. &Tech. Inst. of New Orleans
Cellphone Engineer
George F. Nelson
Huntsville, AL, USA


FAA A&P Licence
US Airforce Colonel (ret.)
Ralph W. Omholt
Kirkland, WA, USA


AAPP University of Alaska
Professional Airline Pilot
Morgan Reynolds
Arkansas, USA

PhD: U of Wisconsin
former Chief Economist,
United States Department of Labor

Kevin Ryan
Bloomington, IN, USA

BSc Indiana University
Chemistry
ASQ Certified Quality Engineer

Sofia Shafquat
San Diego, CA, USA


BA Brown University
Producer and Writer
David Shayler
Eastbourne, Great Britain


Hon MA Lit. & Linguistics
MI5 (former)
Helen Stace
Perth, Australia



PhD: U of Sydney
Biology
Bernard Windham
Tallahassee, FL, USA



MS Florida State
MS Louisiana State
Statistician
Russ Wittenberg
Carefree, AZ



BBA U. of Miami FL
US Airforce Capt. (ret)
Captain for PAA & UAL

Associate Members:
Karin Brothers
Toronto, Canada


MS Georgia State
Instructional Design Systems Engineer
John DiNardo
Towaco, NJ, USA


BA: Kean University
Science Education
Donald Eckhoff
Morgan Hill CA, USA


Drexel Institute of Technology
Engineer & manufacturer
Kenyon Gibson
London, England


USC @ Santa Barbara
US Naval Intelligence
Jesse Hemingway
Al Cahon, CA, USA

BBA National University
(frmr.) USN Operations Specialist
Phil Jayhan
Chicago, IL, USA



Barrington High
Technician and
Webmaster
Frank Levi
Dromara, N. Ireland


BSc (Hons) Queens University of Belfast
IT Manager
Don Paul
San Francisco, CA, USA


Stegner Fellow: Stanford University
Author/Activist
Martha Rush
Auburn Hills, MI, USA


Oxford High School
Certified Respiratory Therapist & Private Pilot

Jonah Winters
Vancouver, Canada
MA: U of Toronto
Web Designer

[Dick Diver]

38. Web Designers, Biologists, IT Managers?

Provided below is a link to Eager's 212 publications in the area of materials science and structural mechanics. Most, if not all, are peer reviewed, and published in scholarly journals. Please provide similar publications (we're talking about expertise here, after all, since I, at least, am not an expert in this area) for the scholars you've listed (peer reviewing by Marxist economic journals or articles regarding Christ's visit to the Mayan civilization ( http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm ) don't count)

http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/TWE_CV.htm

[Quixote1818]

39. Eager dosent even talk about World Traid Center Building 7

No planes hit this building and it collapsed in a freefall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPDNPJAr_Ao

[Dick Diver]

47. First of all, why should he?

Eager is a true academician and scholar and not a public defender or proponent of any one view. He's published providing specific evidence on the speculation regarding the two WTC towers.

In regards to WTC7, it's hard to see that it could be part of a conspiracy unless you prove the original conspiracy first. However, I will take a closer look at some of the discussions regarding WTC7.

But again, in a technical discussion among experts, some of which requires extensive domain knowledge, if I'm not conversant in the field I tend to trust those scholars with demonstrated expertise, not whacks like Steven Jones. Therefore, when I see lists of "scholars" supporting one view or the other that is comprised of so many non-experts (an author/activist for Christ's sake), I am extremely skeptical of the hypotheses presented therein.

[Quixote1818]

63. I don't know if Bush was behind this.

I think a lot of that is difficult to investigate and we are getting one side to the story. I will say that I am leaning toward believing the administration was behind it. Believe me, two weeks ago I never would have dreamed I would be saying this!!!!

However, if you look at the evidence of what happened to Building 7 you have see that it was brought down by explosives. If it was brought down by explosives then the logical conclusion is that the other buildings probably were as well since buildings have never collapsed from fire ever, much less had all these explosions going off in them, from the ground up as dozens of eye witnesses have stated.

My personal opinion is that Eager probably didn't even entertain the idea that explosives could have been in the building and so his research was flawed from the beginning. He, like most Americans mostly thought it was from the impact of the planes and the fires. So, he had to try to figure out some kind of explanation for how this could have happened. He probably went into his research with blinders on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDNQHlyTgwk

[AlwaysQuestion]

70. Can we say your name and progressive in the same sentence?

Quite frankly, I think you're out to lunch......and should probably remain there. I don't give a damn about those who claim the three buildings did not come down as a result of controlled demolition. Anyone who takes the government's position given this government's track record is entirely suspect. Their opinions are not worth a dime. Try checking out the videos yourself. Then engage plain common sense. Try it. You'll like it.

Get this straight. The government is giving you a snow job. That they're selling and you're buying is evidence enough to me that you need to do more reading about governments and how they manipulate public opinion so they can continue to lie, cheat, defraud and send men and women to die in wars with no good outcome for those other than the "entitled." Aren't you simply fed up with being used and abused??

