I am not usually a conspiracy theorist...no, really...stop laughing. But the increasing amount of what I can only describe as insurmountable evidence that fits into either one of two categories:
1) Scientific Fact or 2) Logical Deduction has raised serious questions (in my mind, at least) about the Official Account of the events of 9/11. For those who have always felt like there has been something fishy about the whole thing, I urge you to consult the website created and maintained by a group called
Scholars for 9/11 Truth. As far as I understand it, this is a group of students, professors and professionals (in fields ranging from psychology to economics to engineering) whose aim it is to reopen the congressional investigation which, they believe, was prematurely closed primarily because, according to them, critical pieces of evidence were either discluded or ignored. The method this site employs consists of analyzing video, interviews and de-classified documents while subjecting all of these to modern physics, chemistry and structural engineering to test whether or not the Story (this is how I will, hereafter, refer to the Bush Administration account of the events) can accurately explain the phenomena witnessed, and if not, to make some suggestions about what may have been going on. I am not going to repeat all of the information from the site here (obviously), but I will mention 2 elements (one from science and one from western logic) which, I think, give cause in-and-of themselves to delve deeper.
The science (in two subparts - there is much more than this on the site)
1a. (Chemistry) It is a property of steel (the main structural component of the towers) that fire from any traditional source (there's no reason to think that anything untraditional was in these building) does not burn hot enough to weaken its structural integrity. A key element of the Story is that residual fires from the plane crashes caused the weakening of the building's structural integrity, leading to their eventual collapse.
1b. (Physics) These buildings were constructed in three vertical sections so that in the event of a major disaster, if there was damage to only one part of the building, the others would still maintain integrity. The planes hit in the upper-most section. Which does not explain, on it's own, why the lower sections were weakened. But in consideration of newtonian mechanics, it's even worse than that. Here's a crude analogy: imagine your body divided into three sections (head/neck, torso and legs). Imagine you sustain a rather serious blow to your head/neck which almost decapitates you. What would happen to your body parts in that case? If your head had, so to speak, suddenly lost anchoring to the rest of your body, it would topple off the body and land next to it. Notice, if you can remember the videos, what we saw when the buildings collapsed was not
that (the top section falling off the rest of the building and onto the street) but more, to continue the analogy, like your legs had been taken out from under you. You will find on this site many interviews with not only pedestrians but firepeople and eplosives experts who say the collapse as seen can only be explained by a controlled implosion which destabilized the bottom 3rd and accounts for the physical way that the building collapsed. They make a much better case than I just did, but I thought it was worth pointing out, even here...
The Western Logic.
1. Download the following 3 minute clip from the
site (right-click and save). It is an interview by the 911 Commission of Norman Mineta (transportation secretary). In this he recounts a situation that took place in the Pentagon that he witnessed between the vice-president and a soldier. It was aparently procedure (although Mineta had just found out about it that day) that F-18's be scrambeled in the event that terrorists take over a civilian aircraft (in order to shoot it down). Now, Mineta says that they kept getting updates from some guy on the distance between the plane and its percieved target (50 miles, 40 miles, etc...). And when it got to "10 miles," the guy turns to the vice-president and says, "do the orders still stand?" This aparently was visibly jarring to the vice-president but lets put that aside; let's just examine the claim. Consider the following argument:
1) The "orders" in question were either to have the F-18's intercept or they weren't.
2) If the orders had been to intercept then the F-18's would have intercepted
3) The F-18's did not intercept
4) Therefore the orders must not have been to intercept.
I don't think it really matters what the orders actually were (although it does make a difference, criminally speaking, if the order was e.g. "let them go") in the sense that this information alone (regardless of the actual orders) demands somebody give a reason why the supposedly intact policy was circumvented (or preempted), especially when it was easily foreseeable that these planes were going to cause damage to their targets, not to mention the loss of human life.
At this point I really don't know what to make of this. And I am, as always, surprised that the media (who, according to that douchebag Hannety, clearly are just out to hurt the president) have not picked up on this yet. But I think we are in for several very interesting months leading up to November '06. I certainly hope my suspicions are incorrect, because if not, things are a lot worse than I ever imagined.
