Morning:
20°c
Johnny Depp has become, in his young middle age, like a star of the movies’ golden period
Secret deal hatched by News of the World to hush up details of phone-tapping was sealed in a tiny room at the Royal Courts of Justice
More...
Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'
Last updated at 15:52pm on 06.09.06
The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.
Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.
See also...
• New DNA bid to identify 9/11 victims
• Flight 93 'was shot down' claims book
• Iran's president keeps promise to purge universities of 'liberals'
The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday.
But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated.
Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.
He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.
Prof Jones said: "We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.
"We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."
In essays and journals, the scientists are giving credence to many of the conspiracy theories that have circulated on the internet in the past five years.
They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.
The group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof.
Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes.
He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers.
The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 - a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day - was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.
Professor James Fetzer, 65, a retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota, said: "The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don't have time to take a look at this."
The 9/11 Commission dismissed the numerous conspiracy theories after its exhaustive investigation into the terror attacks.
Subsequent examinations of the towers' structure have sought to prove they were significantly weakened by the impact which tore off fire retardant materials and led the steel beams bending under heat and then collapsing.
Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group.
He said: "To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.
"After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time."
But University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, said experts are unwilling to believe theories which don't fit into their belief systems.
He said: "People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it."
As the fifth anniversary approached, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is urging Congress to reopen the investigation claiming they have amassed a wealth of scientific evidence to prove their version of the terror attacks.
Reader views (17)
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
Conspiracies have long been considered the preserve of Crackpots and eccentrics, but no longer. There are many, many people, who believe that 911 was somehow orchestrated by the US Government. These people come from many walks of life and some even hold Conservative political views themselves.
The fact remains that there is a wealth of evidence that points to 'insider' involvement, and no one can deny the convenience of these attacks for the Bush Administration. They provided them with the excuse to attack Arab countries with impunity, a move they would have found extremely difficult without the events of 911.
Ultimately, if there is nothing to hide, then the US government should encourage all research and questioning into 911, but it has been shown on numerous occasions that they do the opposite.
Our own Government is shamelessly hand-in-glove with Bush and I think that these 'Anti-terrorist' measures we have seen on both sides of the Atlantic leading up toi the 911 anniversary,are further proof that our governments are further trying to justify their position, and lay ground for a full-invasion of Iran.
- Sarah, London
The 'pancake theory' has already been abandoned by the US government investigators. Apparently, their investigation does not even address how the buildings collapsed, but stops at the point where the buildings were "poised for collapse". You must read the physicist's 13 points before judging whether or not they are true.
- True American Patriot, Chicago, IL
So Christopher Pyle's objection to the view that demolition brought down the towers is that too much explosives and wiring would have been required to bring down the towers, so therefore the towers must have been demolished without explosives, only the damage and fires from the planes. There couldn't possibly have been enough explosives to do the job hidden within the building, therefore the collapse must be explicable without explosives. Anyone else see a problem with this logic?
As to the pancake theory, that would be find if there weren't squibs caught on camera several floors below the collapse zone, and multiple reports of massive explosions in the basements of the towers.
The main problem is that the structural steel, which could have been chemically and structurally analyzed to conclusively prove exactly what happened, was carted off for recycling rather be be subjected to an open and impartial criminal inquiry. The American people were denied the closure of an honest and scientific assessment of the primary evidence. This is reason why these questions persist; not because those who ask them are perverse or disturbed, but because those in authority failed to do their job and thereby put all doubts to rest.
I suspect there is much more to the story of 9/11 that we have not yet been told. There are too many loose ends that are entirely ignored or glossed in footnotes in the 9/11 report. As time goes on, it will be regarded as the Warren report is now viewed.
- Michael D. Bryan, Tucson, Arizona
I was exposed to the 'pancake' explanation via a Discovery Channel documentary and it makes perfect sense to me. I would also expect that once the process begins, it continues at near 'freefall speed', to quote Stanley Murdoch. I have no construction experience, so I am at the mercy of experts, but it seems like the Scholars For Truth are attacking straw man arguments without confronting legitimate explanations such as those provided by Butch.
- Rick, Atlanta, USA
In WTC7, approximately 10 stories, about 25 percent of the depth of the building, was scooped out. A fire on the 5th floor burned for 7 hours unattended and there was no fire fighting in WTC 7 which had lots of emergency generators containing diesel scattered about it. It also had an unusual construction which meant that if support columns on one side failed for any reason then the columns on the other side would be under enourmous pressure and liable to fail without immediate, expert attention. This they did not get.
