I’m not Really Going Either Way… Yet
S911T is a group of American and international scholars who are disputing the most accepted versions of what happened on 9/11. They are backing their claims up with scientific research and are publicizing their claims as much as they possibly can.
These are not your average-uneducated-biased conspiracy theorists. They put Michael Moore to shame, while defining the pretty similar sentiments that Michael Moore in his movie, Fahrenheit 9-11. These men and women are widely accepted as some of the most intelligent people in
Reading through this site and others on the conspiracy theories of 9/11, I’ll admit that I’ve never fully believed Osama Bin Laded and Al Qaeda was behind it, and as time goes by it seems there is more and more evidence to support that belief. None the less, I’ve not decided in full what I believe about 9/11, by any means. I do know it’s a real area of interest to me and I intend to research it further.
I invite you all to take a look at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the links they’ve provided to give you a wider look into what could and could not have happened during this tragic event.
posted by Tainted Female at
5:33 PM
10 Comments:
Thanks for the link, just bookmarked it for later reading.
Outpoint, I wonder if any good would come out with the formation of this S911T?
Dude, where's my country? by Michael Moore is also a good read. Most of the questions he's asked from a layman's point of view debunks the Special Committee's findings on this tragedy.
Symphony...
I think if anything S911T will eventually help with revealing the truth, whether it's what they're accusing or the opposing view; shown through rebuttals of their arguments. So that's good, no? I mean, there is a LOT of evidence that’s yet to be released and that helps none, when it comes to making an objective opinion for either side. I found this link by the way on an AP international news article a while back. It means they’re getting a lot of attention which would hopefully conceive of more news.
A week or so back, I watched a clip for the first time really of a beheading of a westerner by Al Qaeda. I don’t even know why I hadn’t seen it (or had I, not realized just how horrific it was) but it was one of the most shocking things I’d seen. What caught me the most was the screaming of ‘Allhu Akbar’ repeatedly, though I and many other Muslims do not believe that this is following through with God’s will. I started to empathize with the reasoning of the west’s distrust in all Muslim’s because of it. I can see how many would believe and want to believe that this is Al Qaeda’s doing and I can also see that they may have actually pulled it off. But at the same time I have HUGE doubts, because OBL himself denied it – not at all like him for any of the other acts of terror he’s committed, and there’s surfacing evidence almost daily that proves Al Qaeda wasn’t actually involved as been told.
It’d be a good thing for many of us to get the truth no matter what, I’d say.
I don't have much respect for Michael Moore actually. He's not where I'd go for my sourse of information, that's for sure. He's been proven too many times to be a lying, manipulating twit. But yes, most of what he creates is entertaining and can make you ask questions they you may not have asked otherwise.
I've not seen the or heard of the book, but I'll look into it.
Dude, where's my country? It's a good book, asks lots of questions; why this, why that, how come, why not, etc. Each chapter has its own references to back up his essays. I'm sure it's available in town at any bookshop and it's worth reading it!
Michael Moore even took a shot at Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and the one & only Ann Coulter in a fab, humorous way. I was hitting my head to the wall with laughter :-)
Directly, after the 9/11 tragedy, I was watching a roundtable discussion on TV and in it, a commentator (can't remember the name) cited that it's purely a power game directly connected to the gas & old fields in this region.
The connection: Caspian sea fields control via Afghanistan then Iraq.
Think-Tanks have really worked hard to pull this major coup de'tat.
As for me, during this time, I suffered a major setback in my personal life (which now I consider a blessing in disguise) - long story - LOL.
The blessing resulted in Sunshine, if you know what I mean.
tainted,
By all means, you and everyone else are welcome to believe whatever you want about 9/11. But listening to this group is only going to lead you wrong.
Take, for example their first link, Why Doubt 9/11? You would think that they would put their best evidence as the very first link, right? So what evidence does it present?
"(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;"
This is absolutely true and completely irrelevant. Of course the impact of the planes didn't bring the towers down. The towers stood for at least an hour afterward. No one is claiming that the impact of the planes brought the towers down. I defy anyone to cite anyone making that statement.
