9-11 conspiranoiacs go mainstream

More and more of such reports. From the UK Daily Mail, Sept. 5:

Fury as academics claim 9/11 was ‘inside job’
The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an “inside job”, according to a group of leading academics.

Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.

The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday.

But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated.

Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.

He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.

Prof Jones said: “We don’t believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.

“We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we’re going to get to the bottom of this.”

In essays and journals, the scientists are giving credence to many of the conspiracy theories that have circulated on the internet in the past five years.

They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.

The group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof.

Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes.

He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers.

The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 – a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day – was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.

Professor James Fetzer, 65, a retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota, said: “The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don’t have time to take a look at this.”

The 9/11 Commission dismissed the numerous conspiracy theories after its exhaustive investigation into the terror attacks.

Subsequent examinations of the towers’ structure have sought to prove they were significantly weakened by the impact which tore off fire retardant materials and led the steel beams bending under heat and then collapsing.

Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group.

He said: “To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It’s too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.

“After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we’ve had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It’s a waste of time.”

But University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, said experts are unwilling to believe theories which don’t fit into their belief systems.

He said: “People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it.”

As the fifth anniversary approached, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is urging Congress to reopen the investigation claiming they have amassed a wealth of scientific evidence to prove their version of the terror attacks.

See our September feature story on 9-11 conspiranoia.

  1. bill in the chorus line with amy
    >bills careful avoidance of steven e jones’ analysis of molten trade >tower steel with the thermate traces makes his work incomplete and >easilly dismissed mostly for not splitting theories from >empiricals..Anyone in that movement that is not just selling buttons >, tshirts books, and dvd’s latches onto unexplained gop gov’t >science not allusions to who done it,, Lenny at INN

    1. Given up on punctuation, have we Lenny?
      As well as documentation. Now, do point us toward some documentation of “thermate” traces in WTC dust from any source which is vaguely reputable. We’re waiting.

      1. More conspiracist distortions
        The Omaha Independent Media Center cites Jones’ supposed findings in a June 17 piece entitled, with characteristic hubris, “World Trade Center Destruction Was Controlled Demolition – Now there’s PROOF” (Why do cranks and wingnuts of all varities think that writing in the upper case loans strength to their arguments?)

        Jones himself, wary of being discredited completely, comments:

        Just a quick clarification: As I said in my talk at the Chicago conference, and in my remarks to Alex Jones, the results so far on the analysis of the previously-molten metal samples are PRELIMINARY. I emphasized that, in fact:

        The samples are predominantly iron, so we can rule out the ‘molten aluminum’ hypothesis with a high degree of confidence. There is very little chromium, so that the ‘molten structural steel’ hypothesis is highly suspect. Yes, there is sulfur — but proving the use of ‘thermate’ positively will certainly require further analyses and comparisons with samples of known origin (such as thermate-products). And that analysis takes a lot of time, unfortunately. Patience is a virtue.

        You guys will never learn that, will you? You are so eager for a smoking gun that you will always jump the gun, and thereby shoot yourselves in the foot. (Forgive the extended metaphor.)

        Foiled again, eh Lenny? Sorry.

  2. Steven Jones. Career fraud?
    Interesting that Steven Jones’ other claim to fame was ‘cold fusion’, a media pop culture bubble never supported by reproducable experiment. Also interesting that he has never submitted any of his 9/11 theories to any scientific journals for review by the international scientific community. An actual structural engineer who has read his unpublished paper finds it ‘unreliable’. Of all the physicists and engineers in the world, the other academic mentioned in the BBC article is a ‘philosopher of science.’
    If the 9/11 ‘truth’ organizations want to sit at the adult table they should probably not assume that one suspect physicist with suspect physics trumps the rest of the physics and engineering community world wide.
    Or perhaps they’d rather the left looked like a bunch of clowns so we can’t complain about electronic voting?