FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Scholarly Group of "Experts" Questions 9/11

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> State Terror: 9/11, 7/7, CIA Fakes
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8726

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:19 am    Post subject: Scholarly Group of "Experts" Questions 9/11 Reply with quote

A list of "questions" posed by a scholars group of "experts"... is pretty lame. Their 9/11 dissent runs out of steam as it sinks in dry intellectual sand. Here's how:

First, note that this is another cosy little clique. Jim Fetzer who coordinated these experts, is referenced by David Ray Griffin:

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True by Dr. David Ray Griffin
January 29, 2006 911truth.com

"On the other hand, if explosives were used in the buildings, there would be a high probability that all 11 features would have occurred in all three buildings. For this argument, I am indebted to James Fetzer, who---through his essay "'Conspiracy Theories': The Case of 9/11"---inspired it, and to Paul Zarembka, who helped with the final formulation."

Now, that other guy mentioned by Griffin is Paul Zarembka:

Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
Bio: Editor, Research in Political Economy, Elsevier Science, 1977-present, and Professor of Economics, State University of New York at Buffalo

He has a book coming out in early Spring 2006:


It's a compendium of articles including one's by Griffin and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.

But Part 4 of that book, promises to be an exciting read:

As Zarembka comments:

"The final chapter, while not explicit, offers a possible connection to the process of undermining pensions in the U.K."


The UK Pension System: The Betrayal by New Labour in its Neoliberal
Global Context by Jamie Morgan, Lancaster University, Lancaster

I can hardly wait.

Here's a sample of Jamie Morgan's previous work:

"As has often been argued, the timeless, ahistorical, institution-free
fundamentals of orthodox method cannot be easily reconciled to problems
of markets as rule systems. But what does it mean that trust and the
rules that constitute market systems are not a central problem for
orthodox economics?"

Riveting eh?

So 9/11 was all about undermining pensions in the U.K.

Whou'da thunk!?

BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11
By Elaine Jarvik,Deseret Morning News Saturday, January 28, 2006

Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's upping the ante.

"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."

Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.

They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term. Most of the members are less well-known.

The group's Web site (www.ST911.org) includes an updated version of Jones's paper about the collapse of the Twin Towers and a paper by Fetzer that looks at conspiracy theories. The government's version of the events of 9/11 — that the plane's hijackers were tied to Osama bin Laden — is its own conspiracy theory, says Fetzer, who has studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since 1992.

"Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers," charges a paper written collectively by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group plans to write more papers, and present lectures and conferences.

"We have very limited resources and no subpoena powers," Fetzer said. "What you have is a bunch of serious scholars taking a look at this and discovering it didn't add up. We don't have a political ax to grind."

Fetzer has doctorates in the history and philosophy of science. "One of the roles I can play here," he said, "is to explain why a certain line of argument is correct or not."

In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the subject of government surveillance and might get them on various lists of "potential terrorists."

The group's charges include:

• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.

• No Air Force or Air National Guard jets were sent to "scramble" the hijacked planes, which were clearly deviating from their flight plans, although jet fighters had been deployed for scramblings 67 times in the year prior to 9/11. The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group.

• The video of Osama bin Laden found by American troops in Afghanistan in December 2001, in which bin Laden says he orchestrated the attacks, is not bin Laden. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the "real" bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.

The Scholars group hopes that media outlets around the world will ask experts in their areas to examine the group's findings and assertions. If this were done, they argue, "one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world."

The group also asks for an investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, following up on points made in Jones's paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" That paper, recently updated, has been posted on Jones's BYU Web site since last November.

Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned "cutter charges." Proof, he says, includes:

• Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

• Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."

• No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.

• Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) "are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers."

Neither Jones nor other members of the Scholars group suggests who would have planted the explosives, but they argue that the devices could have been operated by remote control.

Jones says he has received thousands of e-mails from people around the world who either support his ideas or think he's "nutty," and he still gets about 30 e-mails a day on the topic.

He continues to do research on cold fusion, which he prefers to call metal-catalyzed fusion "to distinguish it from the claims" of former University of Utah chemistry professors B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, "which we do not accept as verified." He reports that his metal-catalyzed fusion work is going well, with three scientific papers published last year.

Jones will present a talk entitled "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions" at Utah Valley State College at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 1.


Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
General Lee

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 18
Location: California

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Audio MP3 of Prof. Jones' Utah 9/11 Seminar - Feb.1, 2006 (Right click, download - 63megs)

Here are the slides from Jones' presentation from to the Democratic Underground.

Last edited by General Lee on Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 54
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The group's charges include:

• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them
Same old LIHOP.
"Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers," charges a paper written collectively by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group plans to write more papers, and present lectures and conferences.
."The final chapter, while not explicit, offers a possible connection to the process of undermining pensions in the U.K."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
General Lee

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 18
Location: California

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cold fusion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For the article about the computer programming language, see ColdFusion.

Cold fusion is the name for a claimed nuclear fusion reaction occurring well below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions (millions of degrees Celsius) in a relatively small "table top" apparatus. A variety of experimental methods are used; originally electrolytic cells. The idea was first brought into popular consciousness by the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March of 1989, which was front-page news for some time. Cold fusion is sometimes referred to as low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) or chemically-assisted nuclear reactions (CANR).

The subject has been of scientific interest since nuclear fusion was first understood. Hot nuclear fusion using deuterium has the potential to yield large amounts of energy, uses an abundant fuel source, and produces only small amounts of manageable waste; thus a cheap and simple process of nuclear fusion would have great economic impact. Cold fusion is especially attractive because proponents claim that it produces very little nuclear radiation, and can be scaled down to small devices such as vehicle engines.

The existence of cold fusion remains a controversial issue. It has been dismissed by some as an example of pathological science, and an idea that would not go away, long after the majority of scientists in the field dismissed it as wrong. Despite this opposition, a number of researchers continue to work on the basic concept, and have reported improved results over time. While there is little mainstream acceptance of the field today, thousands of peer-reviewed cold fusion papers have been published.[1] Despite opposition and ridicule by mainstream journals, several peer-reviewed papers continue to be published every year.[2]. Mainstream journals such as Scientific American and Nature have often attacked the subject, most recently in March and October 2005 respectively, and most other journals reject papers on the subject without reviewing them. In January 2006, the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Guardian and other major newspapers and magazines attacked cold fusion, claiming it was a "scientific misdeed" debunked in 1989. [3]

The term "cold nuclear fusion" was first used in the scientific literature by Johann Rafelski and Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University in 1986 in an investigation of what is today referred to as muon-catalyzed fusion. This research was generally unrelated, however, the distinction was not immediately understood by the press in 1989. Consequently, the term "cold fusion" became associated with the Fleischmann-Pons experiment and with other experiments involving metallic catalysts (and particularly electrolysis).

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8726

PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:59 pm    Post subject: 9/11 Scholars Teams Up With Judicial Watch Reply with quote

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth brigade have now teamed up with Judicial Watch,
who have a history of involvement in the Sibel Edmonds case ( Link )

Nice to see the CIA Fakes helping each other out.
Shows good teamwork. Well done.

Experts Call for Release of 9/11 Evidence

Wed Mar 1, 7:00 AM ET

(PRWEB) - Duluth, MN (PRWEB) March 1, 2006 -- A society of experts and scholars has now joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of videos that are being held by the Department of Defense, which are essential to understanding events at the Pentagon that transpired on September 11, 2001.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and establishing truths about the events of 9/11, has gone beyond Judicial Watch by calling for the release of other films and evidence that, its officers maintain, are essential to understanding 9/11.

"It is outrageous that the government is withholding this vital information", said James H. Fetzer, founder and co-chair of the society. "This concerns one of the monstrous events of our time and deserves to be in the public domain." The group, whose members include such prominent figures as David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, John McMurtry, Wayne Madsen, Robert Bowman, Webster Tarpley, and Andreas von Buelow, has been speaking out against what its own research suggests has been complicity by elements of the administration in the crime.

They are calling for immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tape as well as video tapes seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit; a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from Flights 11, 77, 93, 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to their location (whether warehoused or otherwise), catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any items from the planes, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of these items.

Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit demanding that DoD release its film footage. In addition, the scholars call for the release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal, or other materials from the World Trade Center, including, but not limited to the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items, catalog of photographs and videotapes of any items from the scene, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of those items.

Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University and a full member of the society of scholars, has emphasized the importance of this material for those studying the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. "This material has the potential to resolve crucial questions about the forces that were responsible for the buildings' fall, including the possible use of incendiaries and explosives", she observed. "It is of great importance that we have access to it."

They also call for release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST; tape recordings of interviews by air traffic controllers, at least some of which were deliberately destroyed while in the possession of representatives of the government; a complete accounting of "terror drills" that were being conducted that morning, which may have been used to mask the attack; the cockpit voice recorders and other "black boxes", three of four of which are reported to have survived the Twin Towers' collapse; and other related evidence.

According to Professor Fetzer, the SEC possesses knowledge of "put options" on American and United Airlines, which are suggestive of advanced knowledge that the attacks would take place; Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta gave very important testimony to The 9/11 Commission, which it chose not to include in its report; and the
Secret Service conducted itself in a manner suggesting that it knew there was no serious threat to the President, even following the attacks in New York, while the Commander-in-Chief ignored the unfolding drama.

"We are inclined to believe that these events were orchestrated by the Bush administration in order to instill fear in the American people," Fetzer said. "The use of violence and threats of violence to manipulate a populace based on fear," he observed, "is the definition of terrorism. The release of this vital evidence will help to confirm or to dispel our concerns about what happened on 9/11." Added Wood, "The American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history. If the government has nothing to hide, it should have no objections to releasing all this evidence for experts and scholars to study."

Fetzer also noted today's Zogby International Poll, which shows that 90% of American troops in Iraq believe that they are fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11. "This would be funny if it weren't so sad", Fetzer said. "The administration falsely linked Iraq to 9/11 even though it knew better", he remarked. "Even the Osama Bin Laden 'confession tape' appears to have been faked. We want to know the identity of those who perpetrated these despicable acts."

Scholars for 9/11 Truth maintains its own public web site at www.st911.org. Documentary support for its request is available at www.st911.org/petition/.


Alex Floum, Esquire
S9/11T Associate
(925) 818-1702 (cell)
email protected from spam bots


James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(218) 726-7269 (office)
(218) 724-2706 (home)
(218) 726-7119 (fax)

Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Alex Floum or Jim Fetzer 925 818-1702
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8726

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:06 am    Post subject: Wis. lawmakers demand professor be fired Reply with quote

Wis. lawmakers demand professor be fired

AP - July 20, 2006

MADISON, Wis. -- Sixty-one state lawmakers sent a letter Thursday calling on University of Wisconsin-Madison to fire an instructor who believes the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The letter signed by 52 Assembly representatives and nine state senators, including Republican leaders, condemns a decision earlier this month by UW-Madison Provost Pat Farrell allowing Kevin Barrett to teach an introductory class this fall on Islam.

Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, said the letter, which called Barrett's views ``academically dishonest,'' sent a strong message to top UW leaders.

``When 61 legislators condemn a decision by UW-Madison and demand the dismissal of Kevin Barrett, the leadership of the UW System operates at its own peril if it continues to ignore views of the taxpayers,'' he said in a statement.

The signatories included Assembly Speaker John Gard, Assembly Majority Leader Mike Huebsch and Senate President Alan Lasee. All but one, Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer of Manitowoc, were Republicans.

The lawmakers sent the letter to the governor, university leaders and Barrett instead of approving a formal resolution offered by Nass during the last day of their session last week. Republicans did not take up the resolution, saying it was not the right day for political bickering.

Barrett is active in a group of scholars who believe the twin towers were blown up by U.S. government operatives to spark war in the Middle East. His remarks drew intense criticism from politicians who questioned whether he was fit to teach.

After a 10-day review, Farrell said Barrett is a qualified instructor, has good plans for his class and can present his unconventional views as one perspective on the attacks. Barrett will earn $8,247 as a part-time instructor in the fall semester.


Pocan denounces Rep. Nass for stance on UW lecturer

By Bill Novak - July 13, 2006

The war of words over a controversial UW lecturer escalated today when a Madison legislator called a fellow legislator "ineffective and useless" for condemning UW's decision to allow the lecturer to keep his position.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, told The Capital Times today that Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, was way off base in his condemnation of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's decision to allow Kevin Barrett to teach an introductory course on Islam.

Barrett will make $8,247 as a part-time lecturer for the fall semester. He is active in a group called 9/11 Truth, which believes the World Trade Center towers were blown up by U.S. government operatives on Sept. 11, 2001, as a way to get the United States into a war in the Middle East.

