9-11: Was it REALLY a Terrorist Attack??

Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA with a 28 year career at the agency and a former skeptic of the “alternative” theories for 9-11. He is now convinced that the attacks bore the hallmarks of an “inside job”! Bill was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. He believes that the twin towers and building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition charges.

Conspiracy theories abound when any such big event happens. From Lincoln to Kennedy assassinations to now 9-11. However, it is rare that academics and professionals – and that too respected ones – go behind it!

Scholars for 9-11 Truth is a website that brings these people together. Here are the top ten reasons they have:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

6. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.

7. Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of “pancake collapse”, which can only occur with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in “redundant” welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.

8. The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

9. The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

10. Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.

These are the main participants of these Scholars for 9-11 Truth:

Paul W. Rea – humanities lecturer at St. Mary’s College in Moraga Stephen LeRoy – an economics professor at UC Santa Barbara who has been a visiting economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Tracy Belvins – a research scientist in bioengineering at Rice University
David Gabbard – an education professor at East Carolina.
Daniel Orr – retired economics chair at the University of Illinois
Kevin Barrett – adjunct lecturer at the University of Wisconsin on the subject of Islam: Religion and Culture.
Robert M. Bowman – Former director of the US Advanced Space Programs Development in the Carter and Ford administrations, former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. Bowman also holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, and is currently attempting to run for Congress in Florida. Bowman has never held an academic position at any university.
Daniele Ganser – ETH Zurich
David Ray Griffin – Professor of philosophy of religion and theology emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology.
Wayne Madsen – investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist.
John McMurtry – FRSC, moral philosopher, ethicist, and author of six books on public policy issues, who works at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.
Don Paul – American peace movement activist, writer, musician, and poet.
Kevin Ryan – former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for water testing. He was fired after publicly challenging UL’s conclusions regarding the collapse of the WTC.
Webster G. Tarpley – author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992) and 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA (2005-6), historian and terrorism expert.
Andreas von Bülow – former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.

Jeff King is an MIT Engineer who is also an electrical engineer who explains the explosions on 9-11 with a scientific background. What he speaks of is a very interesting story.. and mostly correct! It does seem like an amazing world-wide chunk of population was fooled by something that seemed so implausible! Why? Well if enough hysteria and sorrow is brought in to the picture.. the faculty of mind and brain stop working at their best. I guess that is what has probably happened.

One interesting point that was brought up in the lecture slides:

Expenditure on 9-11 investigation = $600,000

Expenditure on Bill Clinton sex scandal investigation = $40,000,000

Here is the video of Jeff King’s lecture:

One last piece from me:

Pakistan Intelligence ISI’s chief had wired $100,000 to Mohammad Atta a few months before the 9-11 attacks. And this guy was in New York on the morning of 9-11. And then despite all the disqualifications, Pakistan becomes the main ally to US in this war on terrorism! Also, none of the Taliban guys (chums of Pak Army and ISI) and most of the main Al Qaeda top guys (yeah yeah.. they caught some .. like SIX No.2 guys??!!!). Does that sound fishy or funny to you?

Technorati : Scholar for 9-11 Truth, Terrorists