"(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;"
Again, it is true that steel melts at 2800 degrees, and again, irrelevant. The 9/11 report didn't say that *melting* steel brought the towers down. It said that steel weakened in the heat of the fire and could no longer support the weight. If as this site claims, jet fuels burns at 1800F, then consider this: "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
"(3) UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt;"
Yeah, see the problem with this is that UL says that it did not certify the steel. There is no documentary evidence to support this statement, just the word of one ex-employee of a subdivision of UL.
"(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;"
Once again, this is just wrong. There is photographic evidence that before the collapse there was sagging.
"(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;"
This statement seems pretty implausible, since pancaking (one floor collapsing then the next and so on) like this has happened before. Moreover, it wasn't just one floor falling on the next floor but all the floors above, and they were falling on a floor that had been weakened by fire.
There is more, but I've gone on way too long here.
Brn,
I’ve not taken a stand on this really at all, but I have few questions about what you’ve written. (I’ve not yet gone over your links, I will do so tomorrow because it’s now 11pm, and if I don’t try to sleep soon I’ll end up all night again, like last night :) So these thoughts are based on what’s written here and nothing more, for now). By no means am I expecting an answer from you concerning most of these, just plotting where I’ll start my future research into this.
No one is claiming that the impact of the planes brought the towers down. I defy anyone to cite anyone making that statement.
So then, what brought the towers down? If it was the fuel or fire from the plane, wouldn't that be considered in the earlier tests? I mean, I'd be worried about earthquake-safe buildings and such if all aspects or reprocussions of an event weren't investigated before the building declared, safe...
Again, it is true that steel melts at 2800 degrees, and again, irrelevant. The 9/11 report didn't say that *melting* steel brought the towers down. It said that steel weakened in the heat of the fire and could no longer support the weight. If as this site claims, jet fuels burns at 1800F, then consider this: "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
By no means do I know anything about physics, but are you saying that the fires spread down the floors at the temperatures described? From my knowledge (and it is limited here, without sarcasm or pun intended at all) fire & heat moves up, doesn’t it?
And out of curiosity, how long does it take for a fire of the maximum temperature of jet fuel to cool to lesser degrees? Until the fuel burns off, I’d assume. So how much fuel was in the tanks? And how long did it take to burn?
’ Yeah, see the problem with this is that UL says that it did not certify the steel. There is no documentary evidence to support this statement, just the word of one ex-employee of a subdivision of UL.’
But then, is the anything at all stated or documented not to support it? I mean the first questions I thought before even reading this next part (I have a short memory span and have only yet skimmed over this link myself prior to posting it), was based on the same thing. One of the first things I noted on that link though, was a request for the US government to make public more evidence they’re keeping locked up. I mean, making it public could only serve to help whichever side of the debate is right, yeah?
Once again, this is just wrong. There is photographic evidence that before the collapse there was sagging. Ouch! Lots of photographic evidence debates these days! (I’m sorry, I couldn’t help that one, I really couldn’t). Really, I have little to say about this except, I’ve heard a number of different people make this claim in a number of different places, especially the fact that the buildings seemed to implode like a purposely-demolished building in all of the filmed footage that was broadcast., as well as small explosions seen in many of the windows a number of floors below the collapsing. Again, I’m not an Architect to know how relevant that is. But some Architects have said the same & there have been Trade Center employees claiming that the explosive sniffing dogs were removed from the building sometime prior, and that a team was in the building doing something ‘uncommon’ prior. I mean, assuming these people exist (because really I have no way of actually knowing), these are people that could have died in this and almost certainly did lose colleagues. Why point fingers falsely?
Moreover, it wasn't just one floor falling on the next floor but all the floors above, and they were falling on a floor that had been weakened by fire.
And that brings me back to the fire question. I can see your point clearly, but how do these acknowledged scholars miss that? I’m not a scholar, but I’d like to have faith in knowing that since these people are working in some of the most reputed institutes on earth, teaching the brilliant minds of the future, they wouldn’t miss something like that. Again, it’s something I’ll have to look into.