The Legislature wrapped up its work this session on Wednesday without taking up a resolution from Nass calling on the UW to fire Barrett.

Nass now plans to send the resolution as a letter to UW officials next week, and is also calling for cuts to be made to UW administrative positions when the university's next biennial budget comes under review.

Pocan dismissed Nass' views as "fodder for someone who hasn't done anything this session."

"If Steve Nass has nothing better to do than micro-manage every part-time lecturer's curriculum, and then make crazy threats, it shows how ineffective and useless Steve Nass is," Pocan said. "Some people are out there, some are way out there, and then there's Steve Nass."

Nass said Wednesday he didn't have the votes of two-thirds (66 members) of the Assembly to bring up the resolution for a vote on the chamber floor. Republicans control the chamber 59-39, and minority Democrats would have objected to the resolution, he said.

Nass said he'll continue to gather signatures of lawmakers and send the resolution blasting Barrett's "academically dishonest views" to the university as early as next week. Nass said 26 Republicans and one Democrat had signed the resolution by Wednesday afternoon.

UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell, the No. 2 official at the Madison campus, cleared Barrett to teach the course on Islam on Monday, saying Barrett was well qualified to teach the course, had solid lesson plans, would allow students to challenge his views, and that the discussion of 9/11 would be a "small yet significant" part of the course.

When contacted by The Capital Times today, Farrell issued a statement through the UW communications office saying that he stood by his position to allow Barrett to teach this fall and "respectfully disagrees" with Nass.

Pocan said he didn't agree with Barrett's views of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, but the theory that the U.S. government had something to do with the attacks is one that's believed by millions of people around the world, especially among Muslims.

"I went to Indonesia with a bipartisan delegation right after 9/11 but before we invaded Iraq," Pocan said. "There definitely is a theory in the Islamic world that there was some involvement by the American government in the attacks."

Barrett's remarks have drawn criticism from politicians including both gubernatorial candidates, Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle and Republican challenger U.S. Rep. Mark Green.

Farrell's decision to allow Barrett to teach was ripped by Nass and other politicians, but hailed by professors and the American Civil Liberties Union.

E-mail: bnovak@madison.com

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 410
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw this interesting post in the Pravda forum.

Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts
by Bill Douglas

I began researching the mainstream media coverage of the controversy regarding the attacks of 9/11/2001, when reading an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Newspaper, dated June 29th, 2006. It was titled, "Sept. 11 claim stirs UW probe -- Instructor says U.S. planned the attacks to provoke war." This led to my discovery of some wild conspiracy theorists that endanger our government and media establishments, with quite frankly insane assertions. I'll address this in full in the final paragraph.

Then by using a "google video 9/11" search, I recently viewed a FOX News interview on Hannity and Colmes with an Arab Studies teacher from the University of Wisconsin named Kevin Barrett. I had earlier seen an interview with another, a professor named James Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth. A few weeks earlier I had seen an interview on MSNBC Scarborough country interviewing a Mike Berger representing 911Truth.org.

Some of these guests referred to an organization called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" with a website www.st911.org, which offered a physics research paper questioning the official explanation of the events of 9/11/2001. While visiting this site, I read that they pointed to the temperatures of the fires in the WTC buildings, and construction of the buildings, and the speed they fell, as evidence they claimed proved that what we saw on 9/11/2001 when the towers fell had to have been the result of a controlled demolition. Like the ones we've seen with Las Vegas hotels being brought down. Their claim was that the WTC buildings could not have been caused solely by the aircraft hitting the WTC buildings that day.

Then, I contacted the office of a Wisconsin State Legislator, Rep. Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater), and asked to speak to someone in the office who could speak on this issue. I asked if he was familiar with the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, and he replied they had learned of it this week. I asked him if he and the Representative could comment on the charge that the fires on 9/11/2001 in the WTC buildings did not burn hot enough to bring down the buildings, and if he'd read the scholars organization's charge that thermate traces had been found on debris from the fallen towers (thermate indicating demolition type explosives were involved). The gentleman responded that no, they had not looked at this information, and this would not be something they would look at, further indicating that anyone who made such charges was blinded by their hatred of President Bush.