As someone from another thread so rightly pointed out, full, unfettered, highly scientific investigations of horrendous tragedies are carried out all the time (that is when government is not responsible for blatant wrong doing). In the case of the tragedies of 911 (none of which the government had any forewarning--yet another lie you're undoubtedly swallowing too) there was no immediate indepth investigation. In fact, the remains of the WTC buildings were quickly hauled away. Getting rid of evidence I always thought was a federal offence. Apparently not if it's the government sanctioning it.

This is where French law kicks in for me. An elected official is guilty under proven otherwise.

[DoYouEverWonder]

73. So who are these 'scholars' that you trust

and please give us some links to their work on 9-11. I'd love to see which ones you think aren't wacks.

[bobbieinok]

72. Derrick Grimmer

Technology
Solar energy panels brighten business

Iowa Thin Film Technologies enters world market

By DAVID ELBERT
REGISTER BUSINESS EDITOR
July 19, 2004


Ames, Ia. - Iowa Thin Film Technologies is on the verge of turning a niche business into a mass market.

In the past 15 years, co-founders Frank Jeffrey and Derrick Grimmer have engineered enough breakthroughs in solar power to bring the small Ames company to the edge of what could be a very bright future.

....

PowerFilm is exported to China, where it is used to power radios, cell phones and other small consumer appliances, some of which are imported back to North America. Last summer, PowerFilm was the focus of a worldwide design conference in France.

Earlier this month, the company received a technology award from the U.S. Army for incorporating PowerFilm with tent fabric to create tents that are mobile power sources.

....

"Our idea is to make military shelters as dual-purpose structures that not only provide shelter but generate power safely and quietly," Tucker said. The initial design of tents that incorporate PowerFilm in the tent fabric was a "huge success," Tucker said.

....

The company is working with design engineers to incorporate PowerFilm into roofing material, so that solar panels are attached in a single step as part of the roof.

more....

[John Q. Citizen]

43. Your assertian that Jones participated in the 'University of Utah based

cold fusion scam' of the late 80s is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

[leftofthedial]

32. posts like this embarass us right-thinking Democrats...

and freepers just love posts like this...

what's next? death rays from outer space?


...or something like that.

(I figured if I said it first, it would save all the local cabal apologists from trotting out their ad hominems and other absurdia.)

[quicknthedead]

40. Well, I'm just an average US citizen who FOUND THIS...

The following data has not been refuted by anyone yet.
Many proponents of the "official conspiracy theory" reject these times out-of-hand stating these facts are false, but unfounded opinions with no factual basis are meaningless and worthless.

These times are true, and they corroborate William Rodriguez and all the other eyewitnesses that day who can testify of explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 BEFORE THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING.

The data herein is from two official government sources that were charged with looking into what happened on 9/11, and both placed their "stamps of approval" on these times as real and accurate. They are precise to the second.

I found these times on the internet this last July 24th by accident.

Craig T. Furlong

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary:

Plane Impact Times – Indicting New Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Involvement

“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/SeismicFurlong.doc
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: http://www.st911.org/

One World Trade, September 11th, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - LDEO/NIST
Both times: real, accurate to the second

Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event ~10 seconds before the aircrash?
A- The only possibility...huge explosion(s).

Q- Who caused these explosions?

Notes:
Ginny Carr audiotape ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements before the plane crashed, and NIST avoided the witnesses as well.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time of the aircrash.

Demand a new 9/11 investigation now, THIS TIME ONE WITH TEETH.

Justice waits.
{There is no Statute of Limitation on murder.}

[Dick Diver]

41. I assume you mean this William Rodriquez,...

who, in his initial description (below), fails to mention that little, unimportant point about explosions. However, when later he finds he can make some money off of it, his memory suddenly improves and he remembers that trivial piece of detail.

William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

Edit: added "(below)" for clarity

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

48. "all of his skin was off."

in the basement?

[Dick Diver]

49. he came off the elevator into the basement (n/t)

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dick Diver]

52. I beg your pardon...

I'm simply making the logical inference from the article:

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

(emphasis mine)

[quicknthedead]

56. I've read that before, but...

Have you listened to William Rodgriguez's testimony that is on video (there is a link in the paper)?

I doubt you have. Please listen to him tell what he experienced.

Many believe he is telling the truth.

And, the people who were with him in the basement all experienced the same thing, and they are in agreement.

Also, the time discrepancy in the paper corroborates their testimony.

[Nozebro]

50. Yes. Anything that isn't supported by the MSM is a conspiracy theory.

You may have read somewhere on the internets that IdyHoe Republican Senator Craig was "outed" last week, but you won't find much (if anything) in the MSM about it. Since it's a Republican Senator who promotes and votes for extremely fascistic boosh legislation every chance he gets, it isn't in the interest of Establishment people and organizations (including the media...in all its forms) for the world to know about that particular hypocritical U.S. Senator.

Senator Craig's OFFICE issued a non-denial denial, and that gives the MSM a plausible excuse to not cover the story and instead, to label it as a conspiracy theory.

That's a good example of how "The System" works...in a "Democracy" like ours.

[Twist_U_Up]

74. Conspiracy theory is not a bad word

in fact alot of conspiracies have much truths in them.
Unfortunately things must be hidden from the public or else there would be hell to pay.