As I said, I find all of this very interesting personally. It’s probably because my guy instinct told me initially that it was the work of US government and not Al Qaeda… part of me may want to believe it. But, my gut’s been wrong before so I’m still interested in both sides. I will take a look at the links you added here, I promise and I’ll let you know what I think after.
Cheers.
Symphony...
I promise, next time I'm in a book shop, I'll look for it and let you know!
;)
Yeah, see the problem with this is that UL says that it did not certify the steel.
Sorry! I read something completely different here! Right over my head. I have to find out who the UL is first... but assuming the US government lies, what can't the UL on their behalf? I could be way off, I don't know what it is... but it's a thought.
tainted,
thanks for the thoughtful repsonses.
About the impact didn't bring the towers down: I wasn't as clear as I should have been. What the site says is a very old debating tactic called a strawman. Make up something that your opponent don't say, prove that that is wrong, then imply that you have proven your opponent wrong. It is true, and you can find lots of documentary evidence going all the way back to the 70s, that the towers were designed to withstand the *impact* of a jet striking them. But they did not consider the effect of the fire.
The towers did withstand the *impact*. But the secondary effect (fire) weakened the towers to the point that they could not stand. Suppose that a house was designed to survive an earthquake. And an earthquake comes, and it breaks something that starts fire. The house did survive the earthquake, but not the secondary effects.
As I said, *no one* is arguing that the *impact* brought the towers down, and the fact that he is using this argument to prove that the official story is illogical.
And since the author is a Phd in Philosophy, he should understand the rules of logic enough to know that. What the author is doing here is to be blunt, lying.
About the fire, you are right that fire moves up, in general. However, in this case jet fuel spread down the building through the elevator shafts. Moreover, you seem to be implying (and I may be misreading what you are saying - if so, then ignore this) that all the floors had to be weakened by fire, but the experts (building engineers, architects, etc) say that weakening a few floors were more than enough to cause the pancaking, because the floors below were never designed to the stresses that they were put under.
About UL certifying the towers, you are asking my side to prove a negative, which is logically impossible. In a debate, it is the side making the charge that has the obligation to provide proof. You cannot disprove the statement "Michael Jordan is really a martian", and if I insisted that it was true, it would be up to me to prove that, not those who doubt it to disprove it. I cannot disprove that UL certified the steel. But those making the charge have no creditible proof. It is possible that everyone involved is lying, except this one guy. It is also possible that Michael Jordan is really a martian.
About the implosion/squibs (explosives) theory, which I didn't address: This page addresses the controlled implosion theory better than I can. I have yet to see any architects or civil engineers who believe this theory, but they may exist. Those who are blaming the government for this do take quotes out of context so that it looks like it there are some.
Take for example This letter from a retired professor of civil engineering that refutes Steven Jones' theories. (Jones is the BYU professor of *physics* that supports the conspiracy position.) Do you have any links to architects or civil engineers who believe the conspiracy theory?
It is true that bomb sniffing dogs were removed prior to the attack. But the towers did not have regular bomb sniffing dogs. They had only been there because of a bomb threat and had only been there for a few weeks. The anomaly was that they were there in the first place, not that they were removed.
As you said, and I don't mean this as an attack, but you wanted to believe that the US government was involved. If you look at the list of 100 Americans demanding the truth, you will find a lot of people on that list who would also fall into that camp. Also, and I may have just missed some, you do not find anybody who has experience with engineering.
Brn,
An article I saw in gulf news this morning reminded me of this post and the conversation taking place! I completely forgot about it for a while there, and this afternoon I’m off to pick up my son, which means I probably won’t get much ‘me’ time (since he’s only with me for 2 weeks out of each month and I try to devote as much time as possible to him). I apologize to everyone for not getting to this when I said I would, and I will come back and maybe send email(?) to you when I’ve finally had a real chance to take a look through everything, if you’re still interested. (Just leave a note or something so that I know I'm not intruding by sending you an email, please)
Sorry again!
hey tf,
I understand completely. If you ever feel like getting back to this, just drop me a line. If I ever get time, I will probably make a post about this group at my blog as well.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home