http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

There has been much more evidence of controlled demolition come forth since Connor wrote this post back in September 2007. It is quite important to study this new evidence, which really is “the smoking gun” which puts to rest any of the speculation of the above posts.

This new evidence, which shows beyond doubt the inside job-nature of the 9/11 attacks ought to put much into perspective as people discuss things like the necessity of “naked scanners” at airports, etc.

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities’ School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
…
Farmer states: “…at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened… I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5325.htm

Professor Viet Dinh (SOC, OT 1994), who is now back at Georgetown Law, after a stint heading up the DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy (OLP), takes second place behind Professor Volokh (his predecessor in SOC’s chambers).

I have also tried to find the author of the Patriot Act. I sent a letter to Orrin Hatch (since some people allege that he was one of the authors) and asked him two questions 1) who authored the P.A., and 2) when was it written?

He replied back to me stating when the act was introduced and passed.

He outright dodged my 2 simple questions. So I replied back that either he was really stupid, or else he was purposely evading my questions.

He replied to me once again, but artfully gave another response that was evasive.

The P.A. was obviously written well in advance of the actual attacks on 9/11. No one could have authored more than 800 pages of legislation during the 4 weeks between the attacks and when it was voted upon.

My cousin who once worked for the CIA claims that the P.A. was written in the decade(s) previous to 9/11 and was sitting on the shelf just waiting for the climate to change so the public would support such radical changes.

Others have claimed Michael Chertoff to be one of the main authors.

But, I really don’t know the author. You’d think the complete history of such a monumental bill would be readily available. But, no.

Have you been able to find the author? I’d be interested.

No trespass whatsoever! You don’t have to be a Mormon to peruse this site. Many of those that comment aren’t. Sometimes it just helps you understand Connor’s religious posts a little better. And often, the motivation behind his political preferences as well.

Stop by again! :)

People get upset and unruly when faced with the proposition that our government may have been behind these attacks so I have come to focus on the need for a new investigation rather than speculate what might have happenned. If everyone would agree that we need an independent investigation, that would be a good start.

Valid reasons for a new investigation include but are not limited to the following :

Victims families have not had their questions answered.

FBI agents had investigations deliberately thwarted by their superiors. Instead of being reprimanded for these actions, their superiors received promotions.

FAA employes made tape recorded accounts of what happened on 9/11 and they were deliberately destroyed.

Saudi Arabia denied US authorities the opportunity to question family members of the hijackers and the US government apparently didn’t mind.

The Bin Laden in the tape that claims responsibility does not look like the Bin Laden in any other tapes.

Multiple witnesses reported huge explosions prior to and during the tower collapses.

Members of the 9/11 panel and at least one member that stepped down state that the investigation was compromised.

Bush and Chaney refused to testify seperately to the 9/11 commission.

There are many other odd mysteries surround 9/11 and the days leading up to it as well as the days that followed, but these reasons alone should be enough to grant victims families the peace of mind they deserve.

You may want to watch this documentary film. It’s about an hour & a half in length. It shows some footage from the morning of 9/11 which you probably haven’t seen.

- How did the commission come about?
- Who were its members? What credentials do they have?
- Were there any potential conflicts of interest?
- Can we fully believe a report where the government investigates itself?
- What was the commission’s objective when created? Was that objective fully met?

All off these question are irrelevant.

If, given the evidence, the arguments and conclusions of the WTCC are valid ones, who cares who they are or where they come from!? All that matters is the evidence, and the conclusions we draw from it. Therefore, only your last question:

Since its publication, has the report been criticized, debunked, or opposed by anybody with qualifications to do so? What contradictory evidence has been offered?

….can be said to be relevant.

If the WTC towers were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 attack, why did two of them fall from an attack by a very similar plane?……

Since there had been no precedent, for designing skyscrapers to withstand collisions with jet-liners, I might argue that the engineers were totally shooting in the dark. In my opinion, they did an admirable job of it, considering the towers did not fail immediately.

Kelly,

I am far from an expert on failure analysis, but I am not ignorant of the subject.

In my opinion, the fact that the beams ruptured at roughly a 45 degree angle, is good evidence of two things:

1) The beams were under compression.

Metals tend to fail, not due to compressive or tensile stress, but due to “shear stress.”

For reasons I won’t discuss here, the maximum shear stress tends to lie at a 45 degree angle from the “principal stress.” A clever failure analyst can use this fact, to roughly estimate the direction of the forces an object was subject to when it failed. In fact, a clean, 45 degree break is very common for materials that are under pure compression.

2) The buildings were well engineered. The columns were wide enough, spaced properly, and well braced enough to prevent them from buckling or “kneeling”, even under the most extreme of forces.

Actually, many of the columns that were found that did buckle, also showed signs of heat damage from the fire, around the area where they folded.

Keep in mind, all of this is a matter of my opinion, and I am not an expert.

Thanks to Dr. Jones for commenting. I am sorry to hear that people have resorted to the illogical and irrelevant methods of Ad Hominem character assassination. If the evidence, arguments, and conclusions you present are valid, then they ought to speak for themselves. If not, then critics should provide counter-examples.

Of course, building 7 appears to be much more like a conventional controlled demolition, because that building was only 47 storeys high. The videos of #7 do not show any pieces of building blowing out, so it appears to be an IMPLOSION, not a series of explosions as in the twin towers.

The height of the 2 towers probably called for an unconventional method of controlled demolition, since I don’t think any other building of such height has ever been imploded before.

If Professor Jones happens to visit this blog again, we would sure be honored to have him comment on this.

I have heard him speak in person twice, and I think he’s inspired in the things he is doing.

Thank you for your email, and especially for your blog on “questions about 9/11″ which I found when I visited your site today for the first time. I read some of the comments; some were unkind/ad hominem towards me along with misrepresentations of what I have written.

I’ve served in the Church as Bishop’s counselor (twice) and as Bishop, and it’s hard for me to understand these backbiting attacks when I’m just trying to find and tell the truth as well as I can… But then I recalled that Pres. Packer at a BYU devotional early this year reminded us of Lehi’s dream and warned: “Not all of the mocking comes from outside the Church.”
I may post something at your blog, commenting, if I’ve time.

Meanwhile, I hope people can become aware of my latest major paper on this (I’m still doing research): http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf . Answers many questions. Also, I have copies of my talk on 9/11 research given summer 2007 at the Orem Friendship Center to a crowd of about 700 people (some standing). Great evening. I am making copies and will give freely — as the Lord has richly blessed me and my family in these troubled times.

Steven Jones

Jay

Well I am sorry and didn’t mean to offend you. You know as I listen to your arguments, I begin to think that you are right. Good luck and hope things go well for you in the branch.

Huh, so being the second counsellor in my branch presidency doesn’t make me a member these days, eh? Having a temple recommend doesn’t make me a member these days. What a dope you are.

As for being a provocateur, you bet. Some theories you need to hit head on, to challenge them full front, before they gain too much traction.

By the way, I fail to agree with you that the Brethren are fully supporting Romney. The Brethren have explicitely said they endorse no one, keeping with the Church doctrine of neutrality.

Wait a second. You see a conspiracy in every corner, but the moment it comes close to touching your own prophet, you slide away. Why? The Brethren may have said they publicly endorse no one, but don’t kid yourself, Kelly. You bet they want Romney to win. Com’on. You say you know much of the secret goings on of various groups. What about our own church?

Read very carefully the posts by Dan.

He is not LDS and so why post on this blog? He is by far the most frequent poster. He incites arguments and contention in every post.

Dan, sorry to say, you are an agent provocateur.