9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive

[warpedskydiver 0]

9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive
By JUSTIN POPE, AP Education Writer
Sun Aug 6, 10:30 PM

Kevin Barrett believes the U.S government might have destroyed the World Trade Center. Steven Jones is researching what he calls evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives detonated inside them, not by hijacked airliners.

These men aren't uneducated junk scientists: Barrett will teach a class on Islam at the University of Wisconsin this fall, over the protests of more than 60 state legislators. Jones is a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University whose mainstream academic job has made him a hero to conspiracy theorists.

Five years after the terrorist attacks, a community that believes widely discredited ideas about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, persists and even thrives. Members trade their ideas on the Internet and in self-published papers and in books. About 500 of them attended a recent conference in Chicago.

The movement claims to be drawing fresh energy and credibility from a recently formed group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

The organization says publicity over Barrett's case has helped boost membership to about 75 academics. They are a tiny minority of the 1 million part- and full-time faculty nationwide, and some have no university affiliation. Most aren't experts in relevant fields. But some are well educated, with degrees from elite universities such as Princeton and Stanford and jobs at schools including Rice, Indiana and the University of Texas.

"Things are happening," said co-founder James Fetzer, a retired philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, who maintains, among other claims, that some of the hijackers are still alive. "We're going to continue to do this. Our role is to establish what really happened on 9/11."

What really happened, the national Sept. 11 Commission concluded after 1,200 interviews, was that hijackers crashed planes into the twin towers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, filed 10,000 pages of reports that found fires caused by the crashing planes were more than sufficient to collapse the buildings.

The scholars' group rejects those conclusions. Their Web site contends the government has been dishonest. It adds: the "World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions" and "the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda."

The standards and technology institute, and many mainstream scientists, won't debate conspiracy theorists, saying they don't want to lend them unwarranted credibility.

But some worry the academic background of the group could do that anyway.

Members of the conspiracy community "practically worship the ground (Jones) walks on because he's seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side," said FR Greening, a Canadian chemist who has written several papers rebutting the science used by Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. "It's science, but it's politically motivated. It's science with an ax to grind, and therefore it's not really science."

Faculty can express any opinion outside the classroom, said Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors. However, "with academic freedom comes academic responsibility. And that requires them to teach the truth of their discipline, and the truth does not include conspiracy theories, or flat Earth theories, or Holocaust denial theories."

Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries.

"Tenure gives you a secure position where you can engage in controversial issues," Fetzer said. "That's what you should be doing."

But when asked what did happen in 2001, members often step outside the rigorous, data-based culture of the academy and defer to their own instincts.

Daniel Orr, a Princeton Ph.D. and widely published retired economics chair at the University of Illinois, said he knew instantly from watching the towers fall that they had been blown apart by explosives. He was reminded of watching an old housing project being destroyed in St. Louis.

David Gabbard, an East Carolina education professor, acknowledges this isn't his field, but says "I'm smart enough to know ... that fire from airplanes can't melt steel."

When they do cite evidence, critics such as Greening contend it's junk science from fellow conspiracy theorists, dressed up in the language and format of real research to give it a sense of credibility.

Jones focuses on the relatively narrow question of whether molten metal present at the World Trade Center site after the attacks is evidence that a high-temperature incendiary called thermite, which can be used to weld or cut metal, was involved in the towers' destruction. He concludes thermite was present, throwing the government's entire explanation into question and suggesting someone might have used explosives to bring down the towers.

"I have not run into many who have read my paper and said it's just all hogwash," Jones said.

Judy Wood, until recently an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University, has been cited by conspiracy theorists for her arguments the buildings could not have collapsed as quickly as they did unless explosives were used.

"If the U.S. government is lying about how the buildings came down, anything else they say cannot be believed," she said. "So why would they want to tell us an incorrect story if they weren't part of it?"

In fact, say Greening and other experts, the molten metal Jones cites was most likely aluminum from the planes, and any number of explanations are more likely than thermite.

And the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report describes how the buildings collapsed from the inside in a chain reaction once the floors began falling.

"We respect the opinions of others, but we just didn't see any evidence of what people are claiming," institute spokesman Michael Newman said.

Wisconsin officials say they do not endorse the views of Barrett, an adjunct, but after investigating concluded he would handle the material responsibly in the classroom.

That didn't mollify many state legislators.

"The general public from Maine to Oregon knows why the trade towers went down," said state Rep. Stephen Nass, a Republican. "It's not a matter of unpopular ideas; it's a matter of quality education and giving students their money's worth in the classroom."

In a July 20 letter obtained by The Associated Press in an open records request, Wisconsin Provost Patrick Farrell warned Barrett to tone down his publicity seeking, and said he would reconsider allowing Barrett to teach if he continued to identify himself with the university in his political messages.

BYU's physics department and engineering school have issued statements distancing themselves from Jones' work, but he says they have not interfered.

At Clemson, Wood did not receive tenure last year, but her former department chair, Imtiaz ul Haque, denies her accusation that it was at least partly because of her Sept. 11 views.

"Are you blackballed for delving into this topic? Oh yes," Wood said. "And that is why there are so few who do. Most contracts have something to do with some government research lab. So what would that do to you? The consequences are too great for a career. But I made the choice that truth was more important."

"If we're in higher education to be trying to encourage critical thinking," Wood says, "why would we say 'believe this because everybody else does?'"