Which leads back to the interviews of guests on the three television news programs. The main theme of all three of the guests on these programs appeared to be concern of the physical evidence of 9/11/2001, mentioned above and particularly regarding the collapse of three of the World Trade Center buildings on that day.

The main themes of the interviewers on these programs appeared to be two-fold:
1) The guests were representing a fringe movement, and most Americans do not dispute the official 9/11 explanation of the 19 hijackers defeating US military and intelligence forces on 9/11/2001.

2) The guests and those they speak for, who question the official 9/11/2001 account, are of questionable sanity.

This motivated me to do some research. First I looked at the fringe movement issue that the majority of Americans disagreed with the programs guests and accept the official explanation, and secondly, the sanity and expertise of people like their guests who question the official story of 9/11/2001.

First, regarding the fringe issue, asserting that the guests questioning the events of 9/11 reflected a small minority of American opinion. I looked at the only polls I could find on these questions, and the results were surprising. A CNN viewers poll, which is not scientific, held Wednesday, November 10th, 2005, asked, "Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" 89% replied "Yes," they did believe there was a cover-up by the U.S. Government (9,441 votes), while only 12% felt there was no cover-up.

In a national Zogby poll, of May 2006, found that 45%, of the American public felt a new 9/11 investigation should be launched because "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success." An earlier Zogby poll of New York City residents, from August of 2004, found that Half (49.3%) of New Yorkers felt that U.S. government officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." While 66% of New Yorkers called for a new probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General.

Now to the second issue the television media interviewers were most concerned with, which was the expertise and sanity of the people demanding a new 9/11 investigation, and some even suggesting possible U.S. government complicity in the attacks of 9/11/2001. Again, a simple google "video 9/11" search, provided a wealth of information.

This too yielded some surprising results.

One of the loudest advocates of the most damning charge that "members of the U.S. government actually orchestrated the events of 9/11 to fool the nation into unpopular wars", was not a tree-hugging Green Party activist, but rather a prominent Republican, in fact a Former Chief Economist under George Bush, and professor at Texas A&M, Morgan Reynolds. LewRockwell

Google research of the growing list of other 9/11 skeptics of the official story, some "convinced of U.S. government involvement," while others not going that far, but pointing out that"the official story is highly questionable and demands further investigation," yielded surprising results. Including a host of high level Republican administration officials, defense experts, intelligence experts, and respected scholars, as well as well known celebrities who are now adding the spotlight of their names to the issue of 9/11.

Among them were:

Former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force, under President Reagan, and combat fighter pilot Col. Robert Bowman (Caltech Phd in aeronautics and nuclear engineering).
Video Google

Former CIA Intelligence Advisor to Reagan and George HW Bush and founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern

Kevin Ryan, former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001.
911 truth

Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Research Fellow at Stanford's Independent Institute, and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts
Want to know

Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyer
Sept 11

Minister for the Environment, and Member of Parliament (United Kingdom) Michael Meacher
Video Google

National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology Andreas Von Bulow
Video Google

Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov
Global Research

Former MI6 British Counter Intelligence Officer, David Shayler
Video Google

Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, James Fetzer
911 podcasts

Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, Steven Jones
Video Google

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont Graduate University, and author or editor of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" David Ray Griffin
Video Google

Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney

Aircraft crash investigation authority, USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson
Physics 911

Former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col. (Ret) Don de Grand-Pre

Actor Charlie Sheen (Platoon, Wall Street, etc.)
Prison Planet

Actor, Ed Asner
911 Blimp

Actor, Ed Begley, Jr
Video Google

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:29 am    Post subject: experts Reply with quote

Interestingly, the media won't touch it seriously UNLESS experts are involved, and since they can't be Democrats, they MUST be military and conservative experts.

The other obvious spin is that 99% (100%?) of the Liberal Establishment WON'T touch this with a ten-foot pole. Kucinich will say "the govt lied" about 9-11 or Iraq, uncommittal. That's about it.

ONLY (or mostly) establishment Republicans are coming forward. Maybe some of the ex-military are Lefty, I don't know. Most of the active Democrat bloggers and populace won't touch it either. Some natural Bush-haters are onboard, which as you know, it's uncomfortable for Left wingers to side with Alex Jones, Paul Craig Roberts and the like.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> State Terror: 9/11, 7/7, CIA Fakes All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.