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

Mon Mar 29 10:58:58 PDT 2010

Ted --

The "peer-reviewed" "Journal of 9/11 Studies" is run by a professor who was
relieved of his teaching duties over the issue. Before publishing in the
"Journal of 9/11 Studies," his research area was cold fusion. Does this meet
anyone's standards for academic rigor?

Additionally, for those of you that don't know, thermite is a mixture of
finely powdered aluminum and iron oxide (rust), which is the sort of thing
that one would expect to occur when a aluminum-bodied airframe crashes into
a 45-year-old steel-framed structure.

-- ACS

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100329/45d49009/attachment-0001.html 