[Lefty 0]

I think this is a satisfactory argument for the non-conspiracy side. Clicky

He also provides links to 9/11 conspiracy-debunking websites at the bottom.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Remster 24]

On a similar note of conspiracy theories: http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/141060.php

Remster

[hairyjuan 0]

conspiracy-a plan to commit a crime known by two or more people.

theory--an idea or belief that has absolutely no evidence to support it.

www.reopen911.org

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[SpeedRacer 1]

9/11 WAS a conspiracy. 19 Al Qaeda hijackers & their leaders secretly conspired to commit the attacks.

incidentlly, juan, that is not the definition of a theory. perhaps the definition of a hypothesis, but not a theory.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rickjump1 0]

On page 588 of "Ghost Wars", Steve Coll, refers to conspiracy theories that he did not mention in his book. The most interesting to me involved "whether the Saudi embassy in Washington aided the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. Also, the commissioners (9-11 commission) saw themselves, as they wrote,'looking backward in order to look forward', and they may have managed their published criticisms of Riyadh and Islamabad with future American counterterrorism partnerships in mind"... If true, what a white wash.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[warpedskydiver 0]

On the culpability of the House of Saud, I have no doubt on the matter.

[Guest]

Yeah, good ol' Uncle Fetzer was on Fox News the other day flapping his gums.

It's pathetic that there are people who will troll the biomass for a buck this way, but everybody's got to make a living somehow, I suppose.

I'm just disappointed that mainstream media give the conspiracy nutjobs the attention. Disappointed, but not surprised - they'll do anything to whip up a sensation or controversy. Shameless media whores and their shills.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

It's pathetic that there are people who will troll the biomass for a buck this way, but everybody's got to make a living somehow, I suppose.

I'm just disappointed that mainstream media give the conspiracy nutjobs the attention. Disappointed, but not surprised - they'll do anything to whip up a sensation or controversy. Shameless media whores and their shills.

mh

Man, must be worm hole around here somewhere. How in hell did we get back to the Ann Coulter thread?

[AdD 1]

It was widely reported in mainstream news sources that the trading of "put options", ie. shorting the stocks of airlines involved in the terror attacks were over 90 times the seasonal average in the week preceding 9-11. Some people made a lot of money off this one, billions of dollars were essentially bet that the airline stocks would be decimated that year, yet there was no investigation by the SEC. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[billvon 2,426]

>theory--an idea or belief that has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Gonna sell your parachute, then? Or will you continue to believe in the theory of gravity? (Which, BTW, we still don't have a great explanation for.)

[skygeek 0]

http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/blog.php?id=244

I think its all about to hit the Fan.

Welcome to the New World Order. Expect no Mercy.

[nanook 1]

Fall is the best time to put in "put options" for something that is historically going to drop in price when the rise of fuel prices for the winter and the demand for travel increases to the effect that there's going to be more loss despite the extra travel during christmastime. The higher the price you put the option in the more money you make when you sell short when it drops. I wonder if anyone shorted Southwest Airlines, who had invested in gas futures a long time ago before 9/11? As far as a SEC conspiracy, why would they investigate a spike in a trend. Its kind of hard to investigate thousands of brokerage houses and individual investers. 90 times the seasonal average may mean that multitudes of investment corporations and retirement/mutual fund managers have seen a lot of short selling bids put in and followed the trend.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[hairyjuan 0]

my dictionary says that is the definition--a hypothesis is a theory, also
from the U.S. Congressional Record Apr. 19,1940

Sept 17, 2001 shall be the beginning of the cleansing of the planet in preparation for the kingdom of god on earth, by the british-israel world federation

Sept 11, 1991 G.H.W. Bush before the Jewnited Nations--------------it not about one small nation, it is a big idea... a new world order.

Nothing in politics happens by accident-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

We are on the verge of a Global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nation will accept the new world order---David Rockefeller


the individual is confronted by a conspiracy so monstrous that he refuses to acknowledge that it exists.--J. Edgar Hoover

So you see... the world is governed by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not themselves behind the scenes--Benjamin Disreali-british prime minister

The world is divided into three kinds of people- a very small group that makes things happen, a somewhat larger group that watches things happen and a great multitude that never Knows What has happened.--Dr. nicholas murray butler, president, Columbia University

we are moving from a constitutional republic into a WORLDWIDE TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP.--Archibald E. Roberts, LTC(USAR) ret. Committee to restore the constitution

I politely suggest to you, speedracer, that you are in the vast multitude who never knows what has happened, where i am at least in the group that is watching (in disgust at everyone,s denial of the truth) Col. Roberts words come true

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

where i am at least in the group that is watching (in disgust at everyone,s denial of the truth) Col. Roberts words come true

You missed one pertinent quote. From the PNAC, Sept 2000 report "Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century", page 63.

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I just did some web-surfing: It turns out that the conspiracy nuts came out with their usual crap for the July 7 bombings in London also.

I guess the aluminum-foil hat crowd is always going to come out whenever anything like this happens.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Guest]

Quote

I guess the aluminum-foil hat crowd is always going to come out whenever anything like this happens.

You can count on that. The only trouble is that now, thanks to the Internet, they have a much bigger voice and get far more attention than they ever could before.

Don't you just love technology?

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[soberamprat 0]

. What ever. Not even worth talking about

http://www.swoopstudios.com/videos/videos-rex.php