Have We Been Purposely Mislead About 9/11?

JamesThomas

I would like to preface this by saying that the purpose of this post is not to condemn, or create animosity, but is rather meant to motivate people to add their voices to the growing number asking for full and honest disclosure.

On 9/11 a long sequence of highly improbable events occurred which has resulted in official accounts ripe with inconsistencies. Too many to list here; and besides such a list easily becomes unproductive.

To help you weed through the mess, to bring the cream to the top, I am posting a link to a paper by physics professor Steven E. Jones who competently and scientifically analyzes the building collapses on 9/11; and clearly shows that the official explanations are seriously incomplete and misleading. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Professor Jones by no means considers all the suspicious events of that day, but rather focuses on the building collapses only. This is somewhat of a lengthy analysis, and though Prof. Jones expresses in clear and understandable language, it still demands critical thinking. Please give yourself time to read it carefully. The implications are staggering. So, for many, perhaps most, the psychological conflicts and anxiety around this will detour consideration from the get go. So congratulate yourself for even looking.

For those who emphatically oppose questioning the official views, I can only say: in order to be so certain of your assessment, you must have done your homework; you must have honestly and thoroughly investigated the information available that you were able to arrive at what you feel are trustworthy conclusions. Please don't judge or be condescending to others for doing the same.

For further research I suggest going here: http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

Thank you,

JamesThomas

SixofNine

I haven't looked at your posted website yet James, but before I get into all that, let me comment on your characterization "On 9/11 a long sequence of highly improbable events occurred".

The attacks themselves where very "probable". Embarrassingly so, for our government.

As for the methodology for those attacks, well, within an hour of watching the plane slam into the second tower, I stated the basic, very workable tactics used (4 or more man teams, knives of some kind/no guns, immediate violent use of those knives) to the people I was watching with. I'd never given this the slightest thought before (although I was well aware that terrorist would likely strike us at some time on US soil). It may have been shocking in it's bravado, but there was nothing shocking or even improbable about the methodology or the motivation. It was in fact probably gonna happen.

Why everything that could have been done to prevent the highjackings wasn't done, is still a matter for debate in my mind.

plmkrzy

I watched a program last night about the subject of the plane that did/didn't fly into the Pentagon. It is easy to see how many would conclude it was all a set up. It was easy to see how difficult it would have been for a plane to fly into the Pentagon without a trace, or even an adequate hole left behind. There was a hole in the building but the roof was intact. But on the other hand I always try to remember we are going on second hand and third hand information at all times. We weren’t there or we weren’t close enough to see it with our own eyes if we were would be dead now.

One thing that always stood out to me was, finding the ID of the asshole that flew the plane into the twin towers. Everyone was vaporized but his ID was found READABLE in the debris. Not one reasonable explanation was given for that.

I don't know what to think about the whole thing but I do know, for sure, none of us will ever know everything about it.

JamesThomas

Yes, Six, I basically agree that the terrorists scenario is believable and credible; and I am not saying that they did not happen. On closer observation though, it seem the plane hits may only be for theatrical effect, and not at all the actual cause of the total collapses. In other words the Islamic terrorists were only a part of a much bigger operation.

Please read Prof. Jones' paper, Six. I would be interested in hearing your opinion.

j

JamesThomas

I don't know what to think about the whole thing but I do know, for sure, none of us will ever know everything about it.

Agreed, we likely will never know everything. However, the screw is turning and recently voices from the very credible and scholarly are starting to be heard regarding this event (please read Jones' paper). Everyday, many more of us are questioning what before we may have feared to question. It will be interesting to see what happens.

j

XJW4EVR

I found these two articles to be very enlightening in debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

http://p2t.blogspot.com/2006/04/call-charlie-sheen-insane-but-part-1.html

http://p2t.blogspot.com/2006/04/call-charlie-sheen-insane-but-part-2.html

JamesThomas

XJW4EVR

Thanks for adding to the thread.

The documents you link to do not address the issues fund in Professor Jones' paper.

The writer on your site mentioned, says that controlled demolitions requires abrasive cutting wheels or acetylene tanks to cut through the steal beams. Read Jones' paper to see how it is really done. Professor Jones is a physicist who specializes in metallurgy.

Edited to add: There is a lot of misleading information on the net from both sides of this issue. That's why credible scientific analysis, like that found in Steven Jones' paper is so important to read. j

SixofNine

"Please read Prof. Jones' paper, Six. I would be interested in hearing your opinion."

Thank you, James, will do.

"Professor Jones is physicist who specializes in metallurgy."

I'd be far more intrigued if he was a specialist in controlled demolitions. Or if he represented the prevailing views of the engineers/architects who designed and built the trade center building.

Charlie Sheen, myself, and just about everyone who saw it, thought it looked alot like a controlled demolition; my first point is that we were all probably wrong; in reality it probably just looks a little like a controlled demolition, to the untrained (that would be us, the untrained, non-building-demolition non-experts) eye. My second point is that, as untrained as our eyes are at seeing controlled demolitons (we've all probably taken a quick look at footage of a few demolitions), we were all complete virgins to the experience of seeing passenger jets full of fuel fly into WorldTradeCenters. "WHAT!!!!????? you mean what I saw does not conform to what I would have thought I'd see if I imagined a jet hitting a skyscraper?????!!!!!! How could this BE?????!!!!" *mock horror and shock*

JamesThomas

That's just it. Many felt the collapses looked suspicious as if -- even with our untrained eyes -- the building did not follow what everyday physics would seem to govern, and I repeat seem to. So the question is, is there any valid scientific evidence that can prove the cause of total unexpected collapse from fire, one way or the other, once and for all? That's what Jones' paper is all about. He just wants solid explanations which the 9/11 Commission, FEMA and NIST, so far have not satisfactorily addressed. He clearly explains why he is dissatisfied with th official explanations.

j

Abaddon

I really have done the rounds on this one. I suggest going through Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories.

There is documentary evidence of molten metal... but it's not exactly supporting his theory. As for red-hot metal weeks later... even IF his theory was correct, if you compare the steel mass of the structure with the amount of explosives he claims (1 ton), then it doesn't fit HIS theory either, as the total amount of thermal energy delivered by his supposed method of destruction couldn't do that. I'd got for deep fires in the collapsed structure and insulation by rubble leading to super-hot spots. That's a very impressive photo of a red hot piece of metal, but I can get that colour from a poker in an open coal fire, so ...

He makes mistakes;

WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7pile.html

So, he's sloppy.

His claims regarding the collapse of the WTC main towers don't really stand up to the best studies I've read and seen. There's a BBC documentary that is stunning, if I have a chance I'll look for some references. But if you can find Steve Jones, you can find those references too.

I also find the planting of explosives in the towers without it attracting attention something that streaches my credulity. They took down a building here recently, not that big. Took ages to get ready, and I'm not counting the pre-blast salvage work.

And I do have to be a little interested in his other beliefs, seeing as he's at Brigham Young. If he believes in a literal Flood and Creation and in a 9/11 Conspiracy it does put things in context somewhat.

Have We Been Purposely Mislead About 9/11?

Share this