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F) but steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F. And that's not counting all the combustable materials within the building that the jet fuel merely started burning which raised the temperate higher.
Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin. Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse - was ejected with enormous energy.
- Butch, London
Sarah states above that everything collapsed into the basement, which isn't entirely true since many survivors were rescued from the lower levels of the building. This in itself means that the building didn't collapse down but were exploded outwards.
Many people don't realise the magnificent size of these buildings. When I visited them, I took a trip to the top floor and it easily took 5 minutes or more to go back down in an elevator, yet ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE floors collapse in 10 seconds. That's 10 floors per second. That's freefall speed at least and is also completely impossible.
Sarah Long above states that it was obvious that the buildings should have collapsed but everybody was surprised when it happened. Why were they surprised? Maybe it's because never before in history has a steel and concrete skyscraper collapsed. Ever. 3 buildings on one day and one wasn't even hit by a plane.
I've also seen an interview with Larry Silverstein (who bought the buildings 3 months before the attacks and took out an insurance policy against acts of terrorism) in which he states that Building 7 was pulled. This is a demolition term. This is in stark contrast to the Government's version of the story which is Building 7 collapsed from fire. Check out pictures of WTC 5 which burned all night but didn't collapse.
- Stanley Murdoch, Balcombe, England
"He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams "
No, it does not. But steel can warp, bend and degrade at a much lower temperature. Which is what happened thus causing the collapse of the buildings when structural integrity was compromised by a weakened - but not melted - steel structure.
ANYBODY who knows ANYTHING about steel construction knows that so its very odd these 'experts' missed this out.
- Butch, London
The smaller explosions could have been caused by a vast number of quite ordinary materials: fuel, gas lines, solvents, compressed or enclosed highly flamable materials, machinery etc. In ordinary domestic fires, windows appear to explode outwards, this being purely a by-product of heat not explosives. As to the theory that the collapse of the buildings was somehow strange or 'impossible' I would add that no one until 9/11 ever had a chance to test how plane-proof or collapse-proof buildings large buildings actually are. They are also built in a modular way, exactly like packs of cards, and I think it's pretty obvious what happens when you hit a very tall house of cards: everything collapses into the basement, rather than falling outwards.
- Sarah, London UK
I think its terrible people are falling for this. Its in the worlds best interests to get rid of Sadam and Bin Laden and all their followers and anyone who thinks what they do it a good thing.
The 9/11 attacks were a horrific thing and I hope that nothing like it ever happens again. How they can say the goverment arranged this is sad and pathetic.
- Sarah Long, UK
I was in NYC on 9/11/2001 aboard the ferry to Colgate. We all saw the planes hit and eventually the towers collapse. Everyone noticed the smaller explosions and the comments on the streets were "they are blowing up the buidlings"! No one who saw it happen can dispute that these towers were demolished. This incident was planned from within and staged to give the US administration its excuse to finish off 'Daddy's War'.
- Mdp, Hong Kong
You have to be extremely gullible to believe a theory like this. In every country in the world there will be people looking to blame the government for everything. Next thing you know they´ll be blaming Blair for the uk bombs incidents, really its ridiculas.
- Marco, london
Hoorah 2 great stories in one edition.
Blair is finally going and the truth about 9/11 is at last hitting the mainstraem news.
Anyone with a brain has known this as truth.
I read today that Bush is using Bin laden again to further his warmongering agenda.
The biggest threats to our security are Blair Bush and the neo conservative pro israeli lobby in the USA.
And the truth shall set you free.
- Sandra Smith, london kennington
B (New York) sums it up pefectly.
- Derek S, Dundee
At last the media is coming to terms with the fact that there are pages and pages of evidence that indeed the US administration was behind the attacks.
- Adrian, Winchester,UK
Since I sent the comment I have watched a one hour video recording of the destruction 9/11 buildings. There is a site where you can view this recording and at the same time downloading the recording and the video recorder which is Google then you have a copy all legal.
- Gerald Pym, Hayle, England
Maybe far fetched but illustrates the distrust and cynicism people have
towards the Bush administration.
- Nigel Gadsden, Connecticut, USA
A perfect example of the declining standards in education.
- B, New York, US
