[A-List] Scholars debate 9/11 findings

["Jim Yarker" <sjy_estrien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scholars debate 9/11 findings
You can see why these scholars are calling for an independent, preferably 
international investigation into 9/11

John Gleeson
Winnipeg Sun [of all places...]
mercredi 18 avril 2007



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An unbiased observer doesn?t need to look beyond what?s happening on the 
ground today in Iraq and Afghanistan to conclude the War on Terror has been 
a brutal, manipulative means to a transparently self-serving end.

None of this is news, however, to proponents of "9/11 Truth," a worldwide 
movement that seems to keep growing despite an unofficial media blackout on 
their questions and investigations. So what are these "Truthers" saying ?

Many people were quick to declare 9/11 a possible "inside job" based on the 
visible facts themselves, in particular the blanket failure of air defence, 
which even former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said defied all logic and 
precedent. They also seized on the history (largely unknown in North 
America) of Pentagon-linked "false-flag" terrorist attacks in Europe during 
the Cold War, and CIA involvement with al-Qaida operations.

With the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it was seen that 9/11 was 
amazingly fortuitous to the Bush administration, elements of which had been 
looking for excuses to invade both countries ? for purely 
strategic-commercial reasons ? in the months and years prior to the attacks.

But it was the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004 that breathed 
full life into the 9/11 Truth Movement ? because it was now apparent to many 
that the "official story" relied on massive distortion and evasion.

The most dramatically disputed aspect of 9/11 is the question of what the 
world really saw that day in New York City, when three steel-frame 
high-rises ? the 110-storey Twin Towers and the 47-storey WTC 7 ? collapsed 
at near free-fall speed neatly into their own footprints.

In 9/11 and American Empire : Intellectuals Speak Out (Olive Branch Press, 
2007), former Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones argues 
forcefully that the nature of the collapses, the presence of large pools of 
molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, witness accounts of 
hearing explosions ? that these and other factors point to the conclusion 
all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

This view, though rejected by Popular Mechanics and defenders of the status 
quo, has won support from engineers and academics from other disciplines. 
For instance, John McMurtry, a philosophy professor emeritus at the 
University of Guelph and fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, credits 
Prof. John Valleau of the Chemistry-Physics Research Group at University of 
Toronto for drawing his attention to "this scientific anomaly." McMurtry 
concludes : "The instant and inexplicable collapses of the WTC buildings in 
uniform demolition style could not be explained by fire (plus, in the case 
of the Twin Towers, the impact of the airplanes) without contradicting the 
laws of engineering physics."

David Ray Griffin, a former theology professor from California who has 
become a leading voice of 9/11 dissent, also points to the destruction of 
evidence after the collapse ? most of the steel was quickly hauled away and 
shipped to Asia, where it was melted down.

"Although it is normally a federal offence to remove evidence from a crime 
scene, the removal of the steel, which was carefully overseen, was 
facilitated by federal officials," Griffin wrote.

You can see why these scholars are calling for an independent, preferably 
international investigation into 9/11.

John Gleeson is the editor of the Winnipeg Sun. He can be reached by e-mail 
at : jgleeson@xxxxxxxxxx

Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@xxxxxxxxxx