[pagan-magik] 911...read this

[raga woods]

>>
>All,  911 is going mainstream....GET THIS!
>
>You may be aware that I had been participating in a Volume of Academic 
>Research for the Journal 'Research in Political Economy.'
>
>Closing date for submissions was Nov 1st with the Volume to be published in 
>the new year by Elseiver. (I was tied up with a University that felt it was 
>innappropriate to even talk about this stuff and an intelligence agency 
>that were promising not to kill one of our guests - and so had to forego my 
>own submission). Nafeez will have a chapter in it however.
>
>Well, one chapter has already gone maionstream - Tucker Carlson type 
>mainstream! Check it...TRANSCRIPT below...
>
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka at buffalo.edu>
>Date:  Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:44:24 -0500
>
>All,
>
>You will recall that a bunch of us decided to put together a volume on 
>9-11, having been brought together by Marcus' message to us late last July. 
>  It is entitled THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001, and the entire volume 
>will be a special of *Research in Political Economy* (hopefully published 
>in the first quarter of next year).
>
>Now for the important news:
>
>Step 1: One chapter is by Steven Jones,
>
>     "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"; his draft being 
>available at
>
>     http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
>Step 2: Within the past week Steve's work was first covered by a Utah 
>newspaper:
>
>     http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
>
>Step 3: Then it got widespread circulation in the 9-11 truth movement.
>
>Step 4: Earlier today, Steve's work has HIT MSNBC!  See
>
>     "Questioning what happened on 9/11:
>      Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the WTC"
>
>          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/#storyContinued
>
>In other words, STEVE'S WORK HAS GONE FULLY MAINSTREAM!  In other words, 
>QUESTIONING WHY WTC 1, 2 AND 7 COLLAPSED HAS GONE MAINSTREAM!
>
>If you have opportunities to push this along, please do so.
>
>Thanks, Paul Zarembka
>
>********************************************************************
>RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY,  Paul Zarembka,  editor,  Elsevier Science
>********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
>
>
>Questioning what happened on 9/11
>Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the WTC
>
>Nov. 14 2005: Did planes really bring down the World Trade Center? The 
>Situation's Tucker Carlson talks to one professor who says he has evidence 
>that bombs might have been planted in the towers.
>
>MSNBC
>Updated: 1:51 p.m. ET Nov. 15, 2005
>
>Tucker Carlson
>Anchor, 'The Situation'
>
>Millions of people watched the horror of 9/11 right before their very eyes, 
>live on television.  Two planes, crashing into the World Trade Center.  
>Less than a couple of hours later, both towers, of course, collapsing.
>
>On Monday, Tucker Carlson welcomed Brigham Young University Professor 
>Steven Jones to the 'Situation.' Jones, a professor of physics, believes 
>that the hijackers may not have brought down the towers by themselves.
>
>To read an excerpt of their conversation, continue to the text below. To 
>watch the video, click on the "Launch" button to the right.
>
>TUCKER CARLSON:  Well, just sum up this-obviously your theory, just the one 
>sentence that I just explained, in the intro, contradicts what we all think 
>we know about how these towers collapsed.  Quickly sum up your explanation 
>for what's happened.
>
>STEVEN JONES, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY: ... What I'm doing, Tucker, is 
>presenting evidence, but it's a hypothesis to be tested.  That's a big 
>difference from a conclusion, and so I just wanted to clarify that.  But to 
>sum up that I have looked at the official reports by FEMA, and so on...  
>regarding the collapse of-yes, of these buildings. ...
>
>I'd like to look at the collapse of building seven in just a minute.  It 
>was not even hit by a jet.  So we'll look at that one.
>
>CARLSON:  The two towers.  The explanation has been that the fire inside 
>was so intense that it weakened the structural steel and that each floor 
>collapsed down upon the next in a pancake fashion, and they imploded in on 
>themselves.  That's essentially, I think, what people think.
>
>JONES:  Yes, that's basically it, yes.  And so what I've done is to analyze 
>these reports.
