Larry Flynt

Posts Tagged ‘James Fetzer’

Was 9/11 An Inside Job?

Thursday, May 3rd, 2007

Researchers may have proven that the official story of the collapse of the World Trade Center violates the basic laws of physics. Mark Johnson reports.

When Charlie Sheen made headlines in the spring of 2006 by saying he doubted the official story of 9/11, the actor sparked a frenzy on both sides of the issue. Right-wingers smeared him, while 9/11 skeptics applauded his courage. A CNN poll conducted amid the controversy showed that up to 82% of Americans asked were on Sheen’s side.

Since then, the 9/11 Truth movement has been under increasing criticism by the corporate media and Bush’s police-state cheerleaders. But for all of their bellowing about conspiracy nuts, there’s one thing the debunkers don’t like to talk about: the hard scientific proof.

A new organization of scientists and researchers called Scholars for 9/11 Truth is taking the CSI approach and scientifically examining the evidence that remains of the 9/11 attacks. They claim to have found that not only is the official story wrong, it is impossible. And whoever perpetrated the crime left smoking guns all over the place.

Earlier researchers such as Eric Hufschmid and physicist Jim Hoffman have long contended that the buildings’ free-fall collapse is tip-off number one. The government’s National Institute for Standards and Technologies (NIST) has admitted the South Tower came down in ten seconds and the North in nine. Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer, has observed that even objects in free fall, encountering only air resistance, would require at least 12 seconds to hit the ground, which means the buildings were actually destroyed at a speed faster than freefall.

New research supports Hoffman’s original claims that it is impossible for a progressive collapse, or “pancake collapse” (the official theory), to occur so fast without something below the collapsing debris—such as bombs—removing the building’s natural resistance.

At the forefront of ST911’s research is former Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones. Originally a loyal Republican and skeptic of 9/11 conspiracy theories, he became intrigued by claims that the official story was physically impossible and set out to prove otherwise. The research, he says, soon led him to the sobering reality that the skeptics were right.

In his recent paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” Jones writes that “large quantities of molten metal were observed in the rubble piles of the WTC towers and WTC 7.” The professor adds that footage of the towers on 9/11 also “reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South Tower just minutes before its collapse.” Its precise color and consistency, contends the professor, are good indicators of its chemical composition.

In peer-reviewed research and experimentation, Jones has shown that the molten metal could not be aluminum from the planes or the building’s structural steel. Even government reports admit the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel. Jones hypothesizes that thermite (commonly used by the demolition industry) was used to weaken the huge steel supports, just before explosives finished the job.

Jones has also found evidence on preserved debris of chemical residue consistent with thermite and sulfur, pointing to the common demolitions practice of remotely triggering “superthermite matches” via radio signal. Jones points out that government reports note the presence of sulfur in the melted steel but do not explain it.

Jones’s colleagues Kenneth Kuttler and Gordon Ross, also Ph.D. professors, further argue that the government’s theory of a “progressive pancake collapse” is impossible for two main reasons: 1) it would be impossible for a pancake collapse to occur at free-fall speed (as argued by Hoffman, Wood and others) and 2) the steel supports below the impact points were not sufficiently weak to buckle under the weight of the upper sections of the buildings, meaning the collapse could not have continued beyond a certain point.

Gordon Ross has written a paper that carefully considers the roles of “conservation of momentum” and “conservation of energy”—two basic laws of physics that were ignored by government reports. He shows that even if the towers started to collapse due to fire and damage, they could not have continued all the way to the ground. “When conservation of energy and momentum are factored in as they should be, a gravity-driven collapse would be arrested by the impacted mass below it so that only a partial collapse would occur,” according to Ross’s argument. Other scientists remain doubtful.

NIST admits that its official conclusion “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” As Jones puts it, “the government theory is actually a pre-collapse theory.”

According to ST911 founder James H. Fetzer—professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota, Duluth—WTC 7, which came down even though it wasn’t hit by any plane, suffered a conventional planned implosion. The Twin Towers, by contrast, were blown up from the top down. Judy Wood compared them to two gigantic trees “turning to sawdust” from top to bottom. This required a massive quantity of energy that the official account can’t possibly explain.

For more info, check out the many recent books and films on 9/11, such as Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries and Improbable Collapse.


larry flynt's book