[Vision2020] Journal of 9/11 Studies: Peer Reviewed Work Raising Questions

[Ted Moffett]

Keely wrote:

"So I understand the "they shoulda known" element of the "conspiracy," I
suppose, but can someone explain what it is that makes some believe there
were specific acts committed in service of deliberate scenarios that left
more than 3,000 people dead in PA, NYC, and DC -- and that these acts were
committed by our government against its own people?"
-----------------
Some people believe alternative theories about the World Trade Center
collapse, and the other 9/11 attacks, because, amazingly, there are
seemingly credible sources of evidence and analysis to support
these theories, as you can read at the papers referenced here, which are
sourced from what appear to be peer reviewed professional journals.

I directly reference papers suggesting thermite involved in the WTC
collapse, and that question the claim that the total collapse could happen
solely from the aircraft strike and fire on the upper floors *(I am not
endorsing these alternative theories).*  But others believe in seemingly
incredible theories about 9/11 because they have an emotional bias, for
whatever reason(s), to accept these theories; so any evidence, however
questionable, that suggests the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks is
doubtful, is seized as proof of a conspiracy.

I think a comparison can be made between some of those who believe that the
scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate warming (Examining the
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Journal "EOS"
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf ) is a deliberate hoax
or conspiracy among climate scientists, and those who accept incredible
conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.  All that some people who claim
global warming is a hoax need to justify their belief is a list of "experts"
(MIT's Richard Lindzen, for example) who raise questions about the science
involved, to prove that the thousands of scientists around the planet, who
after exhaustive peer review argue that human activity is profoundly
altering climate, are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the world.
Similarly, all that some who think the 9/11 attacks involved more than the
actions of the 9/11 terrorists require, to justify their belief, is a few
"experts" who raise questions, regardless if it can be shown via peer review
that these questions have plausible explanations that do not involve an
alternative conspiracy interpretation.

One of the main alternative theories is that thermite was planted in the
World Trade Center towers to ensure a more total collapse, that would not
have happened from the aircraft strike alone.  I have read here (Journal
of Engineering Mechanics: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf ) that evidence
for thermite in the WTC debris is due to chemical reactions in material
contained in the building, not because thermite was deliberately planted in
the building by conspirators; and that the total collapse can be explained
by the aircraft strike alone and resulting fire.  However, this source
raises serious questions that the total collapse can be explained only by
the aircraft strike and fire:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

The Open Civil Engineering Journal

Volume 2
ISSN: 1874-1495

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World
Trade Center Destruction
-----------

And this paper might be sourced by those who think thermite was planted in
the WTC:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

Volume 2
ISSN: 1874-4125
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
-------------------------

Of course the thermite conspiracy theory implies some rather connected and
powerful people had inside knowledge that aircraft would be hijacked to
strike the towers, who had access to the WTC, and wanted to exploit maximum
damage for whatever agenda they were pursuing (perhaps the "new Pearl
Harbor" from page 51 of the "Project for the New American Century" document
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New
Century" September 2000:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

David Ray Griffin, a process theologian from the Claremont School of
Theology, presents evidence that 9/11 was anticipated.  A review of his
book, "*The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush
Administration and 9/11"*, by Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether, a pioneer
Christian feminist theologian, is at this website:

http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/nPearlHarbor.html

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

The "thermite" claim is a rather incredible conspiracy theory.  The
conspiracy theory that those in the intelligence business who were "in the
know" about the 9/11 plot simply took no action to stop it, to exploit the
attacks for a certain agenda, is much more believable.  Think of Oliver
North and his illegal actions regarding Iran-Contra.
But if any of the 9/11 conspiracy plots were true, to say those involved
represented "our government," requires qualification.   There are "black-op"
activities that our kept "off the books": members of the US Congress, even
the president and his cabinet, may not be aware of these activities, by
design.  Was it "our government" who engaged in the "Iran-Contra" affair?