>
>I would like to do a little experiment with you, Tucker, if I could.  I 
>sent out a video clip of the collapse of Building seven, because most 
>people haven't actually seen that one, and that's the crux of the argument.
>
>CARLSON:  Can you sum up very quickly the argument for us?  You believe 
>there were explosives in the buildings planted by someone, detonated?
>
>JONES:  Well, yes.
>
>CARLSON:  Is that correct?
>
>JONES:  ... There are two hypotheses here.  One is fire and damage caused 
>all three buildings to collapse.
>
>CARLSON:  OK.
>
>JONES:  The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the 
>collapse.  And so, then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and 
>I've done that in my 25-page paper.
>
>CARLSON:  I want to read you a quote from the 'Deseret Morning News,' a 
>paper in Utah, from you.  I'm quoting now.
>
>"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three 
>buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, which are actually a 
>diversion tactic.  Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the 
>World Trade Center buildings after all."
>
>That's, I would think, pretty offensive to a lot of the people listening.  
>Do you have any evidence for that?
>
>JONES:  Well, not-not to the Muslims, I might say.
>
>CARLSON:  Well, that's good.
>
>JONES:  I have a lot of e-mails.
>
>CARLSON:  I'm sure your writings greeted with just glee in Islamabad, and 
>Peshawar and places like that.  But for Americans.
>
>JONES:  Well, I haven't received notes from there, but just good people.  I 
>have Muslim friends.  Let me read, for example, but I'm not going to let 
>you off the hook.  I really want to do this experiment with you.
>
>CARLSON:  We don't have a lot of time for experiments, Professor.  But if 
>you could just ... give us one thing to hold onto.  How-you make these 
>claims, or appear to make these claims ...
>
>JONES:  Tucker, sure, sure.  Let's start with the collapse of Building 
>seven.  Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?
>
>CARLSON:  OK.  I am not sure if we can, but that is the World Trade Center. 
>  It's smaller than the other two it was not hit by a plane.
>
>JONES:  Let's try.
>
>CARLSON:  Of course, it collapsed.
>
>JONES: Right.  It's 47 stories.
>
>CARLSON:  That's right.
>
>JONES:  Twenty-four steel columns in the center.
>
>CARLSON: Right.
>
>JONES:  Trusses, asymmetrically supported.  Now, I can't see what you're 
>seeing.  Are we rolling that?
>
>CARLSON:  No.  We just see the building.  And just so our viewers know, the 
>explanation that I think is conventional is that there was a large tank of 
>diesel fuel stored in the lower level of that, which caught fire, and the 
>resulting fire collapsed the building.
>
>JONES:  Well, that's basically it, yes, but as we read in the FEMA report, 
>it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course.  "The best hypothesis, 
>which is the only one they looked at, fire, has only a low probability of 
>occurrence.  Further investigation analyses are needed to resolve this 
>issue, and I agree with that."
>
>CARLSON:  OK.
>
>JONES:  But they admit there's only a low probability, and if you look at 
>the collapse, you see what I have studied is the fall time, the symmetry, 
>the fact that it first dips in the middle.  That's called the kink.  Which 
>is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition.
>
>CARLSON:  Professor, I am sorry that we are out of time ...
>
>JONES:  Whoa, one other thing I want to mention.
>
>CARLSON:  Ok.  If you can hit it - hit it quickly.
>
>JONES:  OK.  All right.  Here we go.  Molten metal in the basements of all 
>three buildings.
>
>CARLSON:  Right.
>
>JONES:  And yet all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not 
>sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal?  It's 
>direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as 
>thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product.
>
>CARLSON:  OK.
>
>JONES:  It's very short time, but people will read the paper, then I talk 
>about the molten metal, the symmetry of the collapse, and the weaknesses 
>and inadequacies of the fire hypothesis.
>
>CARLSON:  Professor, we are going to have to leave it to our viewers who 
>are interested enough to follow up to do just that.  We appreciate you 
>coming on, even if I don't understand your theories, we appreciate you 
>trying to explain them.  Thanks.
>
>Watch 'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' each weeknight at 11 p.m. ET
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here. 
http://messenger.msn.co.uk