Tag(s): , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (5 comments)

The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   -- Page 2 of 3 page(s)

opednews.com

Next look at these video images of controlled demolitions (131:40) and also the collapse of WTC7 (1:05).In all these cases, the collapse begins at the base, where the charges were set.

Assume now what your eyes plainly tell you: that (a) the collapse of each tower begins at the point of impact, and (b) that the collapse proceeds from that point downward. Next, try to weave these assumptions into the standard CT hypothesis that the towers were brought down by pre-located explosive charges. What results is this highly improbable scenario:

Charges had to be set beforehand at the points of impact, the 94th to the 98th floors of the north tower, and the 78th to the 84th floors of the south tower. Both aircraft, in stunning feats of piloting skill, succeeded in striking precisely at those pre-arranged locations. However, all charges placed below those points of impact were either duds or were insufficient to precipitate collapses. The towers stood firm as the demolition moved downward from the impact points.

In rebuttal, one might point out that the towers were supported by both the outer walls and an inner core. Might not the charges at the base have caused the collapse of the inner core, while the outer walls remained intact? This would account for the downward vertical plunge of the north tower.

Nice try, but it won 't wash. If the core collapsed within, the accumulating debris from above would have demolished the outer walls below. This did not happen.

However, the official version is not without problems, and the conspiracy theory is not yet out of the contest. There remain some troubling anomalies for the OV:


Foremost among these is the collapse of WTC Building No. 7. Five hours after the towers came down, this forty story structure collapsed. And this time, as you can see here (1:05), the collapse followed the exact pattern of a controlled demolition: beginning at the base and falling uniformly on its own "footprint. " The best that the OV can offer as explanation is that the foundation was weakened by fire, by seismic shock of the collapsing towers, and by the overload of debris from the towers. It is not a compelling explanation, to say the least. Perhaps this explains why an account of the collapse of WTC#7 is missing from the 9/11 Commission report.

Prof. Steven Jones, to my mind the most credible of the 911 critics, claims that melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that it originated at the base of the standing buildings. The only plausible cause of melting with these properties, Jones claims, would be a high temperature explosive such as thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment. He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty in metal-catalyzed fusion.

And this is just the beginning of a long list of anomalies that undercut the official version. Among them:

* There were numerous reports of explosions below the impact points at the time the towers were hit. Others report that there were explosions before the planes hit.

* Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were destroyed.

* When news of the attack reached the Florida school where Bush was visiting, the Secret Service failed to remove the president from that previously publicized location.

* There was a flood of "put options" (anticipations of loss) on American Airlines and United Airlines stock, within the week before 9/11.

* The website, 911research.wtc7.net lists numerous additional anomalies, no doubt, many of these are bogus, but there are others that are troubling.


The governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still have a lot of splainin ' to do.


The Attack on the Pentagon.

Unlike the WTC attacks, the Pentagon is rather simple and cut-and-dried. The official version is correct: The west side of the building was struck by American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757. The evidence is clear, unequivocal and overwhelming. The alternative conspiracy theories (impact by a fighter plane or cruise missile) are plainly false, and at times simply pathetic.

This conclusion is compelling when we apply "the David Hume test " to the conspiracy theory: namely, the improbability of CT being true, despite the evidence for OV. Specifically, for CT to be true, we must also assume that:

* Hundreds of eyewitnesses on the George Washington Parkway at morning rush-hour were either (a) victims of mass-hallucination, or (b) taken aside and threatened or bribed to testify falsely that they saw a commercial aircraft.

* Immediately after the impact, squads of conspirators rushed to the scene (including the inside of the burning Pentagon) to plant body parts, personal effects, and bogus aircraft parts (some, like the engines and landing gear weighing several hundred pounds). Others dumped aviation fuel, to "falsely" suggest involvement of an airplane.

* Alternatively, eyewitness testimony of those claiming to find these parts were also coerced, and published photographic evidence faked. All press reports were also concocted to give credence to the official version.

* Finally, some explanation must be presented as to the fate of Flight 77 and its passengers, which somehow disappeared without any further trace at the precise time the alleged military aircraft or cruise missile approached and struck the Pentagon.


Sorry, but its just too much for me to swallow.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

www.crisispapers.org

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. Partridge has taught philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Deny, decry and delay by Stephen on Monday, May 1, 2006 at 6:37:34 PM
The "OV" is also a conspiracy theory by John Perry on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 8:53:40 AM
Ernest Partridge is Wrong about the Pentagon. by jemonk on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 5:38:58 PM
Half-empty planes by Evelyn on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 11:11:26 PM
"Too fast' by jonette on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 10:36:49 AM