--------------
The following website lists numerous sources suggesting "alternative"
theories regarding  9/11, some, not all, from professional science
journals.  It appears the claim that some of these papers are "peer
reviewed" means those who sponsor the website are the "peers" who review,
which is not how the peer review process works in professional science
publishing.  This approach is sometimes how junk science on anthropogenic
climate warming is presented as "peer reviewed," when the process is not
independent of bias, nor open to random selection of professional
reviewers.  A couple of scientists start a journal and accept papers that
fit their bias, to create the impression they are publishing credible
independently peer reviewed science:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett


On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>wrote:

>   Keely asks:
>
>
> "can someone explain what it is that makes some believe there were specific
> acts committed in service of deliberate scenarios that left more than 3,000
> people dead in PA, NYC, and DC -- and that these acts were committed by our
> government against its own people?"
>
>
>
> Governments have done way worse.
>
>
> History shows there are despicable people who use their power in such a
> way.
>
>
> Whether it was this government or a Saudi fanatic, some person chose to do
> such a thing, which shows that people can be very, very bad.
>
>
> Also, people are gullible and will believe anything.  I'm sure some think
> it was aliens who controlled the minds of some poor earthling who was the
> real terrorist.
>
>
> There's probably even someone out there who thinks it was me!
>
>
>
> Garrett Clevenger
>
> --- On *Wed, 3/24/10, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max Cleland
> To: moscowrecycling at turbonet.com, lfalen at turbonet.com,
> garrettmc at verizon.net
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 12:41 PM
>
>
> Excellent point, but I think it's also important to realize that it was the
> Bush administration, pre-9/11, which was laying the groundwork for war in
> Iraq -- facts be damned -- and led a devil's rush in precisely, exactly, the
> direction from which the attacks didn't come.  The Clinton presidency was
> highly imperfect, but it wasn't his administration that desperately sought
> reason to invade Iraq under the flimsiest of pretenses.
>
> I've looked over some 9/11 conspiracy sites and find them interesting but
> not terribly convincing.  I'm wondering how those who believe there was a
> conspiracy -- not of individual acts of omission, but of specific acts of
> comission -- explain jetliners full of victims vaporized on contact.  If I
> read correctly, some even think the planes were empty, or largely so, and
> the examination of passenger manifests surely would rule that out.
> (Manifests, and common sense).
>
> So I understand the "they shoulda known" element of the "conspiracy," I
> suppose, but can someone explain what it is that makes some believe there
> were specific acts committed in service of deliberate scenarios that left
> more than 3,000 people dead in PA, NYC, and DC -- and that these acts were
> committed by our government against its own people?
>
> Keely
> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>
>
>
>
> > From: moscowrecycling at turbonet.com
> > To: lfalen at turbonet.com; garrettmc at verizon.net
> > Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:24:11 -0700
> > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max
> Cleland
> >
> > I'll put blame on the economy as far back as Reagan for deregulating wall
>
> > street.
> > Andy Boyd
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > To: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> > Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max
> Cleland
> >
> >
> > >I do not wish to exonerate Bush in this. I think that his people should
> > >have been more on top of it. It does seem funny to me though that Obama
> > >still blaming every thing wrong with the economy on Bush. You should
> > >remember that 9/11 occurred shortly after Bush took office. Why not put
> > >some of the blame on Clinton?
> > > Roger
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: Garrett Clevenger garrettmc at verizon.net
> > > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:42:23 -0700
> > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > Subject: Re: Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max Cleland
> > >
> > >> Roger writes:
> > >> "There has many books written,lawsuits and movies about the Warren
> > >> Commission also. Anybody can write a book speculating on conspiracies.
>
> > >> This is not proof of anything."
> > >>
> > >> True, anybody could write a book about anything, including a
> particular
> > >> religion, but that is not proof of anything.
> > >> The ironic thing is that 911 was supposedly islamic terrorist based
> which
> > >> was leapt upon by christians, including WBush, both with religions
> based
> > >> upon mostly the same book speculating what God wants. But it doesn't
> make
> > >> it true.
> > >> A lot of damage is caused by people who believe what a certain book
> says,
> > >> so believe me, I'm skeptical about pretty much everything.
> > >> But, common sense dictates that if powerful people espoused a certain
> > >> belief as pointed out by Ted
> > >> (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)
> and
> > >> then that unfolds while they are in power, then I have to question
> that
> > >> coincidence.
> > >> I have no idea what the truth is around 911, but I do see that the
> > >> consequences were way worse than they needed to be, and I blame that
> on
> > >> those who were in power at the time.
> > >> Since there is a lot of evidence to suggest either incompetence or
> > >> purposeful malfeasance, as a conscious human I can't help but be
> > >> irritated by that, and at least have an open mind about possible
> > >> scenarios.
> > >> After all, truth is often more unbelievable than fiction...
> > >>
> > >> Garrett Clevenger
> > >>
> > >
> > > =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100329/0e4497e0/attachment-0001.html